Sunday, May 19, 2019

Trump suggests pro-lifers have gone too far in Alabama with near-total abortion ban as he says he is pro-life but believes in abortion for babies conceived in rape and incest


Trump suggests pro-lifers have gone too far in Alabama with near-total abortion ban as he says he is pro-life but believes in abortion for babies conceived in rape and incest

By Julio Severo
President Donald Trump has broken his silence about Alabama’s new law imposing a near-total ban on abortions, saying he is pro-life but believes there should be abortions for babies conceived in rape or incest.
“As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions — Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother — the same position taken by Ronald Reagan,” Trump tweeted late on Saturday from the White House.
Pro-life leader Rebecca Kiessling, who was conceived in rape, answered him on his Facebook,
“I did not deserve the death penalty for the crime of my biological father. Ask Rick Perry about his conversation with me and how my story pierced his heart he said and that he could not look me in the eyes and justify the rape exception any longer. I’m sure if you met any one of the 800 of us from Save The 1, you would also have a hard time looking us in the eyes and then telling us that we did not deserve equal protection.”
My answer to Trump was:
“Strongly pro-life? Mr. President, if you can kill an innocent baby who has no guilt for being conceived in rape and incest, why not kill all the others for other stupid reasons? God calls you to save victims of oppression, and such babies are such victims! Do you want someone killed? Target RAPISTS, not innocent babies!”
Health risk and abortion for babies conceived in rape and incest are the classical pretexts used by the left to legalize abortion for all babies. So if Trump wants help the left to allow abortion legal, these exceptional cases are enough.
Trump seems to have taken a more political than pro-life approach. He continued: “We have come very far in the last two years with 105 wonderful new Federal Judges (many more to come), two great new Supreme Court Justices, the Mexico City Policy, and a whole new & positive attitude about the Right to Life.”
The Mexico City policy blocks U.S. federal funding for non-governmental organizations that provide abortion counseling or referrals. It is applicable only to foreign nations, not to commercial abortion in the U.S., which continues strong, profitable and legal.
“The Radical Left, with late term abortion (and worse), is imploding on this issue. We must stick together and Win for Life in 2020,” Trump continued.
“If we are foolish and do not stay UNITED as one, all of our hard fought gains for Life can, and will, rapidly disappear!” he wrote.
Nevertheless, the Trump administration has had a very “modest” advance in the pro-life advance in the U.S. Planned Parenthood, the main abortion provider in the U.S., receives about 500 million dollars in federal grants, and last year Trump approved this massive amount to Planned Parenthood. Later, Trump cut 50 million dollars from the abortion provider, and many pro-life groups praised the 10-percent cut as a big victory. But the real victory was for Planned Parenthood receiving the other massive 90 percent, or 450 million dollars.
Yet, the first time Trump has directly weighed in on an abortion issue was when Alabama passed its law last week, which would ban abortion in all cases except with the mother’s health is threatened.
The law, set to take effect in six months, does not penalize women who receive abortions, but would threaten doctors who perform them with up to 99 years in prison.
Lawmakers in Indiana, Ohio, Louisiana and Missouri have also advanced laws to severely restrict abortion.
Pro-life leaders hope that such court challenges will make their way to the Supreme Court, and that the judiciary will overturn Roe v Wade, the 1973 high court ruling that declared that to kill unborn babies is a Constitutional right.
Trump is not the only prominent pro-life voice to speak out saying that Alabama lawmakers went too far.
Christian televangelist Pat Robertson, a staunch abortion opponent, called the Alabama law “extreme,” in spite of the fact that his The 700 Club has already interviewed Rebecca Kiessling for two times to speak her story about how she was conceived in rape and God has used her powerfully to show the world that every baby has value in God’s eyes.
During the 2016 campaign, Trump secured support from evangelicals who had been initially hesitant to vote for the bombastic, twice-divorced billionaire by promising to appoint pro-life justices at the highest court in the U.S.
His stated position on abortion two decades ago was that he was pro-abortion.
“I’m very pro-choice,” Trump said in an interview with Tim Russert in 1999. “I hate the concept of abortion. I hate it. I hate everything it stands for. I cringe when I listen to people debating the subject. But you still — I just believe in choice.”
However, by 2011 Trump said that he had changed his position and was opposed to abortion.
During the 2016 campaign, Trump explained in an interview that his position had changed after he had a heartfelt conversation with a friend who had contemplated abortion. So the logical conclusion is that if more pro-life leaders help him, he may abandon his pro-abortion stance for babies conceived in rape and incest and, hopefully, enact stronger laws against rapists, including capital punishment.
Yet, let us see how “extreme” is Alabama’s pro-life law. It allows abortion when “the mother’s health is threatened.”
In his pro-life encyclopedia “Facts of Life,” Dr. Brian Clowes said,
Why Pro-Lifers Must Oppose "Health of the Mother" Exceptions. At first glance, it may seem heartless for anyone to oppose abortions committed in order to preserve the physical or mental health of women. However, we must remember that abortionists will interpret any loophole — even a “life of the mother” exception — to mean abortion on demand.
Abortionists all over the world use the definition of “maternal health” set by the World Health Organization (WHO): “A state of complete physical, mental, and social well being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” The U.S. Supreme Court defined maternal health to include “mental health” in its United States v. Vuitch decision (402 U.S. 62, 71-72 (1971)), and expanded this to say that virtually all factors of any type are relevant to the mother’s health, including “physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age” (Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 192 [1973]).
Some pro-abortion judges have gone to even more ridiculous extremes in their mad rush to prop up the abortion ‘right.’ Perhaps the most absurd example was provided by Judge John F. Dooling when he overturned the Hyde Amendment. Dooling asserted on page 309 of his opinion that “Poverty is a medical condition.” Most abortionists take these definitions at face value, because they cover all possible excuses for abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy.
Finally, abortionist Jane Hodgson testified under oath,
In my medical judgment, every pregnancy that is not wanted by the patient, I feel there is a medical indication to abort a pregnancy where it is not wanted. In good faith, I would recommend on a medical basis, you understand, that, and it would be 100%… I think they are all medically necessary…
Hodgson also stated the general pro-abortion attitude towards abortion when she said “A medically necessary abortion is any abortion a woman asks for.”
About the case of pregnancy of rape, Clowes said,
From an ethical and logical standpoint, the number of pregnancies from rape and incest in most countries is simply irrelevant to the moral case against these exceptions. A baby conceived through violence is as blameless and innocent as one conceived in marriage, and is therefore deserving of the same protection. Either all preborn babies are worth saving, or none of them are.
Pregnancy of rape or health’s risks were the main strategies to legalize abortion in the United States, and the result was, according Facts of Life: From 1980 to 2005, there was an annual median number of 1,455,281 abortions. Mother’s life or health cases were just 0.36%. For rape and incest, just 0.09%.
The way I see it: You have no guilt if someone abandons a baby in your doorstep. But what are you going to do? Just leave the child at the doorstep? No, you are going to take any necessary measure to secure the well-being of the baby.
A woman raped and impregnated has no guilt, and she is as victim and innocent as her baby is. What to do? To take any necessary measure to secure the well-being of the baby and later adopt him or her or make him or her available for adoption. There are thousands of couples who would love to adopt a baby.
As far as abortion is concerned, only rapists deserve capital punishment, not innocent babies.
With information from DailyMail.
Recommended Reading:

Thursday, May 16, 2019

Conservative televangelist Pat Robertson says Alabama “has gone too far” in its “extreme” anti-abortion law because it does not include capital punishment for babies conceived in rape and incest


Conservative televangelist Pat Robertson says Alabama “has gone too far” in its “extreme” anti-abortion law because it does not include capital punishment for babies conceived in rape and incest

By Julio Severo
Christian televangelist Pat Robertson has said that he believes Alabama “has gone too far” in its “extreme” law of near total ban on abortions.
Pat Robertson
Robertson, who is a prominent pro-life evangelical leader and hopes to overturn legal abortion in the United States, made the remarks on Wednesday on The 700 Club, hours before Alabama Governor Kay Ivey signed the new law.
The Alabama law contains an exception for when the pregnancy creates a health or mental risk for the woman, but no exception for rape or incest. The law, which would not punish women seeking to kill her babies, would punish doctors who perform abortions with up to life in prison.
“I think Alabama has gone too far,” remarked the 89-year-old Robertson. “It’s an extreme law.”
Robertson used his The 700 Club, which is an evangelical TV show, to express his view that abortion should be legal in case of rape and incest. In answer, pro-life leader Rebecca Kiessling, who was conceived in rape and was interviewed on The 700 Club on two occasions, said,
“Pat Robertson @700club, I deserved equal protection. Child sacrifice is an abomination. The child shall not be punished for the sins of the father! You're wrong to say Alabama's abortion ban was too extreme for not having a rape exception. You had me on The 700 Club twice, including airing my story. So you values my faith testimony, just not my life?!”
The Alabama law is not extreme, because by allowing abortion for health or mental risk basically allows any woman who says that she is not psychologically prepared to have a baby to have an abortion.
And if abortion is murder and a physician can be jailed, why exempt a woman using a physician to kill her baby?
Robertson, who has been an outspoken opponent of abortion, drew condemnation from the mainstream media when he implied in 2005 that Hurricane Katrina's destruction of New Orleans was God’s punishment for America’s abortion laws. So in his interpretation, would God punish America for abortion, but excuse Americans killing babies conceived in rape and incest?
If God thought as Robertson does, Rebecca Kiessling would not be alive today to tell her story. If Robertson were a lawmaker, she would not be alive to appear two times on The 700 Club to tell her story about how God preserved her life conceived in rape.
Has Robertson forgotten her story?
If it is very controversial for him, as an evangelical minister, to defend abortion in case of rape and incest, equally controversial was for him to have defended that the Trump administration should not impose any sanction on the Islamic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia because, according him, by buying many heavy and costly arms from the U.S., the Saudis make the U.S. prosper.
Robertson has already interviewed Kiessling, but he forgot. Could he have already have interviewed also some persecuted Christians from the Middle East and forgotten? Most persecution against Christians in the Middle East are led by Sunni Muslims backed by Saudi Arabia.
Pat Robertson should see babies conceived in rape and Christians persecuted by Saudi-backed Sunni Muslims just as God sees them.
With information from DailyMail.
Recommended Reading on Pat Robertson:

Wednesday, May 15, 2019

Antagonizing Trump? Uninvited, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro Visits Former U.S. President George W. Bush, Not a Trump Fan


Antagonizing Trump? Uninvited, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro Visits Former U.S. President George W. Bush, Not a Trump Fan

By Julio Severo
George W. Bush received an unexpected visit on May 15, 2019. Visiting Dallas, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro wanted to talk to the former U.S. president, even though no official invitation was extended to the Brazilian president.
Jair Bolsonaro and George W. Bush
The U.S. mainstream media did not cover the event. BBC covered it, but only in its Portuguese version. BBC confirmed that Bush did not invite Bolsonaro. Nevertheless, Bush said that by courtesy he welcomes visits from foreign high officials.
Bush has been a Trump critic. In fact, all the Bush family has been hostile to Trump — so hostile that even Russian President Vladimir Putin has already defended Trump against Bush.
Such hostility comes from the fact that Trump condemned the Bush-led Iraq War and said that Bush lied. Bush never forgave Trump for this, and the Bush family made it very clear that they did not vote for Trump.
Why, then, would Bolsonaro burst into the middle of a conflict between Bush and Trump? Bush belongs to the neocon wing, who loves wars for every and any reason. So it is no wonder that when prominent neocon John McCain died last year, Trump was not invited, but Bush and Barack Hussein Obama were guests of honor.
So neocons love Bush and Obama, but they are suspicious of Trump. Why then does Bolsonaro want access to neocons through Bush? Does he want a new version of the Iraq War in South America?
Not only Bush had a good relationship with McCain and neocons, but also with left-wingers. In 2014 Bush said famously that former U.S. President Bill Clinton, a left-winger, was his brother. If Bush was conservative, why call pro-abortion and pro-sodomy Clinton a brother?
If in a trip to Brazil Trump visited former Brazilian President Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva, a left-winger, it would be a bad choice, because Lula and Bolsonaro are not friends. In fact, the BBC report said that Bush had so a good relationship with Lula that the former Brazilian president visited Camp David, a privilege that U.S. presidents give to very few foreign presidents. It is no wonder, considering that Bush has an excellent relationship with left-wingers Obama and Clinton.
One of the reasons for the meeting with Bush was probably that Bolsonaro is surrounded by poor advisers. It is a bad decision to try, even minimally, to antagonize Trump.
If Bolsonaro met Bush because he thought he has not gotten everything with Trump, it’s all his fault. Shortly before meeting Trump in March, Bolsonaro gave at the Brazilian Embassy in Washington a dinner in honor of Steve Bannon, whom Trump called an opportunist and expelled from the White House. Bolsonaro’s poor advisers have not helped him very much.
Antagonizing Trump is a bad step for Bolsonaro. Trying access to neocons is another bad step.
Recommended Reading:

Tuesday, May 14, 2019

Forbes’s Unprofessional Behavior: Six Years After Publishing Misinformation on Brazilian Televangelist Silas Malafaia Before Its U.S. and International Audience, Forbes Retracts — Only Before Its Brazilian Audience


Forbes’s Unprofessional Behavior: Six Years After Publishing Misinformation on Brazilian Televangelist Silas Malafaia Before Its U.S. and International Audience, Forbes Retracts — Only Before Its Brazilian Audience

By Julio Severo
Through its largest outlet, which reaches a massive U.S. and international audience, Forbes misrepresented a Brazilian televangelist in 2013. Then, 6 years later, realizing that its information on the minister was exaggerated and unfair, Forbes used its smaller Brazilian outlet, far away from the U.S. and international audiences, to apologize.
Silas Malafaia
The victim was Pastor Silas Malafaia.
Forbes’s small apology, translated by me from Portuguese, was:
CLARIFICATION NOTE
May 3, 2019
On January 18, 2013 a report was published on our website entitled “Bishop Edir Macedo is the richest pastor in Brazil with a fortune of $ 950 million — Leader of the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God is ahead of Valdomiro Santiago and Silas Malafaia.”
The mentioned report contained information that Pastor Silas Malafaia had estimated assets of US$ 150 million.
Thus, in the face of allegation that the publication of the report at the time would have caused displeasure in Pastor Silas Malafaia, since his patrimony in fact, according to him, allegedly corresponds to only 3% of the amount quoted in the article, according to official documents that he has allegedly voluntarily made available, FORBES, historically committed to ascertaining the truth of facts, regrets what happened and seizes the opportunity to offer excuses to Pastor Silas Malafaia.
Forbes’s apology referred to its Portuguese report and forgot mentioning that Forbes’s main misrepresentation was in English, in a 2013 report titled “The Richest Pastors In Brazil,” which said:
Religion has always been a profitable business. And if you happen to be a Brazilian evangelical preacher, chances of hitting a heavenly jackpot are actually pretty high these days. Even though Brazil remains the world’s largest Catholic country, with about 123.2 million of its population of approximately 191 million defining themselves as followers of the Vatican-based church, the latest census figures pointed to a strong decline among the ranks of Roman Catholics, who now account for 64.6% of the country’s population–down from 92% in 1970.
Meanwhile, the number of Protestant evangelicals has soared from 15.4% of Brazil’s population just a decade ago to 22.2%, or 42.3 million people. It’s likely that the downward trend for Catholicism will continue and it’s estimated that by 2030, Catholics will represent less than 50% of Brazilian churchgoers.
So why are evangelicals taking over Brazil’s religious scene?
One of the evangelicals’ most appealing qualities is their belief that material progress results from God’s favor. While Catholicism still preaches a very conservative look to an afterlife instead of earthly riches, evangelicals–especially the ‘neo-Pentecostal’ ones–are taught that it’s all right to be prosperous. This doctrine, known as ‘Prosperity Theology,’ is in the foundation of the most successful evangelical churches in Brazil.
The value of material progress in Brazil’s evangelicalism is explicit and actively promoted…
Then there’s Silas Malafaia, the former leader of the Brazilian arm of the Assembly of God, Brazil’s biggest Pentecostal church. The most outspoken of his colleagues, Malafaia parted ways with the institution in the late 1990s to start his own spin-off denomination, the Assembly of God-Victory In Christ Church. Malafaia is constantly involved in controversies related to the gay community in Brazil, of which he proudly declares himself to be the biggest nemesis. The supporter of a law that could classify homosexualism as a disease in Brazil, Malafaia is also a prominent figure on Twitter, where he is followed by more than 440,000 users. In 2011, Malafaia–who’s worth an estimated $150 million according to several Brazilian business publications–launched a campaign called “The One Million Souls Club,” that aims to raise $500 million (R$ 1 billion) for his church in order to create a global television network that would be broadcast in 137 countries. Those interested in contributing to the campaign can donate sums starting at $500 (R$ 1,000), that can be paid in installments. In exchange, donors will receive a book. Malafaia also owns one of the four biggest record companies in Brazil’s gospel segment, according to Billboard Brasil, and the country’s second largest gospel publishing company, Central Gospel, with sales of a reported $25 million (R$ 50 million) per year.
Forbes inaccurately published information that Malafaia had a fortune of about $150 million, when actually he has just 3% of that amount.
Only after many years Forbes accepted the truth, because according to Malafaia’s website Vitória em Cristo, “With official documents, Pr. Silas Malafaia proved, in court, that the value of his patrimony corresponds to 3% of the amount quoted in the article.” So it was judicially proven that Malafaia had just 3%. It is proven truth.
The problem is that Forbes apologized only in regard to its report in Portuguese, which had a smaller audience, not to its original English report, which had a massive audience.
For example, Christianity Today, in a 2013 report titled List of Richest Pastors in Brazil Prompts White House Petition,” mentioned Malafaia according to Forbers’s misinformation. Christianity Today, which is one of the leading Protestant magazines in the U.S., has never apologized to Malafaia and, considering that there is no English apology of Forbes available, it will be unlikely to apologize.
In Brazil, the consequence of the misinformation was also devastating. Coincidentally or not, the Brazilian version of Christianity Today, Cristianismo Hoje, targeted Malafaia in a long 2013 report titled “Malafaia: A quem ele representa?” (Malafaia: Whom does he represent?) immediately after the Forbes report, according to GospelMais, one of the most prominent Protestant websites in Brazil, in its 2013 report “Malafaia não me representa” (Malafaia Does Not Represent Me).
Brazilian Calvinist outlets exploited the Forbes report to increase their attacks on Malafaia. Calvinist Facebook page Bereanos launched a campaign that Malafaia does not represent Brazilian evangelicals.
Calvinist minister Renato Vargens, interviewed by Cristianismo Hoje on Malafaia, seized the opportunity to note: “This has contributed to an unnecessary belligerence between civil society and the Church. So his errors, unfortunately, eventually affect all evangelicals.” He meant Malafaia’s conservative activism, which includes open stances against abortion and the homosexual agenda. Malafaia has been the more forthright evangelical voice in Brazil defending pro-family and pro-life values, even in prominent TV shows.
Vargens and other Brazilian Calvinists consider Malafaia’s message “heretical.” In fact, Vargens said clearly in Cristianismo Hoje that Malafaia’s teaching is “heretical.”
Now that Forbes published an apology in Portuguese to Malafaia, will the Brazilian version of Christianity Today produce an equal long report apologizing to him?
Will Calvinists leaders and outlets that exploited the Forbes report to attack Malafaia publish their apologies?
Yet, Forbes should now publish an apology in English too, because its original report was in English.
After Forbes publishes its apology in English, will Christianity Today publish an apology in English too?
Forbes was unprofessional by publishing inaccurate information that eventually strengthened left-wing and Protestant voices that hate Malafaia’s message, values and stances. For a publication as Christianity Today, to redistribute such misinformation is not only unprofessional. It is unchristian too.
A retraction from the original source and its secular and Protestant redistributors is long overdue.
Recommended Reading on Silas Malafaia:

Sunday, May 12, 2019

Steve Bannon Moves Conservative Catholics to Embrace His “Conservatism,” to Oppose Pope Francis


Steve Bannon Moves Conservative Catholics to Embrace His “Conservatism,” to Oppose Pope Francis

By Julio Severo
“Bannon advised Salvini himself that the actual pope is a sort of enemy. He suggested for sure to attack, frontally” the pope in 2016, said The Guardian in an April 2019 report.
The conflict between Catholic Italian politician Matteo Salvini and Pope Francis is over Islamic immigration. Because many Catholics are not pleased with such immigration, they, including Salvini, have sided with Stephen K. Bannon (Steve Bannon) and his stance against immigration.
Bannon’s speech is sure to draw conservative support because he appeals for the necessity of a global Christian coalition against the evils of socialism, atheism and Islam. He said,
“We are at the very beginning stages of a global conflict. If we do not bind together as partners, with others in other countries… [then] this conflict is only going to metastasize.”
Bannon is seeding his traditionalistic insurrection against the papacy by allying with Francis critics both within Catholicism and outside, building effectively a cross-denominational Christian traditionalist front.
By Bannon’s own admission, he knows how to openly exploit anger and resentment as a strategy to draw collaboration across conservative movements. His maneuver is working. A NBCNews report titled “Steve Bannon and U.S. ultra-conservatives take aim at Pope Francis” identified Bannon as the eminence gris somehow behind conservative Catholics openly complaining about heresies in the pope. And with a report titled “NBC report on ‘ultra-conservative’ Catholics smears Steve Bannon, anti-globalists,” LifeSiteNews, the largest Catholic pro-life website in the world, defended both Bannon and the Catholic complainants.
Bannon’s Catholic-centric, pro-family and pro-life message resonates with conservative Catholics — including Italy’s Salvini and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán. With their help, he is finalizing preparations for the opening of a traditionalistic academy, in a monastery in mountains not far away from the Vatican. The Academy of the Judeo-Christian West will, Bannon claimed, serve as an incubator for nationalist leaders of the future.
The issue is that conservative Catholics see Bannon as a good Catholic trying to help the Catholic Church to be more traditionalist, even though he himself, as a Catholic, has divorced three times. Just one divorce is unacceptable for a true traditionalistic Catholic. But divorce is not his biggest problem. And the actual roots of Bannon’s traditionalism are not Catholic.
There is a book that reveals Bannon’s dark spirituality. In “Devil’s Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency” (Penguin Publishing Group, 2017), author Joshua Green, who personally interviewed Bannon and Trump, has argued that he has found the “secret, strange origins of Steve Bannon’s nationalist fantasia,” and the secret is that Bannon is inspired by a number of occult sources.
Green explained that when Bannon was a young man, he was “a voracious autodidact” and he “embarked upon what he described as ‘a systematic study of the world’s religions,’” adding, “Taking up the Roman Catholic history… he moved on to Christian mysticism and from there to Eastern metaphysics… Bannon’s reading eventually led him to the work of René Guénon, an early-twentieth-century early-twentieth-century French occultist and metaphysician who was raised a Roman Catholic, practiced Freemasonry, and later became a Sufi Muslim.”
According to Green, Bannon has a “deep interest in Christian mysticism and esoteric Hinduism” and a special “fascination with Guénon.”
Green explained that “Guénon developed a philosophy often referred to as ‘Traditionalism’ (capital ‘T’), a form of antimodernism with precise connotations. Guénon was a ‘primordial’ Traditionalist, a believer in the idea that certain ancient religions, including the Hindu Vedanta, Sufism, and medieval Catholicism, were repositories of common spiritual truths, revealed in the earliest age of the world, that were being wiped out by the rise of secular modernity in the West.”
Green said that “The antimodernist tenor of Guénon’s philosophy drew several notable followers” and “The most notorious of these was Julius Evola,” who “had struck an alliance with Benito Mussolini, and his ideas became the basis of Fascist racial theory; later… Evola’s ideas gained currency in Nazi Germany.”
According to Green,
“The common themes of the collapse of Western civilization and the loss of the transcendent in books such as Guénon’s The Crisis of the Modern World (1927) and Evola’s Revolt Against the Modern World (1934) are what drew Bannon’s interest to Traditionalism (although he was also very much taken with its spiritual aspects, citing Guénon’s 1925 book, Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta, as ‘a life-changing discovery’). Bannon… brought to Guénon’s Traditionalism a strong dose of Catholic social thought.”
So alarmed he was with the state of the Catholic Church that in 2013 Bannon began his activities in Rome and took a Vatican meeting with Cardinal Raymond Burke in an effort to prop up Catholic traditionalists marginalized by Pope Francis. Green explained Bannon’s efforts to infuse Guénon’s Traditionalism in the Catholic Church:
“Expounding on this view at a 2014 conference at the Vatican, Bannon knit together Guénon, Evola, and his own racial-religious panic to cast his beliefs in historical context.”
Bannon has sought to bring Guénon’s Traditionalism among ultra-conservative Catholics around the world. Green said,
“Wherever he could, he aligned himself with politicians and causes committed to tearing down its globalist edifice: archconservative Catholics such as Burke, Nigel Farage and UKIP, Marine Le Pen’s National Front, Geert Wilders and the Party for Freedom.”
Guénon’s ideas are more successful among Catholics. Brazil, the largest Catholic nation in the world, has a legion of adherents of Guénon.
It was not only Catholics that Bannon was using. According to Green:
“In the summer of 2016, Bannon described Trump as a ‘blunt instrument for us.’”
Trump was never able to see the dark spirituality driving Bannon. How then was Trump able to escape its pitfalls? According to Green:
“Bannon’s fall from his exalted status as Trump’s top adviser wasn’t the result of a policy dispute, but the product of Trump’s annoyance that Bannon’s profile had come to rival his own. Trump grew incensed at the popular notion that Bannon was the one really running the show—that he was, as an infamous Time cover put it, ‘The Great Manipulator’… ‘You have to remember, he was not involved in my campaign until very late,’ Trump told the New York Post. ‘I’m my own strategist.’”
Besides, Trump is surrounded by many evangelical advisers who regularly pray with him. So prayer and the God of answers delivered Trump from Bannon.
Trump fired Bannon in a time that he was being called “Trump’s Rasputin.” Trump fired him in a time that even the secular press was seeing Bannon’s occultism, with a secular website publishing a very clear article titled “The Trump era is turning out to be a golden age for esoteric fascist intellectuals.”
Esoteric fascist intellectuals — this sums up adherents of Guenon influencing governments today.
Yet, what many traditionalistic Catholics are seeing in Bannon is not occultism, esotericism and Guénon. They are seeing “conservatism” and “stances against Islamic immigration.” Between Bannon and Pope Francis, they prefer Bannon. Their choice is not much different from the choices of Catholics in Nazi Germany, which was overrun by communist parties and politicians of all stripes, and the only anti-Marxist hope was nominal Catholic Adolf Hitler.
Hitler was also involved in occultism, but desperate German Catholic voters did not look at it. They looked only at his stance against Marxism.
Even though today well-meaning Catholic right-wingers have accused Nazism and fascism of being left-wing, one of the main influences in these movements was Julius Evola, the most prominent disciple of Guénon. Both Evola and Guénon were anti-Marxist. In fact, Evola was for the populist Nazi and fascist movements in the 1930s what Bannon is today for the populist movements in Europe. So it is no surprise that Bannon praised Evola and Guénon at the Vatican.
Evola was the author of right-wing handbooks, including “A Handbook for Right-Wing Youth.” He was also the author of several occult books, including “Introduction to Magic: Rituals and Practical Techniques for the Magus.”
Nevertheless, traditionalistic Catholics who love Bannon’s anti-immigration stances are having a hard time to connect the dots. And Guenonian traditionalists, including Bannon, are exploiting this Catholic weakness. Perhaps Francis, who is not seeing the peril of Islamic immigration, is seeing the peril of Bannonian populism, because he said that “growing populism in Europe could lead to the election of leaders like Hitler.” If populism did it through Evola in the 1930s, why not today through revolutionaries who praise Evola and his master Guénon?
In turn, Bannon is capitalizing on the sex scandals in the Catholic Church and using them against Francis by alleging that Francis has mismanaged numerous sex abuse scandals and by saying the pope is not treating the issue seriously enough. Such speech is enough to draw traditionalistic Catholics to Bannon’s camp. It is working.
Conservative Catholics as Cardinal Raymond Burke have joined Bannon. Burke and Bannon reportedly met at the Vatican in 2014 in the same conference where Bannon openly praised esoteric fascists Evola and Guénon.
Now Burke and Bannon are together working in a controversial project in Italy to restore a Carthusian monastery and to make it the center of a political and cultural movement in Europe. The monastery is the headquarters of the Dignitatis Humanae Institute (Institute for Human Dignity), headed by Benjamin Harnwell.
In January 2017, Bannon became a patron of the institute, whose honorary president is Cardinal Burke.
Burke is president of the Institute’s board of advisers. Other Catholics are also board members, including Dom Eugenio Romagnuolo O.Cist., Cardinal Renato Raffaele Martino, Mgr. Roberto de Odorico and Abbot Eugenio Romagnuolo.
In 1947, the monastery’s prior was shot dead in his frescoed chambers. An investigation led to the monastery being disbanded and the monks scattered to the four corners of Italy. “The official reason is finance but maybe [it was] a homosexual thing,” said Bannon.
So the monastery that had a suspicious end will have a suspicious rebirth, with Catholic leaders willing to do everything, including alliance with occultists, to oppose Francis.
Bannon’s increased engagement with the Institute demonstrates how his involvement in Europe extends beyond electoral politics to an effort to build a populist faction inside the Catholic Church. According to Harnwell, Bannon is helping to draw up the coursework for a training program for conservative Catholic political activists and leaders.
One of the trustees of the Institute for Human Dignity is an outspoken critic of Pope Francis, Austin Ruse, who’s also one of the main leaders of the World Congress of Families and director of the Catholic Center for Family and Human Rights.
I cannot understand how Ruse, who has a great pro-life work, is financially involved in the support of a Bannon’s initiative. Years ago he questioned Scott Lively, who is a Pentecostal minister, and his pro-family activism, by saying that he was an invention. Aren’t Bannon, his “The Movement” and the Institute for Human Dignity also an invention to draw and fool good conservative Catholics? How can Ruse “see insightfully” problems in Lively but no problem in Bannon?
While some refurbishment is needed in the monastery, the academy of the Institute for Human Dignity will be ready for the first classes in the next months.
According to Bannon, one of the professors of the faculty will be Olavo de Carvalho, a Brazilian writer who has extensively propagandized that the Inquisition was a fiction invented by Protestants. Like Bannon, Carvalho was also, during decades, influenced by the writings of Guénon, who is his main anti-Marxist base. During the 1970s and 1980s, he worked as a professional astrologer. He was also a Muslim, having received from Saudi Arabia an award for a biography of Mohammed he wrote. His history is basically occult.
Like Bannon, Carvalho is also having huge penetration among Catholics — in Brazil. Carvalho, who is considered the Rasputin of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, has also propagandized extensively, and has indoctrinated his adherents to propagandize extensively, that he was the main figure behind Bolsonaro’s victory.
Carvalho’s self-propaganda that he was the man responsible for Bolsonaro’s victory is contested by Benjamin Harnwel, who said, “Evangelicals helped elect Bolsonaro president of Brazil. After announcing the result of the first round, the first statement given by the then PSL presidential candidate was to thank evangelical leaders.”
Interestingly, Harnwell, who said that Bannon is the patron of his institute, recognizes that evangelicals were vital for Bolsonaro and that in his first statement after the first round, when he was in extreme need of their votes, Bolsonaro thanked them. But Harnwell did not mention that immediately after the second round, when Bolsonaro’s victory was confirmed and he no longer needed to depend on evangelicals, in his first statement he did not thank any evangelical leader. He thanked specifically an adherent of Guénon — Olavo de Carvalho.
Strangely, in a March interview with Pat Robertson’s CBN, Bolsonaro said that his victory was thanks to evangelicals. Yet, in practice, he has appointed devotees of Carvalho for his administration. The current Brazil’s Foreign Minister introduces himself as a Catholic conservative, but he is an open devotee of Carvalho, Guénon and Evola.
Trump could see Guenonian Bannon (the American Evola) as an opportunist but Bolsonaro is unable to see Guenonian Carvalho (the Brazilian Evola) as an opportunist. Or perhaps Bolsonaro is using some opportunism too. In its report titled “Brazil’s Bolsonaro denies ties to strategist Steve Bannon” last October, the Associated Press said, “Far-right presidential candidate Jair Bolsonaro said Thursday his campaign has no ties to former White House strategist Steve Bannon.”
But it seems that Bolsonaro has not been transparent with his voters. Bannon’s partner Mischael Modrikamen said to the Brazilian magazine Crusoe in May 2019, “During the campaign of Jair Bolsonaro, Steve Bannon gave advice to his team.”
Why did Bolsonaro deny and hide his real connections with Bannon during his campaign? What is obvious is that Bolsonaro is hiding Bannon’s activity in Brazil. I, as millions of Bolsonaro’s evangelical voters, have not been told the truth by Bolsonaro. And as an evangelical I have concerns about the American Evola and his esoteric fascism.
The real issue is: Did Bannon and Carvalho helped elect Bolsonaro?
Writing for the Oxford University Press, author Mark Sedgwick said about Trump and Bolsonaro,
Some point to similarities in the electorates that helped both presidents into office. Famously, 81% of white US evangelicals voted for Donald Trump in 2016, and it has also been argued that Jair Bolsonaro owes his presidency to Brazilian evangelical voters. Evangelicals are an ever more important group in Brazil, where the Catholic Church continues to hemorrhage members.
Bolsonaro, in contrast, came to power without help from Carvalho…
Although Bannon’s and Carvalho’s roles differ somewhat, it is not wrong to call Carvalho “Brazil’s Bannon.”
So are Brazilian evangelicals being fooled by a Bolsonaro fooled by two Evolas to make Guenonian traditionalism great again? They have been fooled, but not massively, because there are some evangelical voices crying in the wilderness. In contrast, Catholics have been fooled massively by the traditionalistic message of the Brazilian Evola.
Two Evolas, Bannon and Carvalho, have transformed Brazil, through the Bolsonaro administration, in a big revolutionary laboratory by hijacking Catholic conservative movements and by exploiting political victory at the expense of evangelical voters.
In spite of the fact that today Carvalho, with Bolsonaro’s propaganda, portrays himself as the decisive force in Bolsonaro’s victory, Benjamin Harnwell himself said about bringing evangelicals to his Guenonian movement exactly because even he, who is directly connected to Bannon, knows that evangelicals, not Carvalho, were such decisive force. He said, “The alliance with evangelicals may be the answer we seek… I would be very happy to be able to work closely with evangelicals… See, for example, it’s the evangelicals that are supporting the Trump administration, it’s evangelicals who are against abortion in Brazil… Catholicism has left the battlefield.”
Carvalho has made some efforts to use and exploit some low-profile Brazilian evangelicals, but televangelist Silas Malafaia, the most prominent evangelical leader in Brazil, has called him an astrologer recently.
Yet, different from Bannon, who has had no support from Trump, but only derision, Carvalho has enjoyed unparalleled support from Bolsonaro, who is mesmerized by the new Rasputin, just as the original Rasputin enjoyed unparalleled support from the mesmerized Russian Tsar. Recently, a Brazilian government minister, who is an adherent of Carvalho, compared Bolsonaro with Jesus Christ after Bolsonaro gave Carvalho the highest award of the Brazilian government.
In this sense, I am a big fan of Trump, who called “the American Olavo de Carvalho” (Steve Bannon) an opportunist. Living as a self-exiled Brazilian immigrant in the U.S. for over 13 years, Carvalho portrays himself as a victim while he uses his refuge in the U.S. to revile, attack and threaten his real victims. I am one of his victims. Isn’t this opportunism?
Because of his influence on Bolsonaro, Carvalho, who is with Bannon, managed to convince Bolsonaro to make Bannon his especial guest in a dinner at the Brazilian Embassy in Washington in March. So in this special dinner, Bannon was at one side of Bolsonaro and Carvalho at other, to show to everybody how powerful these two Evolas are for him and his administration.
Even though living in the U.S. for years, Carvalho is not known in major American conservative circles. But his adherents are working hard to propagandize his personality cult in the U.S. The Acton Institute, of Fr. Robert Sirico, has published some three articles praising Carvalho. The articles were authored by a Brazilian adherent of Carvalho.
The Acton Institute and Robert Sirico are very traditionalistic Catholics. The penetration of both Bannon and Carvalho among traditionalistic Catholics shows how Guenonian traditionalism has a formidable appeal to traditionalistic Catholics. In fact, Bannon has also promised to propagandize Carvalho and his ideas in the U.S.
With Bannon and Carvalho at the Institute for Human Dignity, future Catholic leaders will be indoctrinated and formed in the Guenonian traditionalism, just as Julius Evola (the Bannon or the Carvalho of the 1930s) indoctrinated Nazis and fascists in the Guenonian traditionalism.
With the exception of Pope Francis, who has rightly said that this populism (Guenonian traditionalism) will lead to a new Hitler, few traditionalistic Catholics care about occult influences on Bannon or Carvalho. In a recent report of Robert Moynihan, who discusses issues inside the Vatican, he addressed the Institute for Human Dignity, the monastery and Bannon. There were three groups of Catholics answering:
(1) Catholics supportive of the initiative.
(2) Catholics deeply skeptical about or opposed to the initiative.
(3) Catholics who see Bannon’s efforts as attempts to restore the Catholic faith in an increasingly secularized, post-Christian Europe.
In the second group, Catholics deeply skeptical about or opposed used my articles to question Bannon’s and Carvalho’s connections to Guénon. They saw Bannon’s initiative as occult.
I am glad to help Catholics identify occult roots in allegedly “conservative” movements. Since the 1980s, I had contact with Fr. Paul Marx, the founder of Human Life International (HLI), which was the largest Catholic pro-life organization in the world. Besides its main pro-life mission, HLI also distributed books against New Age, including evangelical books. I have these books even today and I can testify how serious Fr. Marx was against New Age.
Bannon’s and Carvalho’s Guenonian traditionalism is basically New Age “conservatism.” It is just the other side of the same occult coin. If he were alive today, Fr. Marx could probably identify it easily.
Expelled and derided by Trump as an opportunist, Bannon will likely never again be accepted among conservative Republicans in the U.S., but has instead become an eminence gris in Catholic movements inside and outside the Catholic Church. Nigel Farage, Brexit leader who has been flattered by Bannon, isn’t shy about paying Bannon back: He’s called him the “greatest political thinker and activist in the Western world today.”
Bannon has also flattered other conservative movements in Europe to receive from them equal flattery. All the European conservatives bewitched by Bannon are not impressed by any of his credentials, which are never shown. The only credential used to draw European conservatives is that he was “Trump’s strategist.” So even though Bannon did not help him, by Trump’s admission, to win the U.S. election, Trump’s fame is helping Bannon in his Guenonian revolution.
His “The Movement” has been popular among Catholics in Europe. Its official representative for Latin America is Eduardo Bolsonaro, the son of the Brazilian president.
How does Bannon intend to widen “The Movement”? One way is Bannon’s establishment of what he terms the “Academy for the Judeo-Christian West” in the monastery he intends to repurpose as a “gladiator school for culture warriors.”
Behind the pompous Christian title, there are occult intents.
In a report about Bannon, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz said that U.S. evangelicals are pouring millions of dollars into European right-wing religious groups connected to Bannon. U.S. evangelicals should investigate it because millions of dollars should be invested in good evangelical causes, not in occult causes.
Why fund occult causes with evangelical money if there are good evangelicals causes lacking financial support? I myself, with seven children, am in dire need of such support. Scott Lively, Peter LaBarbera and Mike Heath are other evangelicals who deserve massive financial support.
Haaretz said, “The trans-Atlantic movement Bannon now represents, no matter how awkwardly or how much as a result of his own PR, dovetails globally with other right-wing populists, especially those who benefit from crucial support from right-wing evangelicals.”
U.S. evangelicals should as soon as possible investigate how U.S. evangelical money is being canalized to Bannon’s contacts involved in the Guenonian revolution.
Haaretz also noted, “Bannon is a mass of contradictions, a self-marketeer supreme and narcissist whose grandiose visions are often mirages or spin.”
Is this a Guenonian characteristic? Because by describing Bannon, Haaretz also unknowingly described Olavo de Carvalho, who is as narcissist as Bannon is.
Haaretz added, “To credit Bannon alone with the incremental successes of the European far right’s political and religious crusade would be internalizing his own narrative as the continent’s great savior…” Again, Haaretz also unknowingly described Carvalho, who knows the Guenonian tricks. He repeats so many times to himself and his adherents, making them to repeat it to themselves and others, that he saved Brazil that they eventually internalize such narrative.
When even the Brazilian president and his sons have internalized such narrative, the problem is not small. It is massive.
Thank God, Trump did not internalize Bannon’s Guenonian narrative.
Bannon has steadily been building opposition to Pope Francis through his Institute for Human Dignity. But what conservative Catholics, including Raymond Burke and Austin Ruse, are not seeing is that Bannon’s victory will not be a true Catholic conservative victory. It will be the same kind of “victory” the Bannon or the Carvalho of the 1930s (Julius Evola) was able to get by inspiring and influencing the advancement of fascism and Nazism.
After Evola, this is the first time devotees of Guénon exploit populist causes to influence governments. With Evola’s example, both Bannon and Carvalho have become eminences gris in governments.
By capitalizing on the people’s fear of Marxism, Evola sabotaged true conservatism. In similar way, Bannon’s movement sabotages true conservatism and Christianity, which does not tolerate occultism, whether in its form of left-wing or right-wing political activism. True conservative Christians have a responsibility to sabotage the saboteur’s occult maneuver against them.
There are cases when a remedy is worse than a disease. Even though Bannon’s “conservatism” has been presented as the “remedy” against pope’s socialism, it is not a remedy at all. It is as evil, harmful and deadly as Marxism is, because occultism, even in its form of political activism, is no remedy. It is another deadly disease.
If conservative Christians are unable to identify and confront the wave of devotees of Guénon and their traditionalism influencing populist movements and governments in Europe and Brazil and encourage presidents to get rid of them, just as Trump did to Bannon, our era is going to turn out to be actually a golden age for esoteric fascist intellectuals.
With information from The Intercept, NBC News, Robert Moynihan Report, Haaretz, The Guardian and Financial Times.
Recommended Reading: