Tuesday, September 15, 2020

How can evangelical leaders criticize homosexual activism in the Trump administration if they are involved in sex scandals?


How can evangelical leaders criticize homosexual activism in the Trump administration if they are involved in sex scandals?

By Julio Severo
A critical question, while the administration of President Donald Trump is engaged in a global effort to advance homosexuality, is “How can evangelical leaders criticize homosexual activism in the Trump administration if they are involved in sex scandals?”
Trump and Jerry Falwell Jr.
Actually, they have not criticized this effort.
I do not know what is happening to these leaders, because they are very silent. But I know what is happening to one of the major evangelical supporters of Trump: Jerry Falwell Jr.
Falwell has been a prominent supporter of Trump, initially becoming one of the first major evangelical leaders to back Trump in the 2016 Republican primary and continuing to defend him throughout his presidency.
“I was very successful in bringing evangelicals to Trump in 2016,” said Falwell.
After Falwell’s presidential endorsement, Trump said he was “one of the most respected religious leaders in our nation.”
Since Falwell was a prominent supporter of Trump who led multitudes of evangelicals to support Trump, why has he been in silence about moral problems in the Trump administration, especially the global effort to propagandize homosexuality?
The answer is shockingly simple and available on all the media now: Amid a sex scandal, Falwell had to resign from his role as president and chancellor of Liberty University — the noted Christian school his father, a prominent Baptist minister, founded 50 years ago. In fact, Liberty University is the most prominent conservative university in the U.S.
Liberty enforces a rigid moral code for its students. Even though Trump’s personal life, including multiple divorces, is at odds with Liberty’s evangelical morality, Trump gave a speech at Liberty on September 2012. So Trump and Falwell’s relationship happened before the 2016 presidential election.
Based on the moral code of Liberty, Trump should never have been invited to speak at Liberty in 2012. Yet, based in the current sex scandals of Falwell, which have allegedly spanned for several years, there is no inconsistency between Trump’s personal life and Falwell’s personal life.
And there is no inconsistency in Falwell’s silence regarding Trump’s moral scandals. He just cannot speak. I do not know if this is the same problem of other prominent evangelical leaders who support Trump but seem to have no courage to denounce the engagement of his administration in the support of a global gay agenda.
John denounced it because rulers should not be exempt to hear what God thinks about disobedience to his Law. Ruler, kings and presidents are not exempt from God’s Law.
So if Trump is not also exempt from God’s Law, why are evangelicals silent about his moral and sexual wrongs? Falwell could not and cannot address this issue because he is no John Baptist. His life is not free from sex scandals. But are all the evangelical leaders in America also hindered from addressing this issue because they are also involved in sex scandals?
It is not wrong for them to support Trump, who is better than his Democratic contenders, who are socialist and immoral. But these leaders should never forget to copy the good example of John the Baptist.
If John the Baptist could in the past, when kings had the power to kill citizens, rebuke the divorce and adultery of a king, why cannot evangelical leaders today make the same rebuke to presidents who have no power to kill them? If they have no courage today, how would they have courage to rebuke Herod in the past?
Cowardice and silence were never a characteristic of John the Baptist, and should never be a characteristic of modern evangelical leaders, unless they are involved in the same problems as Jerry Falwell Jr.
In 2017, Falwell said about Trump, “I’m very shocked by how accessible he is to so many. He answers his cellphone any time of the day or night.” If Falwell had no sex scandal, he would be free to use this easy access to say what Trump needs to hear.
Trump heard multitudes of conservative evangelical leaders supporting him, and this is good. He received an estimated 80 per cent of the evangelical vote. He was heavily supported by televangelists.
Now he needs to hear much more from the modern John the Baptists. Where are they? Is there some John the Baptist around Trump, or all of them are Jerry Falwells?
If John the Baptist were risen today, he would rebuke Falwells too.
With information from the People magazine.
Recommended Reading:

Monday, September 14, 2020

Understanding Brazil’s New Right and Its Homosexual Grandfather and Its Occult Father


Understanding Brazil’s New Right and Its Homosexual Grandfather and Its Occult Father

A Conservative Evangelical Review of “The New Brazilian Right” of Nick Burns

By Julio Severo
Brazilianist Nick Burns has produced a long essay titled “The New Brazilian Right” in 2019 addressing the forces controlling the administration of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro.
Even though socialist Fernando Haddad, who lost the Brazilian presidential election to Bolsonaro in 2018, blamed his defeat on evangelicals, since Bolsonaro was inaugurated in 2019, his main focus was not evangelicals, as posts in the Ministry of Education, Foreign Affairs and even the Brazilian Embassy in the U.S. were given to an extremist right-wing group.
Burns said,
“Finally, there is an evangelical presence, including a handful of ministers led by a conspicuously uncharismatic preacher named Da­mares Alves, one of two women in the cabinet. Evangelicals, whose ranks have swollen considerably over the past decades in this his­torically Catholic country, now make up some 30 percent of Brazil­ians, and were the one bloc that voted decisively in Bolsonaro’s favor in 2018. There is an influential evangelical caucus in the legisla­ture, but the evangelical figures in the cabinet do not seem to play a high profile in the government’s internal negotiations.”
Although I do not agree with Burns in every point, his essay helps us understand why evangelicals, who were decisive for Bolsonaro’s election, were largely ignored after his inauguration.
Yet, posts, especially posts in high-level government ministries, he gave to the extremist group. For example, before his inauguration, Bolsonaro appointed a member of the extremist group for minister of Education, who failed in a few months, and Bolsonaro appointed another member of this groups. After this member also failed, at last Bolsonaro appointed a Presbyterian, Milton Ribeiro. He has appointed evangelicals only when he has no choice, but usually his first choice was to select a member of the extremist group of the New Right.
Perhaps Bolsonaro has appointed Ribeiro as Minister of Education out of respect for evangelicals, who were his main voters in 2018. But it seems that this respect is not very great. Apparently, he does not want to let evangelicals influence the Ministry of Education a lot.
Just before appointing Ribeiro, Bolsonaro appointed several adherents of Olavo de Carvalho to the National Education Council to ensure that Carvalho’s influence continues in the Brazilian education.
The National Council of Education is an agency in the Ministry of Education that formulates and evaluates the national education policy in Brazil. Thus, the Ministry of Education will be under the direction of a Presbyterian, but the formulation of the national education policy will in practice be under the direction of adherents of Carvalho.
The appointment of adherents of Carvalho in the National Education Council may indicate that Bolsonaro is mesmerized by Carvalho’s esoteric fascism, as all of his appointments of such adherents were a failure. There is no justification to continue such failures.
It is not new that evangelicals, who were considered vital for Bolsonaro’s election, yearned for a position as Minister of Education. Early in 2019, televangelist Silas Malafaia had recommended evangelical Guilherme Schelb to the Ministry of Education, but his recommendation was defeated under the influence of esoteric guru Olavo de Carvalho, who chose his adherent Ricardo Vélez.
A good quality of Velez: he did not like socialism. Two bad qualities about him: He didn’t like Trump, but he liked Hillary Clinton.
When Vélez became a disaster at the Ministry of Education, Bolsonaro himself confessed that he had chosen him blindly. He said:
“I was wrong at the beginning when I appointed Ricardo Vélez as minister. Was it an indication of Olavo de Carvalho? It was, I won’t deny it… Then I called him: ‘Olavo, where did you know Vélez from?’”
Despite Vélez’s failure, Bolsonaro gave a new opportunity to Carvalho, who chose Abraham Weintraub in May 2019. Without delay, Weintraub announced that one of his priorities would be to increase the number of daycare centers. My reaction came in the article “Brazilian Minister of Education Abraham Weintraub and His Right-Wing Socialism or Right-Wing Statism,” in which I said:
“The concept of daycare — to move the child away from the mother as early as possible — is a concept embraced, defended and widely practiced in socialism.”
With Vélez and Weintraub, the tentacles of Olavo de Carvalho’s ideological indoctrination threatened 57 million children and young people in schools in Brazil.
It is assumed that Bolsonaro did not give Carvalho the opportunity to make a third (disastrous) choice because right at the beginning of June 2020, Carvalho called the Bolsonaro administration “sh*t,” saying he can overthrow it.
On January 2020 Bolsonaro fired Roberto Alvim, the Brazilian top culture official, after Alvim quoted Nazi Goebbels while talking about nationalist art in a video as Hitler’s favorite composer played in the background. Alvim is a hard-core adherent of Carvalho.
For the National Art Foundation, Bolsonaro appointed Dante Mantovani, a hard-core adherent of Carvalho. After Mantovani talked about what he should never talk, he was fired. After intense pressure of Carvalho, he was reinstalled, and again fired.
Among stupid statements of Mantovani are:
“People who believe that the Earth is a globe are great at making jokes about the self-evident flatness of the Earth’s surface, but they are absolutely unable to come up with a single argument or proof of Earth’s delusional sphericity. The closest they get to an argument supporting the spinning ball are the computer graphics made by NASA, the Cold War propaganda and disinformation organization, whose authors themselves have come out to say that it’s all fake.”
Olavo de Carvalho, the guru of Mantovani, Alvim and other officials in the Brazilian government, at last recognized that he did a wrong recommendation in the case of the minister of Education. He confessed that he recommended Vélez to Bolsonaro even though he had no contact with Vélez for over 20 years! That was his excuse.
Yet, in the case of Ernesto Araújo, whom he recommended to Bolsonaro as foreign affair minister, he said that he hit the bull’s eyes. Araújo has openly praised Julius Evola, the guru of the Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini. Evola is the author of several right-wing, anti-Marxist and occult books. Yes, he advocated at the same time the right-wing, anti-Marxist ideology and witchcraft.
I am sure that he hit the bull’s eyes, because Araújo has the same occult preferences Carvalho has.
If occultism was bad luck for Evola and Mussolini, how can it represent good luck for Brazil?
The questions are: Why has Bolsonaro largely ignored evangelicals for government posts since his inauguration? Why has he privileged Carvalho and his New Right? Nick Burns’ essay answers the latter question.
Burns contends that Bruno Tolentino is the grandfather of the new Brazilian Right. This Right, which has been given initially most posts in the Bolsonaro administration, is not to be confounded with evangelical conservatism, which effectively elected Bolsonaro.
It is hard to deny Burns’ contention that Tolentino is the grandfather of the new Brazilian Right in the Bolsonaro administration, because Olavo de Carvalho, dubbed Bolsonaro’s Rasputin, has praised Tolentino many times for decades.
In his article “Bruno Tolentino (1940-2007),” Carvalho confessed that he spent many nights with Tolentino, adding that “Bruno Tolentino lost nothing. Brazil lost,” meaning that Tolentino’s death was a loss to Brazil.
According to Burns, Tolentino, who died in 2007, “had been diagnosed with AIDS in 1996.” Burns labels Tolentino as a “bisexual ex-convict.”
“In 1964 Tolentino left for Europe after a military coup unseated President João Goulart,” said Burns. Only left-wingers left Brazil in 1964. In his article Carvalho explains that Tolentino lived almost 30 years in exile in England. Why he chose England, not Cuba, is a mystery that Carvalho did not explain.
Burns describes Tolentino as being “a habitual mythologizer of himself” — a characteristic fully inherited by Carvalho. So the grandfather of the New Right was a mythologizer of himself who created in Carvalho a mythologizer of himself. Like grandfather, like father.
Burns says that Tolentino had a homosexual “affair with a young Englishman, Simon Pringle,” adding that “Tolentino compelled his ‘An­tinous in skinny jeans’ [his homosexual partner Pringle] to assist him in an attempt to smuggle hashish from Morocco to England by boat.” Burns explained how Tolentino and his homosexual partner made their drug smuggling: “Pringle recalls that Tolentino ran the details of the plot by an Irish mystic to discover whether the omens would favor it.”
Tolentino was convicted for drug smuggling in 1987. He was sentenced to eleven years in prison, but he served only thirteen months.
This does not seem the only involvement of Tolentino with the occult, because Burns said, “Tolentino had an oc­cultist streak, too—but he never committed the indignity of publi­cizing it.” He is probably alluding that while Carvalho published several books about his occult practices, Tolentino never published anything about his occult practices.
Burns said that Tolentino’s exile in England was ended by deportation. He said,
“In September 1987, Tolentino was caught at Heathrow with a kilogram of cocaine in his suitcase. He was sentenced to eleven years in prison and served five… before being released and deported to Brazil in 1993.”
For conservatives, the life of the grandfather of the New Right in Brazil was a contradiction. Despite that he was considered “deeply Catholic” and married to a woman, he had had for several years a homosexual partner in England and he believed in astrology and candomblé (a form of African witchcraft similar to Santeria and voodoo) and regularly he consulted with an Irish mystic.
For Brazilians, it is not strange, because Catholicism in Brazil is traditionally syncretic. Eventually, Simon Pringle wrote the book “Das Booty – Bruno Tolentino, candomblé, tráfico e poesia: uma história real” (Das Booty – Bruno Tolentino, candomblé, drug smuggling and poetry: a real history).
Even though Burns showed that Olavo de Carvalho inherited from Tolentino much of his right-wing philosophy, he was unable to expose or understand another major occult influence on Carvalho: The Islamic occultist René Guénon — perhaps because today Carvalho has made an extraordinary effort to hide the fact that he is author of several occult books published in the 1980s.
Burns explains how Carvalho’s interaction with Tolentino was one of the most important factors for getting him established in the Right. He said,
“Carvalho had been a Trotskyite critic of the military regime, during which he dabbled in esotericism and astrology and wrote criticism for the mainstream and alternative press. By the nineties, he had moved to the Right, and fell in with Tolentino’s circle. Under the influence of his friend the poet, who was his houseguest for a time, Carvalho wrote what is regarded as his most sustained intellectual engagement, The Garden of Afflictions.”
Burns showed that, very different from American intellectual conservatives, Carvalho
“has decided… to claim to know it all. Only an autodidact could make such a claim… Although his claim has not resulted in much intellectual success, it has been quite successful politically. One need only look up the YouTube video where Carvalho insists that there is ‘absolutely no evidence’ for or against heliocentrism to see how exactly it has panned out.”
Critics of Carvalho’s “wisdom” are treated with cruelty and violence, Burns said, adding,
“Everyone who disagrees with him is an idiot, illiterate, mentally deficient, microcephalic.”
Carvalho is adamant that the Catholic Inquisition never killed any Jews and Protestants and that it is a myth and lie created by Protestants, especially U.S. Protestants. And when you successfully argue that he is on the wrong and lying blatantly, his “philosophical” counter-argument is to revile anyone challenging his self-granted status of man who knows everything about it.
The Left, whom Carvalho reputes to be his greatest enemy, has bothered or attacked him in no way about the Inquisition. Actually, who has been supremely contesting, and consequently been supremely reviled by his foul mouth, for presenting historical facts about the Inquisition is an evangelical conservative. Me.
Even in the United States, where Carvalho lives in a self-imposed exile since 2005, he is not attacked and blacklisted as I am, in spite of the fact that he has received from a hypnotized Bolsonaro massive propaganda.
Despite that Carvalho also sees himself as a Catholic, his stances on homosexuality are confusing, and Burns has noticed it. Carvalho believes in a “natural” homosexuality not condemned by God. Burns thinks that it is strange that as a Catholic, Carvalho does not express clearly his views on homosexuality, but he seems suspicious about Carvalho’s close relationship with homosexual Tolentino. He said,
“Perhaps ironically, the way Carvalho describes the intellectual affair between him and Tolentino during those sleepless nights in the mid-nineties, while Carvalho wrote The Garden of Afflictions, seems to echo Socrates’s discussion of same-sex love in the Symposium: the ‘begetting of a beautiful thing by means of both the body and the soul.’”
Olavo de Carvalho and Steve Bannon
It is not known whether Bannon and Carvalho’s stances — which are occult stances — on the homosexual issue have affected conservative governments, especially as the Trump administration has advanced the gay agenda, and the Bolsonaro government has also quietly advanced this agenda.
Burns described the union of Carvalho and Tolentino:
“unlikely duo of a former Trotskyite astrologer and a bisexual ex-convict, and the story of how they led a handful of belligerent malcontents with eclectic tastes, murky bio­graphies, few credentials, and no political connections to craft the earliest form of what is now the official ideology of the Brazilian government.”
As an additional evidence that the New Right in the Bolsonaro administration is directly influenced by Carvalho, Burns said that Ernesto Araújo, the Brazilian Foreign Minister chosen by Carvalho, “seems to offer a con­servative defense not just of popular superstition [occult] but also, by proxy, of Carvalho’s penchant for the occult.”
Araújo, an open admirer of Carvalho, is also an open admirer of René Guénon, for years recommended by Carvalho. Araújo is also an open admirer of Julius Evola, an Italian philosopher who with his books advocating occultism and the Right inspired fascism and Nazism.
Burns said,
“One of Araújo’s intellectual low points was to propound the ‘Nazism was left-wing’ canard, which was subsequently taken up in public by Bolsonaro, even during a state visit to Israel. The reaction in the Brazilian and international press was furious.”
Even though for his election Bolsonaro depended on evangelicals, he has been careful to grant power to the New Right, not to conservative evangelicals. Burns said,
“the direct and conspicuous power Car­valho has exerted on the administration, from picking and choosing ministers to using his social media presence to sow discord between the military men and his allies in the government, is surely unprecedented.”
As Tolentino was often praised by Carvalho, it is necessary to understand how the bad habits of the father of the New Right are influencing the Bolsonaro administration. Tolentino was an expert at self-mythologizing. According to an obituary written by literary scholar Chris Miller, Tolentino was a character “stranger than fiction,” and his claims about literary friendships had so many exaggerations that made it very difficult to tell truth from fiction.
Such is the behavior of a self-mythologizing and mythomaniac. How far is this from Carvalho, who was influenced by Tolentino?
If Tolentino is the grandfather of the New Right, can Carvalho be considered the father of the New Right that has colonized the Bolsonaro administration?
“I do not know what the new right is. I want them to screw. It’s a bunch of swindlers,” Carvalho said in an interview with Folha de S. Paulo, a newspaper he loathes as left-wing, but he does not miss a single opportunity to be interviewed by them. To abhor and accept at the same time is an opportunistic attitude.
Does anyone doubt that Carvalho’s adherents are a bunch of swindlers? Carvalho’s answer only confirms what many have already noticed.
“If the Brazilian right accepts as a ‘leader’ anyone that the mainstream media presents to him as such, the future of the left is guaranteed,” said Carvalho, whom the Brazilian mainstream media, including Folha de S. Paulo, presents as the “leader” of the Brazilian right. His tongue backfired.
To attack and at the same time to embrace is a typical behavior of adherents of René Guénon. When U.S. President Donald Trump expelled Steve Bannon, a Guénon adherent, from the White House, he said,
“Steve pretends to be at war with the media, which he calls the opposition party, yet he spent his time at the White House leaking false information to the media to make himself seem far more important than he was. It is the only thing he does well. Steve was rarely in a one-on-one meeting with me and only pretends to have had influence to fool a few people with no access and no clue, whom he helped write phony books.”
Guenonians are opportunists, and Trump saw it very well. Carvalho and Bannon became allies, but Carvalho distanced himself from Bannon as soon as Bannon got involved in scandals.
Even though Carvalho’s adherents allege that he is fighting communism since the 1980s, actually in the 1980s Carvalho travelled to the United States to attend secret meetings of Martin Lings, an adherent of Guénon.
Bannon and Carvalho are modern Julius Evolas: Conveniently populists, right-wingers, Catholics, but occultists. Nick Burns seems to have ignored it.
Where does Tolentino fit in this? He and Carvalho were together all the time when Carvalho was writing his best-sellers — O Jardim das Aflições (The Garden of Afflictions) and O Imbecil Coletivo (The Collective Imbecile) — in the 1990s that eventually inspired the Brazilian New Right. In fact, they were so together that it is not known if Tolentino was the real author or inspired most of Carvalho’s ideas.
So, the suspicious origins of the Brazilian New Right —with Tolentino, Guenon and other occult influences — furnished the ingredients to transform Olavo de Carvalho in a new Julius Evola, a syncretic Catholic who became the messiah of the New Right that passionately advocates the revisionism of the Inquisition. All of this contributed to make Carvalho Bolsonaro’s Rasputin, highly awarded and propagandized by Bolsonaro.
If everything goes wrong in the Bolsonaro administration, Carvalho will be the first to disavow what he calls his own creation. Probably, he will blame evangelicals.
“The right is full of pure mentally sick people,” said Carvalho, feigning to forget that these mentally sick people have a mentally sick, opportunist, occult and deceptive father. This is the Right he created inspired by Tolentino and Guénon.
"That’s why when I am introduced as a ‘conservative philosopher,’ the only answer I can think of is: ‘Conservative is the bitch who gave birth to you, who kept you in her belly for nine months instead of letting you fall into the toilet,’” said Carvalho.
Why Jair Bolsonaro has hindered evangelicals, who elected him, from have a prominent presence in his administration, but has let “mentally sick people” and “a bunch of swindlers” colonize prominently his administration is a mystery that only dark and occult forces know.
Since the only prominent way Bolsonaro has allowed evangelicals to contribute for his administration is praying or appointing them only after massive failures of adherents of Carvalho he had appointed in the first place, evangelicals should use prayer for the good of Brazil.
The legacy of a homosexual grandfather and an occult father in the New Right in the Bolsonaro administration is a massive curse on Brazil.
Conservative evangelicals who prayed for the defeat of the Left and for Bolsonaro’s victory now have a new challenge: To pray against the dark and occult forces of the New Right that have prominently colonized the Bolsonaro administration.
Recommended Reading: