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?
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?
Source: Last Days Watchman
Recommended Reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment