Tuesday, February 23, 2016

To Counter Turkish Threat, Russia Sends Fighter Jets to Its Base in Armenia


To Counter Turkish Threat, Russia Sends Fighter Jets to Its Base in Armenia

By Julio Severo
Russia has moved several MiG-29 fighters and other aircraft to its military base in Armenia, after Turkish threats of a more direct military intervention in Syria. The Russian base in Armenia is located some 40 kilometers from the Turkish border.
Four Russian MiG-29 jets, a modernized MiG bomber and a transport helicopter have been dispatched to the air base near the Armenian capital Yerevan.
Relations between Turkey and Armenia have always been tense, because Turkey refuses to recognize its Ottoman Empire committed a genocide of 1,5 million Christian Armenians 100 years ago. Besides, by backing ISIS and other radical Islamic groups against the Syrian government, Turkey has posed a serious threat to the Christian minority in Syria, one of the oldest Christian communities in the world.
Armenia was the first officially Christian nation in the world. While is good that Russia, which is the largest Orthodox Christian nation in the world, is supporting and protecting Armenia against Islamic Turkey, it is not good for America, which is the largest Protestant nation in the world, to be officially an ally of Turkey, because in a military conflict between Turkey and Armenia, you will probably see America siding with Muslims while Russia sides with Christians.
This situation is already happening in Syria, where Russia supports a pro-Christian government while Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. support Islamic rebels who have been torturing, raping and slaughtering Syrian Christians.
With information of Deutsche Welle.
Recommended Reading:

Monday, February 22, 2016

Trump and the Pope: a Right-Wing Populist (Today) Clashing with a Left-Wing Populist


Trump and the Pope: a Right-Wing Populist (Today) Clashing with a Left-Wing Populist

By Julio Severo
In his recent trip to Mexico, Pope Francis said that that it was not right the Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s attitude of surrounding the United States with a wall preventing the entry of illegal immigrants.
Trump struck back by saying that the supreme leader of Catholics around the world is a shame — evidently by his leftist stances.
Francis does not want a wall surrounding the U.S. and keeping immigrants outside, but the Vatican itself is surrounded 100% by a wall preventing the entry of all illegal immigrants, especially Islamic invasions.
If Francis is worried about immigrants, why does not he take them in the Vatican? Why does not he overthrow the Vatican’s wall and make it clear that all illegal immigrants, especially Muslims, are welcome there?
The Vatican policy, as exposed by Catholic writer Cliff Kincaid, has been to facilitate invasions of immigrants in the U.S. and Europe, because the Catholic Church has financial agreements with governments to help immigrants, so that the more immigrant invasions, the more money the Catholic Church receives.
It is obvious Francis is a left-wing populist, even though he is pro-life and pro-family. It is similarly obvious that Trump is a right-wing populist, even though he has not a pro-life and pro-family history.
Trump’s fantastic promises that make him a right-wing populist:
1. He has promised to ban Muslim immigrants from the U.S. This is an excellent promise.
2. He has promised to open the U.S. for Christian immigrants persecuted by Muslims around the world. This is an excellent promise.
3. He has publicly demonstrated admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin, and he has promised better relations with Russia. He is the only candidate who sees Islam, not Russia, as the main threat.
In his promises, Trump is a gust of fresh air in the U.S. politics.
The other Republican candidates, especially neocons, paranoidly vociferate against Russia, putting it as the main threat in the world. Oppositely, Trump vociferates against Islamists, putting Islam as such threat and promising a better relationship and friendship with Russia.
The other Republican candidates, especially neocons, promise more measures to contain Russians. Oppositely, Trump promises more measures to contain Muslims and greater opening to Russia.
The other Republican candidates, especially neocons, do not vociferate against Islamic crimes against Christians. Trump does it.
The other Republican candidates, especially neocons, want U.S. interventions in Syria and support the best interests of Turkey and Saudi Arabia in Syria. Both Islamic nations have supported the best interests of ISIS and other Islamic terrorists groups that have been the main responsible for the suffering and death of Christians in Syria, which has one of oldest Christian communities in the world. Trump is the only Republican candidate who has expressed a concern for Syrian Christians above the best interests of Turkey and Saudi Arabia. In fact, Trump is the only Republican candidate who has supported Russian interventions in Syria to fight ISIS and protect Christians.
The other Republican candidates, especially neocons, vociferate against Trump’s pro-Russia and anti-Muslim stances.
So Trump is totally different from the other Republican candidates, who are paranoid about Russia, not about Islamic threat. If Trump becomes president, anti-Russia and pro-Islam neocons will be shaken and disappointed.
Trump is Presbyterian and is not known as a spiritual man, but his promises of containing the Islamic threat have enraged the Saudi leadership, who has declared that Trump cannot become president, and make him better than most Presbyterians in the U.S.
Yet, he loses for the pope in pro-life and pro-family issues. Besides, Trump has never put into action his fantastic promises.
If by a miracle Trump is able, after elected, to become a pro-life and pro-family man that he has never been in all his existence, he will the perfect president. A friendlier relationship with Russian and a less friendly relationship with Muslim dictatorships is all the world needs, and in this Trump is completely right.
Now, it is hard to choose between a right-wing populist (today) who is pro-Russia and anti-Islam and a left-wing populist who is pro-life and pro-family and wants Muslim invasions in the U.S. and Europe, but not in the Vatican.
I support Trump’s pro-Russian and anti-Islamic populism (whose promises are theoretical).
And I support Pope Francis’ pro-life and pro-family populism.
Both need to learn political issues from one another.
About the charge from the pope that Trump is not a Christian, who can assure that the pope is a Christian?
Real Christianity is not left-wing or right-wing populism. Real Christianity is to know Christ and preach and demonstrate the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, by healing the sick, expelling demons and delivering the captives, all in the name of Jesus and by the power of the Holy Spirit.
The pope and Trump do not seem to know this Christianity, which was preached and lived by Jesus and his apostles.
Only God knows if both will come to know and live such Gospel someday.
Only God knows if Trump will fulfill his pro-Russia and anti-Islam promises.
Only God knows if Trump will fulfill his promises of priorizing the entry in the U.S. of persecuted Christian immigrants.
Only God knows if Trump, who was a left-wing populist in the past, will be in the future the right-wing populist he is today.
Only God knows if Trump is going to be a hindrance or facilitator for the persistent U.S. politics of exporting and imposing the homosexual and abortion agenda around the world.
What about the pope’s involvement in the U.S. elections? I do not know what this could result. But U.S. Catholics, especially immigrants, prefer to vote for left-wing candidates, often putting socialist and populist issues above pro-life issues. Most Catholics have elected Obama, a left-wing populist who has been extremely “generous” to Catholic and Muslim immigrants.
As a right-wing populist, willing to build a wall preventing illegal and Muslim immigration, Trump is unlikely to receive support from the pope and most of his U.S. sheep.
He is also unlikely to receive support from pro-life leaders, unless he speaks up so forcefully about pro-life and pro-family issues as he has spoken up about Islamic issues.
If even the pope has chosen to be a left-wing pro-life populist, why cannot Trump choose to be a right-wing pro-life populist?
Vatican's Wall
Be it as it may, the pope has a massive wall around the Vatican for protection against illegal immigrants and Islamic invasions. Why cannot Trump build a massive wall around the U.S. for the same purpose?
Recommended Reading:

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Homeschooling in Brazil: Where Is it Headed?


Homeschooling in Brazil: Where Is it Headed?

Religious Trends and Esoteric Detours

By Julio Severo
A prominent Presbyterian blog in Brazil published, on February 5, 2016, an article about homeschooling trends in Brazil. Even though I disagree with them on conservative issues (they consider themselves conservatives, but their Mackenzie Presbyterian University, the largest Protestant university in Brazil, hires pro-abortion and Marxist professors), they were honest enough to mention me as one of the known homeschooling examples in Brazil. Another two homeschooler names mentioned, Josué Bueno and Cleber Nunes, were also reported by me back in 2008 in articles that made international headlines:
Solano Portela, the author of the Presbyterian article on homeschooling, had no trouble gathering names and homeschool cases in Brazil, because they are easily found in a mere Google search, which usually delivers my name and other names as results.
Yet, according to ANED, a new Brazilian group claiming to be prominent in the homeschooling movement in Brazil, only ANED and its members deserve notability in Brazilian homeschooling. Dr. Alexandre Magno, ANED’s lawyer, said on his Facebook page earlier February:
“Brazilian homeschooling emerged from almost complete obscurity a few years ago to acquire virtually unanimous social acceptance. Largely responsible for this were Rick Dias, the president of ANED, and the couple Camila Hochmüller Abadie and Gustavo Abadie, of the website Encontrando Alegria. The contribution these three people made for the Brazilian education cannot be underestimated.”
To this overstatement, my public answer was: “Alexandre, if obscurity is to be a focus of a long and major report in Veja (the Brazilian counterpart of Time magazine), then I do not know what obscurity is. In 2001, Rev. Rinaldo Belisario (a Baptist minister) was, together with other families, interviewed by Veja and also by several TV stations. Subject: homeschooling. This does not look like obscurity.”
Gustavo Abadie’s homeschooling experience totals only a few years, while Rev. Belisario’s homeschool experience amounts to more than 18 years. Additionally, Abadie was a Protestant minister who, along with his wife, chose to convert officially to Catholicism in 2014.
Many young Brazilian evangelicals have gone through a process of “Catholic” conversion after studying a philosophy course offered by Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho, who has several published books on astrology (occultism) in Brazil. They begin the course looking for a solid anti-Marxist stance and end as “Catholics.” Abadie’s case was not different: Before their conversion, he and his wife were attending “philosophy classes” offered by Carvalho.
In October 2013, when Carvalho began to revile me because I disagreed with his pro-Inquisition herd think, Abadie criticized on his Facebook another man allegedly reviling Carvalho and immediately added that his criticism also applied to me. Abadie said:
“A man saying that he is a Christian and who not much time ago called another man of his friend, now when he calls him scoundrel and hypocrite, certainly he is not a devote Christian, but resembles the filthiest sewer rat.”
Someone then asked him if he meant Julio Severo. To this Abadie retorted on his Facebook: “Originally, this was not aimed at him, but it is equally applicable to him.” (A copy of this Facebook post has been saved for documentation.)
After his gross comment against me, he blocked me on Facebook. I had never reviled him or called him names. On the contrary, before his conversion, I had published two articles in 2012 by the then evangelical minister Gustavo Abadie critical of Marxism.
Apparently, he thought that the issue between me and Carvalho about the Inquisition qualifies me as the “filthiest sewer rat,” just because I disagreed with his “master” — adherents and followers of Carvalho usually call him “master.” A major transformation: a self-identified evangelical minister siding with a radical Catholic who, using the foulest of language, habitually defends the Inquisition and habitually reviles dissenters. Any wonder that in a very short time he was converted?
Yet, regardless of this uncivility, Alexandre Magno and his ANED insist that homeschooling in Brazil has once been “obscure,” but that a former Protestant minister and today a Catholic militant has made it well-known. If this is not a gross overstatement, then what is it? If this is not self-worship, then what is it?
A Google search for “Gustavo Abadie” delivers no more than 3,000 hits. See: http://archive.is/w9whV (In these results, the only more visible homeschooling position for him is his role as a speaker at the “Global Home Education Conference 2016,” which is a prominent event because of its main sponsor, the Home School Legal Defense Association.)
My name, which in Magno’s assessment would be “obscure,” delivers over 200,000 hits.
Abadie’s Twitter account has 114 followers (see: http://archive.is/wQNdz). Mine, which is supposedly “obscure,” has over 10,000 followers (see: https://twitter.com/juliosevero).
It is with this real obscurity that Abadie has been propelled to a prominence over homeschool pioneers in Brazil.
What would inspire Magno to misrepresent the Brazilian reality? A few days ago he said in his Facebook page:
“Once I was accused of being, as a student in the philosophical course of Olavo de Carvalho, influenced by him. I confess it was funny: what kind of philosophy professor would he be if he did not influence (more precisely, teach) his students? Then they called a course where a professor teaches and students learn a cult. In the mind of some, the contrary should be normal…”
My public answer:
Regarding cults, this would be applicable if Olavo had experience and connection with cults. Wait — he has several books on astrology (occultism). He was the person mainly responsible for the propaganda and visibility in Brazil of René Guénon, an Islamic sorcerer. After this heavy involvement with occultism, he chooses philosophy. But can you separate the occultist from the philosopher? I had an experience in 2013, where in a kind and discreet way I criticized the Inquisition AFTER people connected to Olavo began to defend this killing machine, even saying that we evangelicals are modern Cathars (if you remember History, Cathars were decimated by the Inquisition). The answer from Olavo, and his pro-Inquisition followers, was to hurl fire and excrements at me: reviling, slandering, etc. When Olavo published an offensive post against me just because I had a different view, his followers “liked” this on Facebook. I did an experiment then by asking some of the “likers” why they would like an offensive comment: some individuals came to their senses, apologized and said that they were used to “liking” Olavo’s posts just for the sake liking… This is herd mentality, typical of cults. If it were not for Olavo’s occultist past, we would think that all of this is mere coincidence. But past and present are parts of a puzzle, where all the pieces fit together. Speaking of the Inquisition, Dr. Michael Farris, the founder of Home School Legal Defense Association, has a book exposing the evils of the Inquisition. Sincerely, I would like to see Olavo and his irrational herd attacking Dr. Farris. I have published some excerpts from Farris books here: http://lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com/2016/01/bible-ignorance-clergy-corruption-and.html
Years ago, a pro-family leader met Magno, who promptly said that he and all ANED activists were students in Carvalho’s philosophy course, where dissent is not tolerated, but slander and ridicule of differing views is encouraged. 
When questioned on issues such as the Inquisition, which he publicly says is an invention of U.S. Protestants, Carvalho typically ridicules and reviles dissenters, calling them obscene names. Magno has publicly “liked” Carvalho’s Facebook offensive comments against me regarding the Inquisition. (A copy of this Facebook post has been saved for documentation.)
Submissive and non-dissenting attitudes are a hallmark of cults and cultic fanaticism and lead to conversions.
Such conversions can lead the victims to any religiously and politically-correct “paradise” chosen by the proselytizer. If by studying so-called “philosophy courses,” students or disciples can be led to Catholicism, what if the philosophy professor (or “master”) leads them to the Islamic occultist René Guénon and other sorcerers?
I can coexist with Catholics in pro-life and pro-family unions. In fact, I have coexisted with such benevolent Catholics for 30 years, and not one of them were involved in the cause of advocating or excusing the Inquisition. They were — including my good late friend Fr. Paul Marx — involved in pro-life causes. But now, there are foul-mouthed individuals who self-declare as pro-lifers, but defend the Inquisition and revile dissenters. Can a union at the expense of civility portend harmony, especially by excusing the Inquisition, which was hardly a pro-life institution? Can such a union, under the “philosophical” influence of a proselytizer, promote a healthy homeschooling movement?
To obliterate major homeschooling reports (the prominent 2001 Veja report is an example) as “obscure” because they do not fit the agenda of a group is not real homeschooling.
To propel, exalt and propagandize individuals of a group over more experienced people outside this group is not ethical, particularly because the “Global Home Education Conference 2016,” to be held in Brazil March 2016 and largely funded by the Home School Legal Defense Association, should be represented by the best and most original homeschool leaders in Brazil. But this is not happening.
To ignore and treat as “obscure” Rev. Rinaldo Belisario and his homeschool experience (he now has four adult homeschooled children) over a former evangelical minister who has minimal homeschool experience is not correct.
If you can be prominent and come out of “obscurity” only by joining a group where everyone is basically influenced by a proselyting philosophy and you can become a Catholic or esoteric or an esoteric Catholic, then this is not healthy homeschooling. This resembles a cult.
In this sense, I do not know where the Brazilian homeschool movement is headed, and I am worried about its religious trends and esoteric detours. I am also worried about how the “Global Home Education Conference 2016” could empower and propel into prominence Brazilian individuals who, to advance their “philosophical” cult, want to make real pioneering, original homeschooling experiences in Brazil as obscure as possible.
Portuguese version of this article: Homeschooling no Brasil: para onde está indo?
Recommended Reading on Homeschooling:
Recommended Reading on the Inquisition:

Sunday, February 14, 2016

Why Is Zika Outbreak Being Used to Legalize Abortion in Brazil?


Why Is the Zika Outbreak Being Used to Legalize Abortion in Brazil?

By Julio Severo
In recent months, because of the Zika virus, which has had a strange connection with microcephaly in unborn babies of pregnant women in several Brazilian regions, many leftist groups, including the World Health Organization, are calling for the legalization of abortion in Brazil, the world’s most populous Catholic country.
But push for abortion legalization is creating a backlash, particularly among the families of disabled children. Many have taken to social media apps like Facebook and WhatsApp, where more than half of Brazil’s 200 million people are connected, to make their pro-life case. They argue that all babies, including those with microcephaly, have a right to be born.
The Catholic Church and Pentecostal neo-Pentecostal churches, which have a strong influence in this deeply religious country, have also been fighting back efforts to legalize abortion.
“Abortion is not the answer to the Zika virus, we need to value life in whatever situation or condition it may be,” Sergio da Rocha, the president of the National Conference of Brazilian Bishops (NCBB), said last week. Nevertheless its usually leftist line, NCBB is not aligned with the Left, even with the ruling socialist Workers’ Party (which it, through its bishops, helped to found), in the abortion issue.
Abortion is illegal except in cases of rape, danger to the mother’s life or anencephaly, another birth defect involving the brain. But in practice, any unscrupulous ob-gyn office “discreetly” offers abortion to women willing to pay. Wealthy women pay more and poor women pay lesser.
Before the microcephaly issue, leftist groups that support abortion were on the defensive following a bill by the powerful mostly Pentecostal evangelical congressional caucus that would restrict abortion access by adding additional hurdles for women looking for abortion under the false flag of rape. The bill has been approved by a House of Representatives committee.
The first case of Zika was discovered in Brazil in the middle of last year. It’s spread by the Aedes aegypti mosquito, a common household pest that also transmits dengue and chikungunya. Zika is generally much milder, with only one out of five patients developing symptoms such as red eyes, a splotchy rash and fever.
A link between microcephaly and Zika in Brazil has been a mystery, because in Colombia the latest study, made available on February 13, 2016, reveals over 5,000 pregnant Colombian women are infected with the mosquito-borne Zika virus, but there is no record of Zika-linked microcephaly in these cases.
What has been different in the Brazilian case? Some conjecture certain vaccines in pregnant women. Others, genetically modified mosquitoes. And others, chemical products to fight the Dengue virus. In each of these conjectured cases, multimillion interests of powerful companies are at stake. And all of them will be more than happy to blame the mosquito (and prepare a vaccine costing millions from Brazilian taxpayers) or promote abortion, making of the unborn babies — the main victims of the strange epidemic in Brazil — scapegoats of a crisis of questionable origin.
With information from the Associated Press and Reuters.

Monday, February 01, 2016

The Horrors of the Inquisition and Its Modern Advocates


The Horrors of the Inquisition and Its Modern Advocates

By Julio Severo
As perfidious as to commit a crime is to excuse, understate or deny it.
On October 2015 Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho said in his Brazilian Twitter, “A entidade chamada Inquisição é uma invenção ficcional de protestantes.” Translation: “The entity called the Inquisition was a fictional invention of Protestants.” His original statement is here.
Other pro-Inquisition statements by him are exposed here.
If everything Olavo says about the Inquisition is correct, then Protestants are liars, because they have been saying about the horrors of the Inquisition for five centuries.
If everything Olavo says about the Inquisition is correct, then Jews are liars, because they have been saying about the horrors of the Inquisition for more than five centuries.
If everything Olavo says about the Inquisition is correct, then Pope John Paul II is a liar, because he compared the Inquisition to communism and Nazism. In fact, he asked forgiveness for the Inquisition’s crimes.
Speaking to cardinals on the Inquisition in 1994, the pope said that confessing institutional sin would be a prominent part of the Jubilee year 2000. “How can we be silent about so many kinds of violence perpetrated in the name of the faith?” he asked, specifically mentioning “religious wars, courts of the Inquisition, and other violations of the rights of the human person.” He compared them to “the crimes of Hitler’s Nazism and Marxist Stalinism.”
In the pope’s place, Olavo and a few radical Catholics promoting a historical revisionist view of the Inquisition would require Protestants, Jews and Pope John Paul II to ask forgiveness for their “fictional inventions” against the Inquisition.
Communism and Islam, which committed and commit major crimes against humankind, thrive on historical revisionism. How can a Brazilian movement that calls itself conservative have this kind of dishonest existence?
The right path for Catholic conservatism in Brazil is to recognize the Inquisition’s horrors and to confess institutional sin, as Pope John Paul II did. Such an admission would prevent pro-family and pro-life Catholic unity with evangelicals and Orthodoxies from breaking down because of an irrational and deranged adherence to an institution that did everything the devil loves (to kill, steal and destroy) and did nothing the Lord Jesus commanded (to love sinners and preach the Gospel).
The wrong and wicked path is to imitate communists and Islamists and advocate historical revisionism. Such revisionism has nothing to do with authentic conservatism. To excuse or understate the Inquisition’s horrors has nothing to do with real Christianity and it represents an attack on Jews and Protestants. It also represents an attack on a Catholic Church that since Pope John Paul II has distanced itself from the Inquisition and sought a platform to defend life and family, not torture, killings and human rights violations.
How can a Brazilian “conservative” movement that calls itself pro-life stand strong against the horrors of the abortion industry and communism when it denies, excuses or understates the Inquisition’s horrors and makes liars of its Jewish and Protestant victims?
What kind of Brazilian “conservative” movement is this, where a man calling himself its head does nothing more than claim “the Inquisition was a fictional invention” and revile evangelical and catholic conservatives disagreeing with his personal views?
Portuguese version of this article: Os horrores da Inquisição e seus modernos defensores
Recommended Reading: