Sunday, October 25, 2015

Is Vladimir Putin’s Conservatism False?


Is Vladimir Putin’s Conservatism False?

By Julio Severo
Russian conservatism, under the influence of the Orthodox Church, has distinguished itself by strong Christian stances against the gay agenda and abortion, especially in the United Nations. This conservative prescription turned out fine for the conservative Protestant president Ronald Reagan and for the Vatican. Could it turn out fine for Russians?
If you think that the conservatism advocated by President Vladimir Putin in Russia is true, a Brazilian apologist wants help you change your mind.
In his recent article “O falso conservadorismo de Vladimir Putin” (Vladimir Putin’s False Conservatism), published in the Brazilian Protestant website GospelMais, the Brazilian apologist says:
“Born in the city of St. Petersburg, Putin has been developing a strategy of action different from the time when he worked as a lieutenant-colonel of KGB (an old spy agency), which is to resort to the Russian Orthodox Church’s conservatism as a contraposition to the U.S. liberalism. In other words: Putin has embraced conservatism in order to create a new image for Mother Russia, the image of a nation that honors the Christian family’s fundamental principles — which is clearly praise-worthy, notwithstanding that the ulterior intent is another… The way the former KGB agent has been behaving in the backstage of national and international politics suggests that his conservatism is only a temporary tool of Russian publicity.”
As an evidence that Putin is not conservative, the Brazilian apologist says: “How can Vladimir Putin’s conservatism be reconciled to his policy of exterminating the Syrian opposition? Putin is not conservative.”
How can the view of this Brazilian apologist be reconciled to the reality? Who is this opposition?
In his article “Russia Declares ‘Holy War’ on Islamic State,” Raymond Ibrahim, an American Christian leader descendant of Middle East Christians, explains about such opposition:
“Even the Rev. Franklin Graham’s response to Russia’s military intervention in Syria seems uncharacteristically positive, coming as it is from the head of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, which for decades spoke against the godless Soviets:  ‘What Russia is doing may save the lives of Christians in the Middle East… You understand that the Syrian government … have protected Christians, they have protected minorities from the Islamists.’ Should U.S supported jihadis (‘rebels’) succeed in toppling the government of Syria, Graham correctly predicts that there will be ‘a bloodbath of Christians’: ‘There would be tens of thousands of Christians murdered and slaughtered and on top of that, you would have hundreds of thousands of more refugees pouring into Europe. So Russia right now, I see their presence as helping to save the lives of Christians.’ Incidentally, it’s an established fact that the ‘good rebels’—or ‘moderates’—are persecuting Christians no less than the Islamic State.”
Ibrahim is the author of the best-selling book “Crucified Again,” which talks about how Christians in the Middle East are being slaughtered by Muslims.
So the important question is: Why did the Brazilian apologist choose to side with the Islamic rebels or opposition who murder Christians? The answer is that he, whose name is Johnny Torralbo Bernardo, follows the socialist ideology. Johnny Bernardo, who is a columnist in the progressive Protestant website GospelMais, has a history of official affiliation with the Communist Party of Brazil.
Sadly, many Brazilian apologists, who should defend the Gospel, defend socialism and hate conservative Christian influences in the politics.
As a GospelMais columnist, Johnny has already made some statements consistent with the communist ideology. In his article “Júlio Severo e temas relacionados” (Julio Severo and related subjects), where he attacks me, he says:
“The Cuban Revolution was necessary because Cubans were economically and physically exploited by U.S. citizens.”
In this same article, he complains that I expose socialist Protestants and I support neo-Pentecostals, who are the most anti-socialist Christians in Brazil.
There has to be something much strange when a communist who praises the bloody Cuban revolution and attacks Julio Severo is considered, by a Protestant website, a good source of reference for evangelicals to dismiss the “false conservatism” of the Russian president.
In other GospelMais article, titled “O Brasil e o Estado Laico; uma entrevista” (Brazil and the Secular State; an Interview), Johnny explains that a union between State and Christian religion is a danger. As an example of this danger, he uses Saudi Arabia, which is an Islamic dictatorship. In this respect, he says of his concerns: “Brazil and the U.S. are still ruled by religion, by the influence of religious leaders.”
So Johnny’s case with Putin is that the Russian president, by granting more political opportunities to the Orthodox Church in Russia, is going against the secular State, unrelentingly advocated by communists around the world.
As every communist, Johnny believes in the separation of Church and State. But there is an exception: anticapitalist and environmentalist Christians should have room in the government and its policies. In his article “Pastores devem tomar o Papa Francisco como um modelo de liderança” (Protestant ministers should welcome Pope Francis as a leadership model), Johnny says:
“First Latin-American pope, Jesuit Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pope Francis) has so far shown signs that he will be also the most important Catholic leader in history. Above all, Pope Francis has resumed the social speech of the Catholic Church, coming near to the poor and the oppressed by the capitalist system.”
So in Johnny’s communist view, Pope Francis is an excellent example of Christian engagement in politics. Johnny is forthright: Francis is an example that every evangelical minister should follow. In contrast, Putin is the bad example.
He agrees with Francis, but he disagrees with Putin.
Going further in his article “Vladimir Putin’s False Conservatism,” Johnny says:
“All is only a strategy measuredly developed to oppose the U.S. liberal policies. With the homosexual civil union recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court, the legalization of recreational use of pot in states like Colorado and Washington, Putin’s conservative agenda draws more and more adherents in the Western world. Olavo de Carvalho was assertive when he published, in September 2013, a small comment about the Russian president. ‘It seems that Vladimir Putin discovered the formula of success: the international Left applauds him because he is anti-American, the Right because it sees in him the hope for a spiritual rebirth of the world. In my view he is more intelligent than his master Dugin…’ Carvalho closes with a doubt: ‘No one knows where this will end.’ For the first time I have to agree with him.”
Besides supporting the Syrian opposition (which are radical Islamists who slaughter Christians) and supporting the pope in his anticapitalist and environmentalist stances, now Johnny also supports Olavo de Carvalho.
Just to dispel Johnny’s excessive communist faith in Carvalho, it is necessary to clarify that Carvalho’s understanding is wrong. Completely different of what Carvalho said, while Orthodox Christians in Russia held an international pro-life and pro-family meeting in Moscow, including in the Kremlin, the international Left did not applaud Putin. Leftist and homosexual groups successfully pressed the U.S. government to hinder U.S. Christian and conservative groups from attending. The Left did not applaud. The Left attacked.
Those same leftist and homosexual groups asked the U.S. State Department to investigate Americans who attended the pro-life meeting in Moscow.
Not only the international Left was discontent with this meeting, but U.S. neocons — who are erroneously labeled conservatives — also attacked the event.
As communist Johnny himself demonstrates, the international Left has been discontent with Putin. This leftist discontentment has been increasing since Putin passed a law banning homosexual propaganda for children in 2013. Since that time, the international leftist media began to treat the Russian ban as a genocide against homosexuals. 
Yet, evangelical leaders, who see beyond ideology, are not discontent with Putin. Franklin Graham, son of the famous evangelist Billy Graham, applauded and praised not only Putin’s attitude of protecting Russian children against homosexual propaganda, but also of supporting the Syrian president who has protected Christians. Graham wrote a cover story in the Decision magazine titled “Putin’s Olympic Controversy.”
If Graham is leftist, so Carvalho and Johnny have a legitimate reason to charge: the Left has applauded Putin. But the fact is another: the true international Left has not applauded Putin.
When homosexualist activists notice that an international leader has a leftist or homosexualist leaning, they encourage him. So it is no surprise that The Advocate, the oldest homosexual magazine in the U.S., named its 2013 “Person of the Year” Pope Francis, portraying him as a very good example.
But when there is not such leftist or homosexualist leaning, they attack. So it is no wonder that Vladimir Putin was named “Person of the Year” in 2014 by the same homosexual magazine, which portrayed the Russian president as a very bad example.
Whoever this magazine portrays as good is applauded by the international Left.
Whoever this magazine portrays as bad is rejected by the international Left.
According to Carvalho’s exaggerations, Alexander Dugin is the greatest conservative or leader in Russia. Yet, Dugin was not present in the greatest international pro-life and pro-family meeting in Moscow last year. I was in this meeting and I did not see any speaker or participant named Dugin.
I was in the most important conservative meeting in Russia, with many international Catholic, Protestant and Jewish conservatives, and there was no Dugin there, who is an admirer of René Guénon, a French Catholic who converted to esoteric Islam. Another admirer is Carvalho himself, who translated into Portuguese one of Guénon’s books. Carvalho also founded in Brazil the first tariqa, an esoteric Islamic center. Even though Carvalho seems disavow today such dark experiences, many of his current writings praise and recommend Guénon.
In my Christian view, to praise and recommend the sorcerer Guénon is dangerous. Conservative writer Nancy Pearcey labels Guénon a New Age advocate.
Even so, in the Brazilian internet, Carvalho has been simultaneously the greatest propagandist of Dugin and Guénon.
Carvalho seems to be confused with his issues about Dugin and Guénon. And Johnny, as a communist Protestant minister, seems to be even more confused when he attacks Putin and praises Pope Francis, the Cuban revolution and Carvalho.
Notwithstanding these confusions, Johnny and other Brazilian socialist Protestants are interviewed by the U.S. evangelical media, which seem to avoid conservative evangelicals in Brazil. Even the ChristianPost has already interviewed Johnny as if this Brazilian communist were a reference better than conservative evangelicals in Brazil.
In Johnny’s view, evangelical ministers can follow Pope Francis, Cuba and even Carvalho. But what they cannot do is to give attention to Putin.
It is a so confusing mixture that you could think that Johnny has been using pot. If he uses, I do not know. But as every Western socialist, Johnny has already expressed his view about the subject. In the same GospelMais article in which he attacks me, he declared categorically: “I support pot legalization.”
In my view, what Franklin Graham says is more important than what Johnny, Pope Francis, the Cuban Revolution and Carvalho say.
What will result if you follow only the models approved by Johnny and not Putin’s “false conservatism”?
Portuguese version of this article: O conservadorismo de Vladimir Putin é falso?
Recommended Reading:

Thursday, October 22, 2015

Neocons, the Inquisition, Russophobia and Lies


Neocons, the Inquisition, Russophobia and Lies

By Julio Severo
A charge of “liar” is a very serious charge. In his article “Putin’s Paid and Unpaid Liars,” Cliff Kincaid, a Catholic neocon, levels this charge against Don Hank, an evangelical conservative.
Kincaid’s contention with Hank is over Malaysian flight MH17, destroyed last year in eastern Ukraine, killing all 283 passengers. Hank opined, in an e-mail group, that there are doubts about the culprit in this case.
For Kincaid, there are no doubts now that the Dutch Safety Board has issued a report indicating that a Russian BUK missile is to blame for the “crash” — this is the official word used in the Dutch report. Kincaid used the results of this report as a base for his charge of “liar” against Hank.
Yet, even Kincaid’s own readers have doubts about Kincaid’s article. They said:
“Kincaid concludes that the missile was made in Russia and had to have been fired by a Russian. Yet there is nothing in the Dutch report whatsoever that leads to this conclusion. Kincaid either is incompetent or lying or he is expressing his view and not the report’s conclusion. The only conclusion that the report reaches is one that we already knew: if a Buk missile brought down the airliner, it was a Russian-made missile. The Dutch report does not say who fired it. The report places no blame on Russia, but it does place blame on Ukraine for not closing the airspace over the war area.” — RMThoughts
“But the unanswered question being (at least I've not seen it yet), What was Malaysian Airlines doing flying over a war zone?” — Steve Tanton
“That wasn’t the plane’s original flight-path. It was re-routed in mid-flight by Kiev ATC.” — RaisingMac
“Kincaid’s opening paragraph is proof of his paranoia over Russia. Like...,duh...all buk missiles were made in USSR/Russia!! Ukraine has thousands of them. Kincaid totally ignores the facts about the whole scenario. The Ukraine military had control of the firing location, not the freedom fighters of Donbass.” — Peter
“Really want to get to the bottom of the MH17 mystery? Then have the Pentagon release their satellite and radar data of E. Ukraine on the day of the incident. Have Kiev release their air traffic control transcripts from the flight. And have the Dutch Safety Board release the contents of the plane’s black box. Until that happens, the cui bono points towards Ukraine, which wanted the EU to sanction Russia.” — RaisingMac
Kincaid was unable to convince his own readers. So he will probably have to label them “Putin’s Paid and Unpaid Liars.”
During the Ronald Reagan administration, an Iranian passenger flight was shot down by the U.S. military. All 290 men, women and children on board died. America had and has the most sophisticated high-precision weapons ever, but even so she committed this “error.” There was no international court to convict the government responsible for this crime.
I have always admired Reagan and I consider him the best world president in the last 100 years. But a crime was committed. Contrasting to the Malaysian shootdown, where there is obscure culpability (Russia has BUK missiles? Ukraine has lot of them too!), in the American case there was clear culpability (the Iranian Airbus A300 B2-203 was destroyed by SM-2MR surface-to-air missiles. Only America had such missiles. Iran had none of them).
In the 1980s, people called me a paid agent of Americans because I supported all the conservative stances of Reagan, including his wars. But when people questioned how I could support Reagan given the clear U.S. culpability in the scandal of the Iranian civil plane shot down, I had no answer.
If Kincaid has a case against Putin because of a missile owned by Russians and Ukrainians, why has he not a case against Reagan because of a missile owned only by Americans?
And why did Kincaid call Ukrainian separatists “terrorists”? Has he forgotten the Alamo? Ukraine now has their Alamo. If separatists are not allowed to fight for their turf, Kincaid should urge the U.S. government to return Texas to Mexico, because in his logic Americans who fought to separate Texas from Mexico were terrorists.
Pat Buchanan, a former Republican presidential candidate and Reagan adviser, suggested in his article “Putin: Imitator of U.S. foreign policy,” published in his weekly column at WorldNetDaily, that we should compare Ukrainian separatists to…
“…how Sam Houston and friends brought about the secession of Texas from Mexico, and its annexation by the United States in 1845. When the Mexicans tried to retrieve a disputed piece of their lost Texas territory, James K. Polk accused them of shedding American blood on American soil, had Congress declare war, sent Gen. Winfield Scott and a U.S. army to Mexico City, and annexed the entire northern half of Mexico, which is now the American Southwest and California.”
In his article “Putin crosses Obama’s pink line,” also published at WorldNetDaily, conservative writer Michael Savage declared that the Ukrainian crisis was orchestrated by the Obama administration, especially neocons — neo-conservatives, who are present in both major U.S. parties. Savage said,
“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.”
In another WorldNetDaily piece, Buchanan denounces “a reflexive Russophobia that passes for thought in the think tanks.” This Russophobia, especially promoted by neocons, hinders them from accepting conservative stances of Russia.
Buchanan is a real traditionalist Catholic. As a conservative pro-family and pro-life Catholic leader, Buchanan is much better known and balanced than Kincaid is.
I am sure that a radical leftist Kincaid would have called Sam Houston and Reagan “terrorists.” And he would include me also as a “terrorist” because of my pro-Reagan stances. Conversely, a neocon Kincaid would call Ukrainian separatists and Putin “terrorists.”
I admire the conservative stances of Russia today, even though I admire Reagan more, because he was an evangelical. Before Kincaid does to me what he did to Don Hank, calling me a Putin’s paid or unpaid liar, he should come to visit me and see in my small home library the Reagan biographies I cherish.
Do you know what I call “terrorists”? Days ago WorldNetDaily (my favorite conservative website) reported, “U.S. delivers 50 tons of ammo to Syrian rebels.”
Other WorldNetDaily reports say that these rebels fight, with ISIS and al-Qaeda, against Syrian president Assad, a Russian ally who, notwithstanding, protects the Christian community in Syria. This is one of the oldest Christian communities in the world. WorldNetDaily has said that these rebels torture, rape and kill Christians. Even so, the U.S. intentionally sent 50 tons of ammo to them. This is a crime against humankind. This is a crime against us, Christians. Is not Kincaid worried about THIS U.S. keeping its demonic supremacy at the expense of our Christian blood?
Why has the U.S. never sent those many arms to Christians persecuted by rebels?
Why has the U.S. never sent this much of weapons to Christians persecuted by ISIS? Why has the U.S. been helping these Islamic rebels, who torture, rape and slaughter Syrian Christians?
Kincaid and other neocons do not seem to care about Syrian Christians persecuted by U.S. allies. Anti-Russia stances are their main concern.
Anti-Russian activists are strange creatures — they are generally neocons. One of Kincaid’s anti-Russian friends, Brazilian Catholic philosopher Olavo de Carvalho, plays down the horrors of the Inquisition. He has said about the Inquisition:
“Even in the popular image of the Inquisition fires lies are predominant. Everybody believe that condemned individuals ‘died burned,’ amid horrible suffering. The flames were high, more than 16 feet high, to hinder suffering. The condemned individuals (less than ten a year in two dozen nations) died suffocated in a few minutes, before the flames could touch them.”
He also said:
“The myth of the Inquisition has been the most extensive and lasting campaign of slander and defamation in history until today, with multi-million dollar funding, and it seems this campaign will have no end. Those who created it were not Illuminatists or communists. It was created by Protestants, who keep promoting it even today, and the irradiant center is U.S. churches. This is a historical fact that all professional historians today know, and it has nothing to do with ‘theological debates.’”
So, has a “myth” tortured and killed thousands of Jews and Protestants? Generally, Carvalho believes that Russians create destructive myths. But in the case of the Inquisition, he alleges that it was created by Americans.
This week, Kincaid friend Carvalho published in Portuguese Kincaid’s “Putin’s Paid and Unpaid Liars,” even though he was aware that this piece attacks Hank, who translated into English the first article by Carvalho published at WorldNetDaily. In fact, I got to know Hank through Carvalho.
Kincaid, who loves to attack perceived inconsistencies, has never said: “How can you, Carvalho, simultaneously defend conservative values and the Inquisition? This is hypocrisy!”
Carvalho’s Inquisition stances are public and open, freely available in his writings and Facebook in Portuguese.
Hank has many public writings. But the specific information Kincaid used to attack Hank is not public. Kincaid took information from the private email group of Hank. I wonder if he asked permission. I am in Hank’s group and I am also in the private group of John Haskins, who some time ago mentioned that a member of the Inter-American Institute, headed by Carvalho, finds that Russophobes greatly exaggerate what they say about Russia. When I asked Haskins’ permission to use his excellent comments, he did not grant. I complied. But in my place, Kincaid would have used it without any permission whatsoever.
Last year, Kincaid attacked an international pro-life and pro-family meeting in Moscow just because it was hosted by Russians. I was in this meeting and I did not see any speaker or participant named “Alexander Dugin,” who, according to Carvalho’s and Kincaid’s exaggerations, is the greatest conservative or leader in Russia. I was in the most important conservative meeting in Russia, with many international Catholic, Protestant and Jewish conservatives, and there was no Dugin there, who is an admirer of René Guénon, a French Catholic who converted to esoteric Islam. Another admirer is Carvalho himself, who translated into Portuguese one of Guénon’s books. Carvalho also founded in Brazil the first tariqa, an esoteric Islamic center. Even though Carvalho seems disavow today such dark experiences, many of his current writings praise and recommend Guénon.
In my Christian view, to praise and recommend the sorcerer Guénon is dangerous. Conservative writer Nancy Pearcey labels Guénon a New Age advocate.
For both Kincaid and Carvalho, to defend the conservative stances of Russia is “dangerous” and makes you a “paid agent.” But to defend the Inquisition and its horrors is completely OK for Carvalho, to Kincaid’s friendly silence.
Ben-Zion Netanyahu, a well-regarded historian who worked at both Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Cornell University, wrote a massive book on the Inquisition, praised by the Jewish Journal, which said that “’The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain,’ a scholarly magnum opus and in-depth tome on the Spanish Inquisition, describes how the Catholic Church persecuted, and often executed, masses of Jewish converts to Catholicism who were accused of secretly practicing Judaism.” Ben-Zion Netanyahu is father of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Dr. D. James Kennedy, a renowned pro-life conservative leader, said of the Inquisition, especially the Spanish Inquisition: “It was deplorable in the highest degree—a monstrous epic of brutality and barbarity. It was diabolical in its nature.”
Even so for Carvalho, the Inquisition was not so diabolical.
A common problem in Brazilians is hypocrisy. During the military rule in Brazil, leftist activists, who complained against capitalism, chose exile in England, Sweden and even the United States, the most capitalist nation in the world. Why did anticapitalists choose to live in the most capitalist nations in the world?
Carvalho frequently complains about Protestantism (not the liberal Protestantism, but all Protestantism), but he chose exile in the largest Protestant nation in the world. Why does a man who complains about Protestantism choose to live in the most Protestant nation in the world?
Carvalho exalts Catholicism as the greatest bulwark against Marxism, but he has fled Brazil, the largest Catholic nation in the world, because he thinks that Marxism is controlling Brazil.
Catholic Brazil is rife with Marxism and Progressivism because the Brazilian Catholic Church is rife with Marxism and Progressivism!
As a Brazilian, I can say that the Catholic Church is to blame for the dominant Marxist ideology in Brazilian society.
Yet, anti-Russian activists do not see these problems. They see only Russia. They are inconsistent from a Christian perspective. I am TOTALLY against the Soviet Union and pro-Reagan. My issue is VALUES. But an anti-Russian activist is always against Russia: before, during and after the Soviet Union. Their issue is RUSSIA and its people.
Kincaid has inconsistencies and people like him, including Carvalho, are also rife with inconsistencies.
I fear that a strident anti-Marxism can be a cloak for other radicalisms (see my article: http://bit.ly/1KlZBjp).
Earlier this year, Cliff Kincaid, based on Olavo de Carvalho’s views, misrepresented the Brazilian political scenario by saying that protests were an anti-Marxist revolution in Brazil. My rebuttal to Kincaid explained that the sources for the protests were strictly economic. 
In another piece, I explained that even during the military rule (which was relatively conservative, but not pro-Reagan) there were also massive protests, but not because the Brazilian people wanted communism. The source for the protests were similarly economic.
I also said that the only conservative inspiration for Brazilians during the military rule were American televangelists, especially Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggart, who cultivated pro-Reagan and pro-conservative stances in the evangelical population in Brazil. I am their blessed fruit.
Yet, my rebuttal to Kincaid and his misrepresentations of the political situation in Brazil did not label him a liar or a paid agent. It was a courteous rebuttal.
Now, I need to defend Hank from Kincaid’s discourteous “rebuttal.”
Don Hank and especially WorldNetDaily were extremely supportive of me when PayPal eliminated my account, under the pressure of the U.S. homosexualist organization AllOut, to hinder me from receiving donations from my international readers for my family of six children. Hank defended me and exposed PayPal. WorldNetDaily ran a headline on me.
Hank is not a liar. He is a conservative American who helps Christians in dire situations, exposing their oppressors. If Kincaid — and also Olavo de Carvalho, who honored Kincaid’s defamatory piece by publishing it in Portuguese — thinks that Hank is a paid agent (or explicitly: a paid liar), my challenge is for a commission of international investigative officials to examine our bank accounts (of me, Hank, Kincaid and Carvalho) to reveal to the world our financial sources.
Let us open our financial books. Let such a commission investigate us.
Only in this way will everybody know who is really being paid to lie.
Portuguese version of this article: Neocons, a Inquisição, russofobia e mentiras
Recommended Reading: