Left-Wing and Right-Wing Collusion against Trump’s Original Plan of Partnership with Russia against Islamic Terror

By Julio Severo

Every time the subject Trump and Russia emerges, U.S. socialists, more known as “Democrats,” talk about Russian “collusion,” as if a mere attempt of partnership with Russia were treason.

America has had much more than collusion with Saudi Arabia and China, which are not Christian, but the real threat in the American mind is… Russia, which today is much more conservative and an advocate of its main religion, the Christian Orthodox Church. The largest conservative conference in the world in 2014 happened at the Kremlin, Moscow. This conference attacked abortion, the homosexual agenda and Marxism.

In fact, Russia has especially been under attack since 2013, when Russian President Vladimir Putin passed a law banning homosexual propaganda to children and adolescents. U.S. President Barack Obama and the U.S. mainstream media mocked Russia, which has paid a very high cost for protecting its children from homosexual predators. The most important U.S. homosexual magazine labeled Putin and his conservative stances as the main global threat to the homosexual agenda.

In contrast, Rev. Franklin Graham, the son of the late evangelist Billy Graham, praised Putin’s conservative stances in a 2014 cover story titled “Putin’s Olympic Controversy” in Decision, the magazine published by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.

Because of the past, where an anti-Christian atheistic Soviet Union was as threatening as China and Saudi Arabia, U.S. neocons keep the bogeyman alive, because they need to justify their insatiable expenditures in the massive U.S. military industrial complex. The Soviet Union died, but for all intents and purposes, it is necessary to keep it alive in the American mind.

So left-wing Obama and right-wing Bush were opposed to Russia. Both used NATO to keep Russia surrounded and suffocated. Obama imposed his socialist sanctions on Russia and Trump has kept them.

If Trump tries to lift Obama’s sanctions, the powerful left-wingers and right-wingers in America will charge him of “cozying up to Putin,” “collusion with the Kremlin,” etc.

Right-wingers say that all the accusations of “cozying up to Putin” are socialist-oriented.

So because of the condition of the American mind, trained for decades to see Russia as the biggest bogeyman, both sides use the bogeyman to scare the American public and scare U.S. presidents from a healthy partnership with Russia.

If the U.S. can have an economic partnership with China, the largest communist nation in the world, why not with Russia? For all intents, China is today the “Soviet Union” as far as communist threat is concerned. It is officially atheistic. It is anti-Christian.

If the U.S. can have a military and economic partnership with Saudi Arabia, the capital of Islam and the main sponsor of Islamic terror around the world, including ISIS, why not with Russia, the largest Christian Orthodox nation in the world?

Why does the U.S. establishment use a bogeyman against Christian Russia, but not against Islamic Saudi Arabia and communist China?

Any attempt by Trump of a partnership with Russia has been faced, since 2016, with numerous lies and accusations of “Russian collusion,” as if he wanted to enslave America to a Soviet Union — while actually America is already enslaved to Chinese communists and Saudi Muslims.

There is a real collusion. It is neocon-oriented. It involves U.S. left-wingers and right-wingers. And their aim is not China and Saudi Arabia. It is Russia.

In 2016, the Trevor Loudon website, known for his anti-Russian stridency, said,

“If Trump is elected, you will have the Russians… in the White House. Trump’s advisers are very connected to Vladimir Putin and Russia. Trump himself has many ties as well and is friends with Putin. This is why Putin will try to sabotage Clinton with leaked emails, etc.”

With Loudon’s occultist history, his presence in the White House would be more threatening than many other threats.

If you thought that “Trump Cozying Up to Putin” was an original left-wing accusation against Trump, nope. It came also from Cliff Kincaid, a Catholic who sees widespread Russian conspiracies in every crisis and problem in this world and outside it. In 2016, he wrote a number of articles against what he saw as a Trump-Putin “romance.”

In his article “Generals Warn of Russian Aggression As Trump Cozies Up To Putin,” Kincaid said,

Trump recently gave a foreign policy address that completely ignored Russian aggression in Ukraine, leading to a warm reception in Moscow for the Republican candidate.

The curious omission by Trump is one of several actions or statements he has made on Russian affairs that led Jonathan Chait to write an article for New York magazine entitled, “Why Is Donald Trump a Patsy for Vladimir Putin?” Attempting to explain Trump’s statements of support for Russian President Putin, he cited evidence of “Russia’s campaign to cultivate influence in the West by corrupting members of the American media and political Establishment.”

Even more significant is the verdict delivered by New York magazine’s Chait regarding Trump himself. He says that while Trump’s style and bombastic statements on foreign policy and other areas are considered controversial by some, the much bigger scandal may be that “Trump is Vladimir Putin’s stooge.” The story carried the implication that Trump is acting like an agent of influence for Putin’s Russia.

Trump, however, continues to preach cooperation with Russia.

Both Kincaid and Loudon, who consider themselves right-wingers, saw some kind of “Russian collusion” in Trump in 2016.

For neocons, the biggest problem in the universe is not Saudi Arabia and its supreme Islamic terror that slaughters Christians around the world. It is not China, the current Soviet Union.

It is the Russian bogeyman!

No one wants to be near the bogeyman. And neocons — including Loudon and Kincaid — are making sure that no American may have the peace of mind to be near the bogeyman.

“Trump Cozying Up to Putin” is a charge that shows that U.S. left-wingers and U.S. right-wingers are colluded in their disposition to serve neocon ambitions.

What if Trump took Putin to his ranch to extend a hand of friendship? Would Democrats and Republicans accuse him of treason?

Ronald Reagan did just so. He took Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader, to his ranch, to feel his family life and his warm reception. If Reagan could do it for the leader of an evil empire of atheism and communism, why cannot Trump do much more for the leader of the largest Christian Orthodox nation in the world?

No one accused Reagan of collusion with the Soviet Union. But now there are widespread accusations, from neocons, of Trump’s collusion with Putin, and Trump does not have even taken Putin to his ranch!

But neocons see no collusion of America with Islamic Saudi Arabia and communist China. And they do not let U.S. left-wingers and right-wingers see it too.

By consistently harassing and bullying through baseless accusations of “Russian collusion,” the neocon-oriented left-wing and right-wing collusion was able to scare Trump from a necessary partnership of America, the largest Protestant nation in the world, with Russia, the largest Christian Orthodox nation in the world, against Islamic terror.

Essentially, Trump’s speech in 2016 was against neocons and supportive of a partnership with Russia, a stance opposed by both Bush and Obama. A stance opposed by all neocon-oriented left-wingers and right-wingers.

Today, for neocons’ joy, Trump has learnt how to behave like Bush and Obama on foreign policy issues. The bogeyman has returned!

American neocons cannot live, and they cannot let Americans live, without the Russian bogeyman.

It is impossible for Trump to fulfill his promise of draining the swamp and having a necessary partnership between Christian America and Christian Russia against the Islamic threat while the swamp’s neocon crocodiles call the shots.

Portuguese version of this article: Conluio esquerdista e direitista contra o plano original de Trump de parceria com a Rússia contra o terrorismo islâmico

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

What Is Neoconservatism? Who are the Neocons?

An Open Letter to President Donald Trump

Trump and Prophecies, and a New Model of National and World Leader

Why the American Left Hates Russia

Fall of anti-neocon advisers hinders Trump from pursuing his promised focus of partnership with Russia against Islamic terror; new neocon advisers urge the old, traditional focus against Russia

Is Trump a KGB Agent?

Ronald Reagan: A Christian Example against Communism

Is Trump a KGB Agent?

By Julio Severo

Cliff Kincaid, a Catholic who sees widespread Russian conspiracies in every crisis and problem in this world and outside it, has written a number of articles against what he sees as a Trump-Putin “romance.” He consistently denounces Putin and now he denounces the Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump too.

Last year, Kincaid published an article suggesting that evangelical author Don Hank was receiving Russian money to support Putin. His Brazilian friend Olavo de Carvalho fully agreed, and published the Kincaid piece in Portuguese at his Brazilian website Mídia Sem Mascara, and I ventured to publish my answer here: Neocons, the Inquisition, Russophobia and Lies.

Perhaps, according to their reasoning, Hank could be a KGB agent. They could also charge that Hank is a “Trump agent” or that he receives money from Trump, because Hank is an enthusiastic Trump supporter.

In this point, I disagree with Hank. Even though I support Trump’s views on Russia and NATO, and I strongly back his stance that Muslim immigrants should be banned, I am not comfortable with his “conservative” and “pro-life” history and flip-flops.

Kincaid has had a consistent view on Putin and Trump (Putin is pure evil and anyone supporting him is wicked too). But what is his Brazilian friend, who was interviewed by him some time ago, doing backing Trump? Carvalho, who equally sees widespread Russian conspiracies in every crisis and problem and fully supported an attack on pro-Putin and pro-Trump Hank, has publicly endorsed pro-Putin Trump.

If this is not hypocrisy, what is it?

Kincaid in America and Carvalho in Brazil have made it the hallmark of their work to charge Russia with every possible evil and charge that its supporters as equally wicked. Are Angela Merkel and Pope Francis opening the European doors for an Islamic invasion? Kincaid and Carvalho have a very simple answer: A Russian conspiracy, especially the KGB, is behind it!

What is the point or honesty in Carvalho supporting Trump? If his reasoning were sincere, why not back Don Hank for president too?

Kincaid and Carvalho both have a problem with pro-Putin Hank and pro-Putin Pat Buchanan. But why has Carvalho no problem with pro-Putin Trump?

Buchanan supports Trump, and he has many reasons to do so, because traditionally Buchanan opposes the neocon establishment and Trump has taken a stance against it. Similarly, Hank is opposed to the neocon establishment.

Carvalho has many reasons to charge Trump with being a “KGB agent.” If to defend Putin is enough reason to make such charge (and he and his Brazilian website have made abundant use of such charges against pro-Russia conservative writers), why spare only Trump?

By the way, Carvalho is opposed to Buchanan, who has the same stance on Russia and NATO as Trump does. But while Buchanan has a solid conservative history (traditionalist Catholic, pro-life, former Republican presidential candidate, former Reagan adviser, WND columnist), Carvalho has a nebulous esoteric history, in particular, following the “conservatism” of the Traditionalist or Perennial Philosophy of René Guénon, an Islamic sorcerer who used to predict political trends and events. The first translation into Portuguese of a Guénon book was made by Carvalho.

The reason Carvalho has to support Trump seems to be his potty mouth. If you think Trump uses foul language, you did not see Carvalho blogging in Portuguese. He makes abundant and constant public use of such language, always in Portuguese and never in English. Possibly, he hopes that a Trump victory will give him more freedom to use in the American conservative culture the same leftist dirty and offensive language he uses day by day, hour by hour, to communicate to his Brazilian audience, especially through Facebook.

He excuses his foul mouth as a “strategy” because, according to him, Vladimir Lenin used it successfully to spread Soviet Marxism, and he hopes to achieve the same success by employing the same dirty tricks and language to spread his “conservatism.” In fact, foul-mouthed “conservatism” is his hallmark in Brazil. But his “strategy,” allegedly a weapon against socialists, is also used to attack Brazilian conservatives that he feels threaten his views. When I, a conservative evangelical, disagreed with him about the Catholic Inquisition, which he says did not torture Jews and Protestants for the “crime” of different views, his potty mouth did not spare me any public abuse, insult and revilement.

Any individual disagreeing with his foul mouth and views (including about an alleged anesthetic Inquisition) is seen and treated by him as a mortal enemy.

Even though he charges that the Inquisition is an invention of U.S. Protestants, he lives in the U.S. He left Brazil, the largest Catholic nation in the world, over 10 years ago.

Will a Trump victory reveal to America the real foul-mouthed Carvalho that he is in Portuguese? I do not know.

Perhaps he is supporting Trump because he foresaw a Trump victory. Before choosing to present himself as a conservative philosopher who predicts political trends and events, he was a famous astrologer (and founder and director of the first Brazilian school of astrologers) who predicted political trends and events. So it is very common for his foul-mouthed followers to say today that “Master Olavo predicted this and that political trend and event.”

But does this excuse the fact that he is not charging Trump with being a “KGB agent”?

I do not know if Cliff Kincaid is a foul-mouthed Catholic. I only know that he is consistent about his opposition to Putin, Russia and pro-Putin Trump. It is because of his consistency that he could never support Don Hank for president. But I do not know where is Carvalho’s consistency when he condemns pro-Putin and pro-Trump Buchanan and Hank and at the same time endorses pro-Putin Trump.

I do not know if neocons are potty-mouthed, but certainly they are potty-minded, and obsessively anti-Russia.

Carvalho’s two hallmarks both align him and alienate him from Trump. His strident anti-Russian views alienate him from Trump. His strident foul mouth aligns him with Trump.

If a leftist dirty and offensive language were not so important for him, he would certainly be charging Trump with being a “KGB agent.”

Portuguese version of this article: Trump é um agente da KGB?

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading about Olavo de Carvalho:

Homeschooling in Brazil: Where Is it Headed?

The Horrors of the Inquisition and Its Modern Advocates

Bible Ignorance, Clergy Corruption and the Inquisition in England before the Reformation

Neocons, the Inquisition, Russophobia and Lies

Why Call Names? An Answer to Olavo de Carvalho

Can a Pro-Life Activist Defend The Inquisition?

Recommended Reading about Donald Trump:

The Neocons vs. Donald Trump

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

Why I Support Cruz over Trump, But Why Trump Would Be Better on Foreign Policy

OLAVO DE CARVALHO AND THE INQUISITION

Catholic Church Paid Millions in Dollars to Facilitate Immigrant Invasion in U.S.

By Julio Severo

The biggest beneficiaries of the immigrant invasion in the U.S. have been Islam — and the Catholic Church, according to a Catholic writer. If he is right about the major involvement of the Catholic Church in the immigrant invasion in the U.S., his report could be an important clue for his fellow Catholics to understand the Islamic invasion in Europe.

Though the Islamic gain is obvious, especially in demographic and religious expansion in Europe and America, the Catholic gain, which has been not so evident, has been mainly financial.

The source of this information is Cliff Kincaid, an American Catholic who usually sees Russian conspiracy and culpability in every problem in the universe, but who has been incredibly able to spot this massive problem in his own church.

Kincaid said, “According to their financial statement for 2014, the latest year for which figures are available, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops received over $79 million in government grants to provide benefits to refugees.”

He adds that the U.S. government gave more than $1.5 billion to Catholic organizations over the past two years. These figures include an increase from just over $440 million (2008) to more than $554 million (2010) just to one Catholic organization: Catholic Charities USA.

According to Kincaid, only the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops receives over $70 million a year of taxpayer dollars to resettle thousands of immigrants, including a large number of Muslims, in unsuspecting U.S. towns and cities. Catholic Charities throughout the U.S. get many millions more to do this same kind of work as well.

Has the Catholic Church in the U.S. become a mere arm of the U.S. Welfare State?

During his visit to the U.S., Pope Francis praised the Obama administration’s pro-immigration policies. And in response to the recent wave of Muslims fleeing the Middle East, Francis has appealed to Europe’s Catholics, calling on every parish, religious community, monastery and sanctuary to take in one refugee family. Certainly, this appeal will benefit Islamic invaders. But how much money, in partnerships with European governments, will the Catholic Church receive it in all of this?

About America, Kincaid said, “The Catholic Church in America would clearly prefer to bring immigrants into the U.S. from Latin America, where Catholicism is still strong, and have them join Catholic churches in the U.S. The Catholic Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate reports that 40 percent of all growth in registered parishioners in Catholic parishes between 2005 and 2010 was from Hispanic or Latino Catholics. But even with the massive immigration from Latin America, Catholic churches around the U.S. are still being closed down. A group called Future Church reports that hundreds of parishes have been merged or closed in New York City, Philadelphia, Boston, Cleveland and many other urban and rural places. ‘Recently,’ the group reported, ‘the Archdiocese of New York merged or closed more than 70 parishes.’”

“James Simpson’s book, The Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America, notes that the Catholic Church has been a major component of the open borders movement,” said Kincaid. It is obvious that more immigrants in the U.S. means millions more from tax money to the Catholic Church.

Ann Corcoran’s Refugee Resettlement Watch website notes that Holy Trinity Roman Catholic Church in Syracuse, New York, was closed down by the Catholic Church and has been leased to an Islamic society which renamed it Mosque Of Jesus The Son Of Mary.

It’s the Catholic Church’s role, in collaboration with the federal government, in bringing thousands of “refugees” to the U.S. that caused Corcoran to leave the Catholic Church. She said, “In 2002, having been raised in a protestant faith, I became a Catholic. For a few years I loved being a Catholic.” All of that changed beginning in 2007 when she learned that the Catholic Church, largely being funded and directed by the U.S. State Department, was resettling mostly Muslim “refugees” in the U.S.

How could I have difficulty to believe the Kincaid report on the Catholic Church facilitating Islamic immigration? In 2002, I attended a hearing on abortion in the Brazilian Congress, where a prominent pro-abortion House member of the Workers’ Party said that his political career had begun in the ecclesial communities of the Catholic Church. These communities, which were obsessed about Liberation Theology, were facilitating and even instigating Marxist revolutions in Brazil.

In 2008, when I attended a pro-life conference at the headquarters of the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil, a Catholic pro-life leader said to me:  “Workers’ Party was born here.” Workers’ Party is the ruling socialist party in Brazil. So the Catholic Church in Brazil greatly facilitated the Marxist disaster in Brazil. My only doubt is if the Catholic Church in Brazil received government money for this facilitation.

I thought that the Catholic Church in America was in better shape. And Kincaid had also thought that the situation in Brazil, which is the largest Catholic nation in the world, was better than in the U.S., because he had written a report earlier this year suggesting that there was an “anti-Marxist revolution” in Brazil. No, there was not. But such revolution is extremely necessary at the Brazilian Catholic Church, especially its National Conference of Bishops of Brazil, founded by Marxist Cardinal Helder Camara, who is in process of sainthood.

Kincaid misunderstood the Brazilian scenario, but he apparently is right about the Catholic situation in America.

After I read the Kincaid report, I concluded that the Catholic Church does not seem to care about the fact that the thousands of mostly Muslim “refugees” from Syria, the Middle East and North Africa who have been invading Europe and U.S. are going to change the religious and cultural landscape of the U.S. and Europe. But she seems to care much about the millions of taxpayer dollars being funneled through her “charities” to “help” Muslim immigrants.

Ironically, while the Catholic bishops are bringing Muslim immigrants to the U.S., Catholic churches are being closed down and often becoming mosques. Arabic is now fastest-growing language in U.S.

The situation is even worse in Europe, where more Christian churches are being closed down and becoming mosques. Islam is replacing Christianity as the dominant religion in Europe.

According to Kincaid, reporters have been reluctant to investigate the millions of federal dollars going to the Catholic Church in America. What is the source of this reluctance or fear?

Charity is a beautiful Christian virtue. But to receive millions from the government to bring thousands of Muslim immigrants is not charity. It is suicide.

Miraculously, Kincaid did not say that the Kremlin or Putin induced the Catholic Church to receive money from the U.S. government.

While all of us thought the Catholic Church did charity with money from her own pockets, it is indeed millions, millions and millions of government money.

But real Christian charity has nothing to do with government dependency or partnership.

Besides, the supreme mission of Christians is not to receive government money or bring thousands of Muslim immigrants to Christian nations. Their mission is to take Christ to Muslims and other people. It is to send Christian missionaries to Muslim nations.

But where government money is involved, Christian purpose and mission are corrupted and debased.

I wonder how many Protestant groups are equally receiving tax money to facilitate Islamic immigration. This perverted charity is normal among liberal Protestants.

At least in the Catholic Church in America, it seems that her problems, especially love of government money, began long before Pope Francis and other popes.

If it is distressing to see Europe and America being islamized by thousands of Muslim immigrants, it is more pathetic to see the Catholic Church being paid to facilitate it.

With information from Accuracy in Media. 

Portuguese version of this article: Igreja Católica recebe milhões de dólares para facilitar invasão de imigrantes nos EUA

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Obama’s Immigration Amnesty: Joy for Some and Sadness for Many

America, Conservative Christians and Third World Expectations

Articles about Cliff Kincaid:

Neocons, the Inquisition, Russophobia and Lies

Were Brazilian Protests an Anti-Marxist Counter-Revolution?

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.

Read also “Olavo de Carvalho” in Conservapedia.

Portuguese version of this article: Neocons, a Inquisição, russofobia e mentiras

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Cliff Kincaid: Were Brazilian Protests an Anti-Marxist Counter-Revolution?

Interview with Don Hank: Interpreting What is Happening in the U.S., Europe and Russia today

OLAVO DE CARVALHO AND THE INQUISITION