Thursday, September 29, 2016

Trump, Obama, Hillary and NATO


Trump, Obama, Hillary and NATO

By Julio Severo
Recent major headlines show the contrast between Donald Trump and Barack Obama in their stances on NATO:
DailyMail: “Trump accused of putting future of NATO and European security in jeopardy by putting conditions on defending other members from Russia.”
Washington Times: “Donald Trump: U.S. wouldn’t necessarily defend NATO countries attacked by Russia.”
CNN: “Obama huddles with NATO leader as Trump derides alliance.”
The New York Times: “Obama Tells NATO That ‘Europe Can Count On’ the U.S.”
Associated Press: “President Obama slams Trump saying that The Donald’s comments about NATO show a ‘lack of preparedness’ when it comes to foreign policy.”
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has said that the U.S. wouldn’t necessarily defend other NATO countries if they were attacked by Russia and that NATO defense of its member countries was not unconditional.
Europe was left “terrorized”!
Obama and top NATO military commanders were fast to accuse Trump of undermining the most important U.S. military alliance.
James Stavridis, retired four-star Navy admiral who served as the 16th supreme allied commander of NATO, tweeted: “Trump on NATO: deeply dangerous, will dismay our closest Allies.”
Democrats also piled on, saying, “Ronald Reagan would be ashamed. Harry Truman would be ashamed. Republicans, Democrats and independents who helped build NATO into the most successful military alliance in history would all come to the same conclusion: Donald Trump is temperamentally unfit and fundamentally ill-prepared to be our commander in chief.”
In contrast, Obama has said that Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is supremely capable of making NATO stronger.
He has pledged unwavering commitment to defending Europe, even saying that “in good times and in bad, Europe can count on the United States.”
In 2014, under Obama insistence NATO created a rapid-reaction force of 4,000 troops to “counter a resurgent Russia.” 
This insignificant number of NATO troops constitutes much more a provocation than a defense. If Russia were actually a threat, the number of troops would have to be 100 times greater before the force even begins to approach a defensive force. What then is the purpose of such insignificant NATO troops stationed in the EU border against Russia? Just Obama and neocons using EU and NATO for unnecessary provocations, while the real enemy, the Islamic immigration, has a free reign to invade Europe.
Yet, European elites are “terrorized” not by the Islamic hordes already invading Europe, but by Russia.
Equally “terrorized” are U.S. neocons, who want a U.S. president to make NATO stronger against Russia. But the current Republican hope for president has dashed their dreams of military expansion.
Hillary is the only neocon hope for NATO expansion.
According to conservative author Michael Savage in a WND report,
“The neocons… thrive on military conflict. When the world is at war, the neocons and the defense contractors who work with them make enormous amounts of money. The neocons don’t care which side you’re on, as long as they can work with you to create a political situation that they can grow into a war from which they will profit.”
Savage points that Obama and his neocons, not conservatives, created a revolution in Ukraine to draw it away from Russia and put it, eventually, into NATO’s orbit.
Obama and his neocons want Ukraine in NATO and are willing to go to war over it. In contrast, Trump has shown, so far, no willingness to follow neocon passions for war in Ukraine against Russia.
Last week, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko invited Trump for a meeting, but, according to DailyMail, “the Ukrainian government says the Republican candidate blew them off.”
Yet, Hillary Clinton met Poroshenko and promised him that she would stand with Ukraine against “Russian aggression.”
She added that if elected, she looks forward to deepening and intensifying cooperation with Ukraine.
Other major supporter of Ukraine is left-wing billionaire George Soros, who has heavily invested in the Ukraine crisis. The Ukrainian revolution was more than a people’s revolution. It was Soros’s revolution, and his special trophy. It is his revolutionary crown.
Michael Savage also said,
“Washington’s original purpose for staging a coup in Ukraine was to move Ukraine away from Russia and bring Ukraine into the European Union. In other words, the neocons and the bought-and-paid-for ‘moderates’ in the Obama administration wanted to wrest control of Ukraine from Putin’s hands and gain economic and energy control over the country.”
NATO’s original purpose had never been to gain economic and energy control over nations. But now, under the brutish force of neocons, including Obama and Hillary, NATO is a puppet making nations neocon interests’ puppets. NATO has become a powerful tool for the neocons’ greed.
NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is a U.S. military alliance created to protect Europe from the Soviet Union and its communism. But Soviet Union has been extinct since 1991, and a new powerful threat is engulfing Europe right under NATO’s nose: Islamic invasion.
There is an abundant evidence that the Islamic threat is real: terror attacks are increasingly commonplace in European nations that saw only peace in recent decades. Islam and its adherents have dramatically changed the peaceful European landscape.
Besides, there is abundant evidence that the influx of Islamic immigration is increasing anti-Semitism and violence against the Jews. Anti-Semitism in Europe is historically linked to major violence against the Jews, including the Inquisition and Nazism. The Islamic invasion is preparing the way for bringing a reenacting of both anti-Jewish killing machines.
There is a movement of Jews leaving Europe because of anti-Semitic violence directly linked to the increasing population of Islamic immigrants.
NATO has done nothing to protect Europe from Islam. NATO has done nothing to protect European Jews from the prevalent anti-Semitism of Islamic invaders. In fact, the only Islamic NATO member, Turkey, has had a crafty alliance with ISIS and has been the main door for the Islamic invasion in the European Union. Turkey has flooded Europe with Islamists.
A friend in Turkey told me last year that Turkey provides Islamists with false papers and passports to enter Europe. With Islamic Turkey and with a NATO mysteriously unwilling to fight the Islamic threat, it is very suspicious that the only focus of NATO and neocons is Russia.
If today NATO were honest in its purposes and necessary and helpful in its objectives, it would focus on:
·         Islamic threat.
·         Drawing Russia for a NATO membership.
Probably, this will never happen because Obama wants a strong NATO against Russia, not against the Islamic threat.
I disagree with Trump on pro-family issues. He has a very weak history in these issues. But his decision of deriding NATO is correct, because NATO has been useless against the Islamic invasion. Trump seems to be very strong and resolute against this threat.
While Obama receives global praise for his NATO advocacy, Trump has publicly welcomed praise from Russian President Vladimir Putin.
A former CIA director has labeled Trump a “Russian agent” and he said that he intends to vote for Hillary. Even former president George H. W. Bush said that he is going to vote for her.
Human Rights Commission chairman Garry Kasparov compared Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin, in a Washington Post essay. He is the author of a new book, “Winter is Coming: Why Vladimir Putin and the Enemies of the Free World Must Be Stopped,” and played a pivotal role in the establishment of The Other Russian Party, which is one of the opposition’s to Putin’s United Russia Party.
Kasparov said, “I’ve seen too much of Putin in 16 years and too much of Trump in one.”
For him, both Putin and Trump represent destruction. Would Obama and Hillary be the only hope?
Who is right? Obama and Clinton, who want a stronger NATO? Or Trump, who does not want what Obama and Hillary want?
If NATO had followed its original intents, would it exist today?
The first NATO supreme commander, Gen. Eisenhower, said in February 1951 of the alliance: “If in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project will have failed.”
Today, the only NATO’s mission seems to be military expansion against Russia. And among those who warned against moving NATO onto Russia’s front porch was America’s greatest geostrategist, George Kennan, who said: “Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the post-Cold War era. Such a decision may be expected to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.”
Kennan was proven right. By refusing to treat Russia as the U.S. treated other nations that repudiated Leninism, the Obama, Clinton and neocons are creating the Russia they say that they fear, a rearming nation bristling with resentment.
Doug Bandow, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute, said, “The Cold War’s premier military alliance led by the U.S. should have disappeared after the Soviet Union dissolved… The Soviet Union no longer exists and there is no evidence that Moscow plans to stage a blitzkrieg through… the Atlantic Ocean. Russia’s brutal treatment of Georgia and Ukraine is essentially defensive against an expanding NATO, not offensive in attempting to recreate the Soviet empire.”
Trump understands this reality and he is challenging the mindset of a foreign policy elite whose thinking is frozen in a world that disappeared around 1991.
What is not frozen is the Islamic threat, which has been increasingly active around the world, especially in Europe. In the perspective of this mounting cultural and civilizational threat, NATO has been useless, and a Trump presidency could help the U.S. to pursue a realistic policy, not the visionary plans of Obama, Hillary and other neocons.
With information from WorldNetDaily, DailyMail, Associated Press, FoxNews, Washington Times, CNN, New York Times, Charisma News and George Soros.
Portuguese version of this article: Trump, Obama, Hillary e OTAN
Recommended Reading:

Friday, September 23, 2016

Ronald Reagan: A Christian Example against Communism


Ronald Reagan: A Christian Example against Communism

By Julio Severo
Jesus said: “But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you.” (Matthew 5:44a NKJV)
Reagan and Soviet leader Gorbachev
U.S. President Ronald Reagan proclaimed 1983 the Year of the Bible. But the Bible had not only a theoretical presence in his life and presidency.
He fought abortion, one of the main spiritual and moral scourges in American society.
And he fought communism — without feeding hatred in himself and his enemies. In the fiery battles with the Soviet Union, which spread war, hatred and terror around the world, Reagan wanted to sit and talk at table with those dictators.
A fiery anticommunist activist would never want to talk with red leaders. He would repay hatred with hatred, as Hitler did. But Reagan really sat with them. In fact, he took Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader, to his ranch, to feel his family life and his warm reception.
Reagan worked to quench the Soviet hatred with Christian conservative consideration.
Margaret Thatcher said, “Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot.” His shot was his ranch!
Reagan was firm and strong against Soviet communists and their actions. But he was always open to talk, even in his non-political space: his ranch.
Wow! Usually, people take to their ranch only their friends.
Reagan and Soviet leader Gorbachev
Reagan took Gorbachev to his ranch because he wanted to cultivate friendship, not hatred. The Soviet Union knew how to cultivate hatred. Reagan knew how to cultivate friendship.
Very different from the administration of Barack Hussein Obama, a name inspired in a religious ideology of hatred. Obama, as a Marxist, has done no effort to sit with the Russian President Vladimir Putin, to talk to him and have him as a friend in his ranch. His administration has cultivated hatred in a time when Russia is not the Soviet Union.
If Reagan had been in the White House in the last eight years, I am sure that Putin would already have enjoyed his ranch several times by now. If it was “easy” for Reagan to talk to Soviet leaders, it would have been easier with Putin.
The conservative movement needs more Reagans, men strong and resolute against the Marxist ideology, but always willing to cultivate friendship, not hatred.
Without the Bible, it is impossible to do it. Reagan did it because the Bible was important for him.
Portuguese version of this article: Ronald Reagan: um exemplo cristão contra o comunismo
Recommended Reading:

Sunday, September 18, 2016

Israel Hosted Interfaith Conference for Eastern, Jewish Spiritual Leaders


Israel Hosted Interfaith Conference for Eastern, Jewish Spiritual Leaders

By Julio Severo
For the first time in the history of Israel, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in partnership with the American Jewish Committee and the World Council of Religious Leaders, held “Ancient Traditions Contemporary Realities – A Meeting of Israel-Asia Faith Leaders,” a conference to create a partnership between major eastern faith traditions and Judaism.
The groundbreaking conference, which took place between 11-15 September, was attended by 20 senior spiritual personalities of the major East Asian faiths (Hindu, Buddhist, Taoism, Sikh, Jain, Shinto, Zoroastrianism). The Israeli participants included rabbis from all the streams of Judaism.
The conference, which was held at the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs headquarters and at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, addressed issues of shared concern to the spiritual leadership of Israel and the Eastern faiths: The purpose of religion in modern society, safeguarding the planet, the rights of the individual and a just society and the place of religious leadership in advancing peace and the global welfare.
The Eastern religious leaders met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Jewish people have become well-known for their attraction to Eastern spirituality, leading to the coinage of the term “Bhu-Jews” in reference to Jews who practice Buddhism. The interfaith conference held in Jerusalem, officially sponsored by the Israeli government, opened formally Israel to the Eastern spirituality.
The other two major sponsors of “Ancient Traditions Contemporary Realities – A Meeting of Israel-Asia Faith Leaders” are:
·         The World Council of Religious Leaders, which describes itself as “a resource to the United Nations and its agencies around the world, nation states and other international organizations, offering the collective wisdom and resources of the faith traditions toward the resolution of critical global problems.”
·         The American Jewish Committee, which describes itself as “the leading global Jewish advocacy organization.”
The term “Bhu-Jews” shows that Jews are spiritually hungry. After experimenting Buddhism and other Eastern religions, has been their hunger satiated?
The greatest Spiritual Feeder was born in Israel. Do Jews know Him?
Can a union of Judaism with Eastern religions bring right spiritual answers to the world and its problems and suffering?
Jesus Christ, the greatest Jew in history, came first to Israel to bless the Jews. And He came also to bless the whole world. He is the only answer to the world.
The deceptive Eastern religions, including Hindu, Buddhist, Taoism, Sikh, Jain, Shinto, Zoroastrianism, are not enough to satisfy spiritual needs and save souls. They cannot save anyone.
But Jesus Christ can save everybody, Jew or not.
Only He is the perfect answer to everybody and every nation.
With information from Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, American Jewish Committee and Jewish Political News & Updates.
Recommended Reading:

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

A Brazilian Neocon?


A Brazilian Neocon?

By Julio Severo
The best explanation about neocons’ intent was given by conservative writer Michael Savage, who said in WND (WorldNetDaily):
“The neocons… thrive on military conflict. When the world is at war, the neocons and the defense contractors who work with them make enormous amounts of money. The neocons don’t care which side you’re on, as long as they can work with you to create a political situation that they can grow into a war from which they will profit.”
What is their concern now? Whom are they accusing now?
Trevor Loudon
“If Trump is elected, you will have the Russians… in the White House. Trump’s advisers are very connected to Vladimir Putin and Russia. Trump himself has many ties as well and is friends with Putin. This is why Putin will try to sabotage Clinton with leaked emails, etc.,” said the Trevor Loudon blog.
Neocons are displeased with Trump and his Russian ties. Loudon also is displeased, because he is a neocon.
Michael Savage said that neocons have been provoking Putin and Russia for decades.
Loudon is anti-Trump because he is anti-Russia.
I would understand the neocon obsession against Russia in the Soviet times. But why now? The Soviet Union has been extinct for over 25 years and the current Russia is more friendly to traditional values. Russia has been fighting conservative battles at the United Nations.
Loudon is a New Zealand author who was revealed to America through Catholic neocon Cliff Kincaid.
The Trevor Loudon blog has praised Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho in several posts. Incidentally, Carvalho is the most prominent anti-Russian activist in Brazil, even though he is an immigrant in the U.S.
But anti-Russian feelings are not the only ties connecting Loudon and Carvalho. There are spiritual ties too. Loudon is a follower of the Zenith Applied Philosophy (ZAP), which is a combination of Scientology, Eastern mysticism and the ideas of the American John Birch Society. The result of this combination is anti-communist esotericism.
Loudon said, “I have studied at Z.A.P. from 1976 to 1982, 1986/7 and 1999 to current. I am enjoying my studies immensely at the moment and plan to continue indefinitely.”
The Wizard of New Zealand
Ian Brackenbury Channell, known as The Wizard of New Zealand, had also attended meetings at the same ZAP of Loudon.
The Wizard of New Zealand and Loudon were among the most prominent members of ZAP.
The Wizard of New Zealand
This background can help you to understand Loudon’s conservative activism.
Don Hank, an American conservative evangelical, said, “An evangelist whose meetings my father and I attended held sermons in a big circus tent and warned people that if John F. Kennedy were elected, the pope would be in the White House. Under Obama, the Muslim Brotherhood was in the White House and Huma Abedin was Hillary’s adviser. Loudon’s anti-Trump attacks are driving conservatives to vote for Hillary. There is no such thing as a conservative Hillary supporter. Trevor is not a conservative. Neocons are not conservatives.”
In the Soviet times, it would be suicide to have a pro-Russia Trump in the White House. But considering that even a Catholic like John F. Kennedy has already occupied the White House, what is the problem with a pro-Russia Trump in the White House in a time when Russia advocates conservatism?
Loudon has been praised by Olavo de Carvalho as, “by far, the world’s greatest specialist in communist hegemony.”
An esotericist who is the greatest anticommunist specialist against Russia when the Soviet Union died over 25 years ago?
Is this an esoteric, gnostic alliance against Trump and Russia?
By the way, Carvalho has spiritual qualities that would never let an esotericist like Loudon down. He has been for decades an admirer of René Guénon, a Catholic French who had converted to esoteric Islam.
In fact, Carvalho translated into Portuguese one of Guénon’s books. He helped found in Brazil the first tariqa, an Islamic esoteric center that teaches a kind of Muslim witchcraft, and one of his sons is an active Muslim. Even though he seems today to reject partially some of those past experiences, many of his articles praise and recommend Guénon.
Carvalho also founded the first school of astrologers in Brazil.
Loudon has proved that it is possible for an esotericist to be a neocon. Is Carvalho a neocon too? At least his geopolitical viewpoints are largely neocon.
But it is not only Loudon and Carvalho who are displeased with Trump’s Russian ties. According to DailyMail and the Associated Press, Obama rebuked Trump for “idolizing his role model” Putin.
I wonder if Obama is also a neocon esotericist.
“If Trump is elected, you will have the Russians… in the White House,” said the Trevor Loudon blog. I wonder what Obama, Loudon and Carvalho will do to protect America from Russian conservatism.
Portuguese version of this article: Um neocon brasileiro?
Recommended Reading on Olavo de Carvalho:

Tuesday, September 13, 2016

Christian Freedom in the U.S., Russia, Israel and Brazil


Christian Freedom in the U.S., Russia, Israel and Brazil

By Julio Severo
Even though overwhelmingly evangelical in its origin, the United States does not privilege today evangelicalism and the U.S. government clearly does not favor it. In the U.S. religious freedom, all the religions are equal. So the evangelicalism that founded the U.S. is officially in the same level as Islam, Hinduism, Catholicism, witchcraft, etc.
According to this U.S. equality system, officially Jesus Christ is in the same level as Mohammed, Beelzebub and Satan. In fact, in American schools you can pray to Satan and recite the Islamic Koran, but you cannot pray to Jesus Christ or recite the Bible.
According to this system, the U.S. government cannot honor its evangelical foundation above Islam, Hinduism, Catholicism, witchcraft, etc. If the U.S. government wants religious partnership, it cannot give preference to evangelicalism. It is obliged to give equal partnership to Islam, Hinduism, Catholicism, witchcraft, etc.
In Russia, which is the largest Christian Orthodox country in the world, there is no such equality. The Christian Orthodox Church is recognized by the Russian government as the largest Christian religion in Russia. Catholics and evangelicals, who are 2 percent of the Russian population, are second-rate religious citizens. Orthodoxies have their reasons to do it with Catholics, considering that the Vatican has always antagonized the Orthodox Church, seeing it as an opponent of its supremacy.
Orthodoxies seem to bear a grudge against Catholics because of an invasion of Catholic crusaders in Constantinople, which was the capital of the Orthodox Church. Constantinople was looted, raped and victimized because of this old hatred. Even though with its focus largely on Muslims, the Catholic Crusades victimized also multitudes of innocent Jews and Orthodox Christians. But evangelicals never acted this way toward Orthodox Christians. Then Orthodoxies should not put evangelicals in Russia as second-rate religious citizens.
Brazil imitates the U.S. in religious freedom. In the recent Olympic Games in Brazil, football player Neymar, who is a nominal evangelical, was criticized by the Olympic Committee because he used a headband titled “100% JESUS.” But the same Olympic Committee did not criticize the official closing of the Olympic Games, which showed fetishistic sorcerers and a blatant glorification of Afro-Brazilian religions (which are similar to voodoo).
Many Christians protested that it was discriminatory. But what did they want? Did they want the same respect and consideration afforded to demons to be equally granted to Jesus? Did they want Jesus to be equated with demons?
In the equality democracy, Jesus is no better than a voodoo demon or Satan. In Jornalismo TV Cultura (Brazilian Culture TV News) on August 20, 2015 Brazilian historian Leandro Karnal said, “If it is forbidden to mock or insult religions, an issue being considered in Rio de Janeiro, let us remember that Satanism is also a religion and when an evangelical minister begins to expel the devil of someone, we can fine him because he is insulting the faith of a Satanist, because the devil also produces a religion. Whoever wants to attack the devil, whip the devil should also be fined because he is insulting faith on Satan.” You can watch his comments here: https://youtu.be/VkXm3nOm-rg

Many can think that the fight for legal equality is helpful, but it is bringing more rights to Satan and his demons and does not glorify Jesus, and to glorify Jesus is the most important mission for a Christian. A Christian’s mission is not to fight for Jesus to have, in democracy, the same worth as Satan and his demons.
Whether laws acknowledge it or not, Jesus is above demons and Satan, who are fallen creatures condemned to Hell. He is the Creator and Lord. It is blasphemous to agree with laws that equate fallen creatures with the Lord who creates, saves and changes.
I do not like the current American system that equates Jesus with Beelzebub. If risen today, George Washington would fight this system, because he supported the practice, common in the U.S. beginnings, that all politicians, to be inaugurated, should swear, with his hand on the Bible, that he believed in the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
And I do not like the Russian system that puts the Orthodox Church as a Christian church above evangelical churches. But the current U.S. system seems the worst.
Yet, if the U.S. thinks the Russian system worse, why not criticize Israel too? Just as in Russia, evangelicals in Israel are no more than 2 percent. Pew Research Center has identified Israel as one of the countries that places high restrictions on religion. Pew said,
“But the list of countries with high restrictions also contains some that are widely seen as democratic, such as… Israel. Israel’s score is driven up by… its preferential treatment of Orthodox Jews. The government recognizes only Orthodox Jewish religious authorities in some personal status matters (such as marriage) concerning Jews and devotes the bulk of state funds provided for religion to Orthodox Jews, even though they make up only a small portion of all Jews in Israel.”
In his book “Persecuted: The Global Assault on Christians” (Thomas Nelson, 2013), Paul Marshall says,
“In another instance, in Israel, proselytism is legal as long as no material benefits are offered for conversion. But elements within the government sometimes act as though this isn’t so. People suspected of being missionaries have been denied visas and sometimes detained and required to post bail and pledge not to evangelize. There are also occasional mob attacks on churches or other buildings hosting converts.”
In comparison with Islamic nations, Israel offers much more freedom to Christians. But in comparison with the U.S., Israel offers them less freedom. In fact, if in the U.S. the Jews were treated as Christians are treated in Israel, there would be complaints of “anti-Semitism.”
The same reality is applicable to Russia. In comparison with Islamic countries, Russia offers much more freedom to Christians. But just as Israel protects and privileges its main religion, Russia does the same thing for the Russian Orthodox Church.
Therefore, the U.S. media’s hysteria against Russia is baseless. When Russia establishes some restriction for non-registered religious activities, the U.S. media cries “censorship” and a “return of the Soviet Union.” But this same media does not cry anything over the Israeli restrictions on activities of Christian evangelism in Israel. In fact, it remains silent.
The media, which makes a great stir against Russia, does not make the same stir against Saudi Arabia, which murders Christians and bans the Bible and worship meetings. The only difference seems to be that Russia is a political enemy of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia is officially a “friend.” Just as Israel, Russia does not murder Christians and does not ban the Bible and registered worship meetings.
Evidently, all these nations need a powerful change.
Israel needs a revival, to live the wonders of Messiah Jesus Christ.
Russia needs a revival, to understand that better than the Russian Orthodox Church is to live for Jesus Christ.
The U.S. and Brazil need a revival, to stop equating Jesus and Satan and putting them in the same level in their laws of religious freedom.
The Pink Swastika author Scott Lively, who is very familiar with the religious-freedom challenges in the U.S. and Russia, has offered his comment for my blog:
In this age-old conflict of doctrinal camps, it is important to recognize the failure of all denominations and church institutions to fully reflect “The Way of the Messiah” as it taught in the Whole Bible. Any religious movement or institution that pretends to speak for God or provide the “one true path” to fellowship with Him commits the sin of arrogance. None of the Apostles claimed infallibility and their perspectives varied widely, resolving their differences practically (by voting). Paul addressed the question of doctrinal disputes squarely in 1 Corinthians, admonishing the church “do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes.” In the meantime, we should seek the spiritual unity of ALL believers in Christ on the points on which we can agree — including the Torah-faithful Jews who simply haven’t yet recognized Jesus as the Messiah — and approach our differences with charity and humility.  
Portuguese version of this article: Liberdade cristã nos EUA, Rússia, Israel e Brasil
Recommended Reading:

Monday, September 12, 2016

Olavo de Carvalho and His Nonsense on Trump and Russia


Olavo de Carvalho and His Nonsense on Trump and Russia

By Julio Severo
Olavo de Carvalho, a Brazilian famous for advocating the revisionism of the Inquisition, which tortured and murdered Jews and evangelicals, said several days ago: “After all, is Trump a mad war-monger who is going to bomb Russia or he is a Russian agent who is going to pour out dollars on Moscow? Because the U.S. media accuses him of both things, it is obvious that he is neither of them.”
The mainstream media has in fact been accusing Trump of being a Russian agent, because, for one thing, he and his family have made trips to Russia. (As a capitalist, Trump always had deals with Russians, one of his business partners.) But also because he says nice things about Putin.
And of course, as confirmed by WND, one of the most prominent conservative websites in the world, Trump has been praising the Russian president and showing willingness to be friend with Russia.
However, in spite of what Carvalho asserts, the mainstream media does not accuse Trump of being “a mad war-monger who is going to bomb Russia.” They only accuse him of being a mad war-monger who wants to bomb the Islamic State. They also accuse him of praising Vladimir Putin and wanting a U.S. alliance with Russia against ISIS.
Last Wednesday, Trump declared on TV that Putin is a better leader than U.S. President Barack Obama, according to Reuters, which mentioned, “…Trump’s praise of Putin and his suggestion that the United States and Russia form an alliance to defeat Islamic State militants.”
And last Thursday, Trump was interviewed by Russia Today, a news service backed by the Russian government, to give his view on accusations that a covert plan of Russian intelligence is interfering with U.S. elections and creating distrust among American voters.
“I don’t know. I’ve been hearing about it. I’ve been reading about it. I think it’s probably unlikely,” Trump said.
If Trump had Carvalho’s mindset, he would not accept an interview from a Russian news service because he thinks this news outlet is part of a spy network and that everything written by Russians — except for the Washington toadies in Russia, of course — is lying propaganda, especially the reports that can be readily verified. If he accepted the interview, obedient neocon that he is, he might say, “It is very likely that Russia is interfering. And do you know what? Russia created ISIS.” But Trump is not Carvalho.
Carvalho’s mind is so fixated on Russia that whenever the U.S. press says that Trump is going to do something against the Islamic State, Carvalho sees only the word “Russia.”
When you search Google with “Trump” and “bomb” as key words, you get numerous hits directly pointing to news headlines like “Trump wants to bomb ISIS, the Islamic State.” Let us see:
·         Donald Trump promises to ‘bomb the hell out of ISIS’ in new radio ad — Washington Post.
·         DONALD TRUMP: ‘I would bomb the s­— out of’ ISIS — Business Insider
·         Trump Vows If He Becomes President, He Will Bomb ISIS Into Extinction. — AWM
·         Trump: US has ‘no choice but to bomb’ ISIS in Libya — The Hill
When you include the key word “Russia” to “Trump” and “bomb” in the Google search, you find not comments by Trump wanting to bomb Russia, but comments by Putin on bombing ISIS. So both Trump and Putin want to bomb ISIS. They have the same goal. This is one important reason both praise one another.
Perhaps, by using a crystal ball, Carvalho saw that Trump wants to bomb Russia. But his personal fantasies are no reason or basis for him to accuse the U.S. mainstream media of saying what they have never said. Truth was raped to benefit the sentiments of an anti-Russia activist.
The mainstream media is mistaken on many things, but Carvalho falsely accused it of something it never said, namely, that Trump wants to bomb Russia. But this media has no time or willingness to answer the false accusation of a Brazilian immigrant who fancies himself a brilliant philosopher but is unknown in the U.S. (even though he has lived in the United States for more than ten years).
Things have soured for Carvalho and his “big knowledge” and “honesty.” He spent years putting Russia at the center of all evil in the universe and now, countering all his political obsessions, comes an American presidential candidate who puts Islamic terror at the center of political concerns and openly praises Russia. To keep up his reputation as a conservative, he is obliged to make an odd bedfellow with this Trump fellow, but he is clearly not comfortable with the arrangement (which Trump does not know anything about) and has little understanding of Trump’s ideas.
The only thing left for him to do is to hide his head like an ostrich in his hole of illusions that protect the Islamic State from Trump’s bombs and put Russia in its place.
Or perhaps, as a professional astrologer (which he is), he is subconsciously predicting that the American candidate will do what he has imagined, or keeps imagining and saying that Trump is going to bomb Russia, when what the U.S. press said very clearly is that he wants to bomb the Islamic State.
Usually, Carvalho has a marked and worn card against anyone minimally praising the Russian President Vladimir Putin. He calls his victim of duginist. “Duginist” is a reference to the adherents of the Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin, who, according to Carvalho’s exaggerations, is the most prominent conservative or leader in Russia.
In 2015, Raymond Ibrahim, evangelical author of the best-selling book “Crucified Again,” which shows how Christians in the Middle East are being slaughtered by Muslims, wrote the article “Russia Declares ‘Holy War’ on Islamic State.” The report received positive feedback, especially from evangelical readers. Even Trump has praised the Russian fight against ISIS. But a Carvalho assistant, who is a member of the Carvalho led-Inter-American Institute, strongly protested the positive representation of Russia as Christian and conservative by evangelical Ibrahim, averring that Russian conservatism was a “strategy.”
In the 1990s, when I was involved with Catholic leaders, evangelical leaders also often said that Pope John 2 and his pro-life activism were a Vatican “strategy.”
I am glad to have cooperated with both pro-life “strategies,” not because I am an ecumenical Christian, but because whether is the Vatican or the Russian Orthodox Church, their pro-life stances deserve our support. While I do not support most their religious doctrines, I wholeheartedly their pro-family work.
In this point, considering Carvalho’s insistent rejection of all pro-family initiatives from Russia, some might think that perhaps strategy is what the Inter-American Institute has been up to, drawing evangelicals and Catholics for the supposed purpose of pro-life and pro-family activism when the real motivation of his founder and his close assistant is anti-Russian activism.
As a basis for his accusation of Russian “strategy,” the Inter-American Institute member and Carvalho assistant mentioned “Aleksandr Dugin” in his protest in Ibrahim’s article, presenting Dugin as the most powerful man in Russia.
I attended the most important conservative meeting in Russia in 2014, with another Inter-American Institute member and many international conservative Orthodoxies, Catholics, Protestants and Jews, and Dugin did not put in an appearance. Dugin is, by the way, an admirer of René Guénon, a Catholic French who had converted to esoteric Islam.
Oddly, other Guénon’s admirer is Carvalho himself, who translated into Portuguese one of Guénon’s books. Carvalho helped found in Brazil the first tariqa, an Islamic esoteric center that teaches a kind of Muslim witchcraft, and one of his sons is an active Muslim. Even though Carvalho seems today to reject partially some of those past experiences, many of his articles praise and recommend Guénon.
Besides calling them duginist, Carvalho also frequently accuses those minimally praising Russia of being Putinists, KGB agents or Russian agents.
With Trump’s arrival and his comments supportive of Putin and Russia, Carvalho’s anti-Russia arguments fell apart. He does not dare to accuse Trump of being a Kremlin agent, but he circumvents the hazards by planting in the minds of his followers the forged image of a Trump who is “accused” of praising Russia — when actually his praises are largely proved and recorded by the powerful U.S. conservative press — and of a Trump who is accused of wanting to bomb Russia. This is indeed a blatant false accusation, made up exclusively to replace Carvalho’s knee-jerk accusations against anyone praising Russia.
The accusation that Trump is a “Russian agent” is not a conservative one. It is a neocon accusation leveled at all American groups or individuals appreciating the positive and conservative aspects of modern Russia. A former CIA director also accused Trump of being a Russian agent and said that he intends to vote for Hillary Clinton.
So the candidate most compatible for anti-Russian activists like Carvalho is Hillary. Left-wing billionaire George Soros also supports Hillary and he is anti-Russia.
While Trump has praised Russia and his advisers were supporting pro-Russian forces in Ukraine, Carvalho has openly praised the Ukrainian revolution as the best democratic example against dictatorship. The Ukrainian revolution was the biggest Soros revolution, massively funded by him.
In his article “The Ukraine-ISIS Alliance,” author Sierra Rayne said,
“It is unlikely that many average citizens in the West are aware that ISIS is fighting on the side of the Ukraine nationalists. If they were, public opinion might drastically shift towards support for Russia — as it should. Better to have Ukraine be a proxy state of Russia than yet another budding member of the global Islamic Caliphate taking shape.”
In regard to this article, Steve Baldwin, a member of the Inter-American Institute, said,
“Freedom loving people all over the world who grew up during the Cold War years learned to hate the Soviet Union and with good reason. Communism stamped out all freedom and Soviet-style communism was constantly trying to acquire more territory. But that paradigm has changed. Unfortunately, there are many political leaders, both in the USA and elsewhere, who don’t understand that the Cold War is over and that there are new threats to deal with and new alliances that need to be formed. Putin may not be a perfect leader but freedom loving people all over the world have far more in common with the Russian people than they do with radial jihadists. His [Sierra Rayne’s] article reveals the Jihadist alliance with some factions in the Ukraine and suggests that the USA form an alliance with Russia to fight the growing jihadist threat.”
The paradigm has really changed, and left Carvalho far away not only from Trump, but also from members of his own institute. But it has not left him far away from Soros and his old school.
Carvalho founded the first school of astrologers in Brazil. But how can his crystal ball accurately see the future if he inaccurately sees the present?
Reality: Trump wants to bomb the Islamic State.
Fantasy: The crystal-ball of the Brazilian astrologer-philosopher says that U.S. media is accusing Trump of wanting to bomb Russia.
Fact: Such accusation is nonexistent in the U.S. media, resulting in two possible interpretations for the astrologer-philosopher’s lies:
1.      He is a cheat who deceives to his own advantage.
2.      He is a sophisticated clown who uses a philosophical circus to amuse the Brazilian public.
In both cases, the result is the same: audience growth. In Brazil, it is not impossible to be a clown in political affairs and succeed in increasing one’s audience. Tiririca, a semiliterate clown, became a famous Brazilian congressman.
In addition to accusing the U.S. press of saying Trump wants to bomb Russia, Carvalho insists on fanciful self-propaganda, bragging that he alone is responsible for the downfall of the socialist Dilma Rousseff administration in Brazil, when even the U.S. conservative big media does not grant him such glory. CBN, headed by Pat Robertson (who was a Republican presidential candidate in the 1980s), did not grant the esoteric Catholic Carvalho such glory in the report “President’s Impeachment Shows Growing Evangelical Power in Brazil.” WND also did not grant him such glory in the article “The lesson for U.S. in fall of Brazil regime.”
Yet, who cares? Not Carvalho, who does not see the downfall of Rousseff as an important event. Recently, he said that infinitely more important than removing Rousseff from the Brazilian government is to eliminate from people’s conscience the “myth” of the Inquisition, as if this bloody machine had not tortured and killed Jews and evangelicals.
So he is obsessed with advocating a revisionist image of the Inquisition. See this video where he says that all the torture tools of the Inquisition were made up and never existed: https://youtu.be/Cpq8eaAy7JY

He is also obsessed with attacking Russia every day, abundantly, as if Putin were Osama bin Laden and Russia were ISIS.
Meanwhile, Trump’s focus is ISIS. According to Trump, ISIS was created by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Putin has said the same thing. But I would not be surprised at all if Carvalho tried to suggest that Russia created ISIS, because his automatic answer on all universe’s evils has been to blame Russia. Interestingly, prominent neocons do blame Russia for the creation of ISIS.
In terms of the dangers facing civilization, Carvalho’s focus is not Islam. Perhaps he is not actively involved in Islamic affairs today because he has had extensive involvement in the past. He has already read and memorized the Koran in Arabic and has received an award from the Saudi government for a Mohammed biography he wrote.
While Trump’s and conservatives’ focus has been Islam and its terror and the immigrant invasion in the U.S. and Europe, Carvalho’s focus continues to be Russia, his whipping boy for all seasons. He cannot avoid it: he is the most prominent anti-Russian activist in Brazil, even though he is an immigrant in America.
He is very lucky. Obama’s immigration policies are the most generous in the U.S. history. Largely under Obama, Carvalho has kept his survival as an immigrant, and basically he does what Obama does: he focusses on Russia, not Islamic terror, as the biggest threat.
With a crystal ball in his mind and his heart, it is easy for an astrologer-philosopher to ignore reality, despise objectivity and see imaginary threats.
So blame it on the crystal ball!
Recommended Reading on Olavo de Carvalho:
Recommended Reading on Trump and Russia:
Recommended Reading on Brazil: