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.”
“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.
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.
Recommended Reading:
Posts
