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

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

By Julio Severo

As an American conservative evangelical who speaks and reads Russian and several European and Asian languages, Don Hank is uniquely able to explain the major challenges and dangers to the U.S., Europe and Russia.

In this interview, he will help international and especially Brazilian readers to understand what is happening to these cultures that have Christian traditions.

Don has a special concern for Christians being persecuted, raped and slaughtered as a result of misguided and malevolent geopolitical policies from the Western powers. He has written a number of articles in support of these persecuted Christians.

He has had a special connection to two of his Brazilian friends. When PayPal, under pressure of a campaign of a major gay group in the U.S., shut down my account, Don denounced this abuse in an article that was headlined at WND, titled “PayPal blacklists Christian writer.”

Another Brazilian helped by Don was philosopher Olavo de Carvalho. The first time any writing of Carvalho’s appeared in WND was through Don’s translation.

In fact, I got to know Don Hank through Carvalho. Both were very special and supportive in my times of persecution from homosexual activists.

The epic war involving massive homosexual and Islamic forces has hit the U.S., Europe and Russia in an extraordinary way. So, I have invited Don to speak to us about what he knows, because he is very familiar with these three cultures.

JULIO SEVERO: In view of the fact that the greatest threat to the world and specially Christians is Islam, why are the U.S. and Russia, both Christian nations, fighting each other, instead fighting Islam?

DON HANK: The answer to that goes so far outside our comfort zone and our normalcy bias barrier that many Westerners will refuse to believe it. But here it is for those who are willing to consider my interpretation:

The US is not Christian in the same sense as Russia. In the US, the Left has waged a war on Christianity that has left US Christians debilitated and unable to resist. A salient example is the way in which our people, including many Christians, have been subjugated to the politically correct doctrine that the Biblical ban on homosexual behavior is outdated and ‘homophobic.’ This politically correct doctrine is almost impossible to resist because the average American either accepts it or is afraid to resist it, and many others are disposed to insult or belittle anyone who expresses the opposite viewpoint. There is also an official trend to enact and enforce laws that punish Christians or others who oppose the concept of ‘gay marriage.’ Many churches accept this un-Biblical doctrine and some have pastors who are openly ‘gay.’ In Russia, there are no legal or social restraints against accepting or expressing the biblical and common-sense viewpoint that homosexuality is abnormal. Almost all Russian churches accept the Biblical view of homosexuality.

So in summary, both the government and the people of Russia are closer in their views to Christianity as it is taught in the Bible. Christianity in pure form is not an ideology. I define ideology essentially as that which falls outside common sense, and the Russians, thank God, still allow themselves to be guided by common sense. By the way, Putin, in a recent interview, said he does not have an ideology. He describes himself as a conservative and a pragmatist but insisted that these are not ideologies. In other words, in plain language, Russia is, ironically, a Christian country in truth while America is a Christian country in name. Or more precisely, the US is quickly becoming a non-Christian country guided by an ideology that can roughly be called Westernism, or Western liberalism. This ideology has many facets, such as a virulent form of secularism that is actually anti-Christian while pretending to be neutral; Russophobia (a kind of racism, similar to Hitler’s anti-Semitism, teaching, for example, that Russia is morally inferior to the West, a teaching that draws its support from the residual Cold War sentiments of many Americans who obtain most of their information from the mass media); the doctrine of American exceptionalism, which gives the US military the privilege to invade any country that opposes the US, and the now-meaningless concepts of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy,’ which in real terms, mean just the opposite of what they suggest; and a New World Order concept of a world divided into several easily controllable regions, one of which would be Muslim and would be dominated by sharia law. (This regionalism would create hierarchies which the Western oligarchies that created it hope to control. They give little consideration to the unexpected consequences of such a system, which could be disastrous for them. This regionalist facet of US policy is the most dangerous by far and we are just now starting to see the threat that it poses to all Western peoples because of the Middle East situation. It is hard to believe, but, while the Western oligarchs possess formidable military capability, they are ideologically impotent to oppose Islam.

For these reasons, Russia naturally supports Christians, such as Serbs and Syrian Christians, whereas US policies could ultimately cause the death and destruction of these Christians if no counterforce can come into play. The US oligarchs (as distinct from the American people) are ideologically incapable of allying themselves with Russia against Islam. In fact, I once wrote an article entitled Washington DC, the Seat of the Caliphate, which explains why this is so.

JULIO SEVERO: Don, you said, “The US is not Christian in the same sense as Russia” and “Russia is, ironically, a Christian country in truth while America is a Christian country in name.” I agree with you that the Russian Orthodox Church, which knows how to preserve its traditions, is doing better than the U.S. mainline denominations as the Presbyterian Church, the Lutheran Church and other traditional Protestant churches. The basic mission of a traditional church is to preserve its Christian traditions. And Christianity has no tradition of supporting the killing of unborn babies and other innocents and likewise no tradition of supporting gay “marriage” and other facets of the gay agenda. Why does a high number of traditional Protestant churches in America accept these aberrations and the Orthodox Church in Russia does not? In this sense, traditional Christianity in Russia is doing better than traditional Christianity in America. But I am from the charismatic/Pentecostal variety, and in my view many Americans in this variety are doing much better, as far as I know, than Russians. For example, Russia has no David Wilkerson or Jack Deere. In fact, the most important American attending a recent pro-life event in Moscow is a member of the Assemblies of God. Let us ask other question:

William Murray has said that Saudi Arabia is the greatest financier of global Islamic terrorism. Besides, Saudi Arabia actively murders homosexuals, bans Christianity and persecutes and tortures Christians. Why doesn’t the U.S., which is the most important ally of Saudi Arabia and an active promoter of global gay rights, ever condemns them over their execution of homosexuals, but has condemned Russia over a mere law banning homosexual propaganda to minors?

DON HANK: The US is now in the hands of a small group of oligarchs who are anti-Christian. For them Russia’s law banning homosexual propaganda is not a “mere” law, it is a declaration of war on Westernism, which, though an ideology, is actually becoming a religion in the eyes of these power-hungry oligarchs, who viscerally hate anyone who opposes them… not unlike all fascists. Homosexuality is one of the pillars of this religion, one of its sacred tenets. The irony of US policies is, as you point out, Julio, that they support two mutually exclusive teachings: the homosexual agenda and Islam. For them, this is not a problem because the end justifies the means. The secret that only a few observers have articulated is that both Islam and the homosexual agenda are anti-Christian. Incredibly, then, Westernism has embraced these two teachings only for the purpose of destroying Christianity. Russia, of course, opposes both, and for that reason, Russia today is the only world power that is capable of defending Christians and Christianity.

JULIO SEVERO: Why is the U.S. so soft on Saudi Arabia, which murders homosexuals, and so hard on Russia that does not murder them?

DON HANK: Well, if the US government were really concerned about homosexuals, it would not promote Islamization as it does. Likewise, if it really were concerned about supporting Islam, it would not promote the homosexual agenda. The only explanation left for this inconsistent behavior — the default explanation — is that the US is interested primarily in destroying Christian culture, and for that reason it supports the idea of a caliphate. Saudi Arabia supports the founding of a caliphate, which is part of the New World Order concept of a world divided into regions that are easily controllable by Western oligarchs. Again, the oligarchs see Russia as lawless because it does not obey the West, and especially the US, which the oligarchs see as a law unto itself. It does not obey either God’s laws or man’s laws. It writes its own laws for its own convenience. Ironically, Russia has pointed out that it acts in accordance with international law while the US makes a mockery of international law. This is evident in a Russian televised interview with Foreign Minister Lavrov, which I have translated.

JULIO SEVERO: There is no doubt that the gay agenda and the Islamic agenda are ideologies of tyranny. How do the U.S. and Russia react domestically to these threats?

DON HANK: An expert on Russian policy, who was a retired professional analyst in the Russian government, once said in a private email to a group in which I was included, that Putin, shortly after his election, dealt with the Chechen Muslim insurgents by sending one of his generals to Chechnya with an overwhelming military force. The general told the imam of each town that they must surrender. He said if they surrendered peacefully, they would be spared. If they did not, the town would be destroyed. He kept his promise. Putin is severely criticized by the West for this policy, just as Assad is criticized for being tough on terrorists. Yet by the inaction of Western leaders, we are witnessing daily violence in the Middle East and even a growing jihadism in the West. We need to understand that inaction is more devastating in the long run than dealing harshly with murderers.

As for the homosexual agenda, Putin’s government has managed to enact and enforce laws that prohibit gay propaganda. Russia has jailed a group of women, Pussy Riot, who illegally entered and desecrated a church. The reason for Putin’s success is that, despite Western accusations that he is a tyrant, his government is much more democratic than the US government in the sense that the Russian people do not want to have pro-homosexual policies and propaganda foisted on them, and his policies respect the people’s will. In contrast, the US oligarchs in government and in NGOs, must overcome the will of the people in order to foist gay “marriage on us”. Everything is backward. The once-leftist Russia is now the most socially and economically conservative world power, while the once-conservative USA is now very radical and leftwing.

JULIO SEVERO: How did the U.S. come to have a president who is simultaneously pro-Islam and pro-sodomy?

DON HANK: In my opinion, Julio, Obama is not really as much pro-Islam or pro-sodomy as he is pro-Western liberalism, which is essentially the same as neoconservatism. He is only using Islam and the homosexual agenda to impose the West’s will on the rest of the world. And he is not acting alone. He is simply running along with the central Westernist secular ideology.

JULIO SEVERO: Ronald Reagan successfully created the Mexico City Policy, which banned, in his time, the U.S. government from funding abortion overseas. But he was unsuccessful in defeating Roe vs. Wade. Similarly, the current more conservative Russian government has successfully championed the fight against abortion in the U.N. system, but domestically it has only restricted it and banned its propaganda. What do you think about these conservative parallels?

DON HANK: I think Putin is a conservative in his heart, but like Reagan, he is a pragmatist who knows the limits of his power. Putin is already making major changes in the abortion rate and, unlike Reagan, he has both a moral reason and an economic reason for opposing abortion. The birth rate is too low to be sustainable. If any country ever bans abortion, I think it will be Russia.

JULIO SEVERO: On a larger scale, old Christian churches in Europe have been transformed in mosques. On a smaller scale, the same is happening in America. In contrast, Russia is rebuilding Christian churches and banning the construction of mosques in Moscow. Is the European and American case an example of “democracy” or suicide? Are Russians trying to stop the massive Islamic “invasion” that is transforming the European and American cultural and religious landscape?

DON HANK: Europe and America are both capitulating gradually to Islam and there is little evidence that the leaders of these regions will stop until they have been completely Islamized. The only signs of an awakening to the dangers are the rapidly growing political parties in the UK, Holland and France, which are making great strides in educating the public of the Muslim threat. The US has not had enough first-hand experience with Islam to oppose it forcefully, and of course, the Obama administration actually has Muslims in high places in government. It is widely believed that John Brennan, the head of the CIA, is a Muslim. That is a very ominous sign. So the answer to your question as to whether we are democracy or suicide, I would have to say we are headed for suicide, ironically, as a result of our obsession with democracy, though with the caveat that our “democracy” is not representative of the people’s will. A recent joint study between Northwestern and Princeton Universities showed unequivocally that the US is more of an oligarchy than a democracy.

As for Russia, while the central government has been careful to avoid confrontation with Islam, local areas and cities have, as you mentioned, taken serious measures to halt the advance of Islam, including banning mosque construction in several cities and in Moscow, refusing to issue a permit for a demonstration against ‘Islamophobia.’

JULIO SEVERO: Many people talk about Russia without understanding its language, culture and traditions. Is this your case? What do you know about Russia?

DON HANK: I hold a Master’s degree in Russian language and literature and have studied at the University of Leningrad (now Petersburg). I read Russian language articles as often as I can. It is almost impossible to understand what is really happening in Russia without looking at the Russian viewpoint. My Russophobe friends insist that almost everything that the Russians say is mere propaganda. However, it must be pointed out that Russia is no longer a monolithic government. I believe you, Julio, pointed out in a recent commentary that Moscow Times has an anti-government viewpoint. Therefore, no one can truthfully say that all news from Russia is propaganda.

There is also one very important reason why I see Russia differently from many other Americans, including conservative Christians. I have had considerable exposure to Russian literature and recognize in Putin’s words and actions the distinct influence of Russian Christian thought. Christian authors that I have read in Russian include Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy, whose Christian thoughts are expressed and illustrated in Putin’s words and deeds. Likewise, Putin has had friendly relations with Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a man whose writings reflected religious thought at a time when such was strictly forbidden by the communists (but without necessarily declaring himself to be a Christian). It is very difficult for Westerners with little or no exposure to Russian literature to correctly evaluate Vladimir Putin.

JULIO SEVERO: American ultranationalists as Cliff Kincaid believe that Putin is being influenced by an ideology called “Eurasianism,” which was set forth by the philosopher Alexander Dugin. In fact, he said that Dugin is an adviser to Putin. What is your opinion on this?

DON HANK: Julio, russophobia is now a cottage industry in America and the hacks who work in it are paid to give speeches and write books that essentially keep the cold war warm. None of the ones I know of, including Kincaid, have an extensive knowledge of Russian culture, literature or language and they do not read the Russian language press. It is impossible to be an authority on Russia without this background.

I know that many people here in the Western world have been told by anti-Russia critics that Alexander Dugin is a “mentor” of Putin. That is not true. Dugin is a very clever man who wants power for himself and has made desperate attempts to ingratiate himself with Putin. Dugin never really understood Putin. After Dugin made that crazy speech in a televised interview urging people to “kill, kill, kill” (the Ukrainians), many Russians demanded that Dugin be fired from his post as professor. Indeed, he was fired, and significantly, Putin did not object to this. Indeed, Putin has said repeatedly in interviews that the Russians and Ukrainians are brothers. He wants conciliation and he wants Russians to respect other peoples. Dugin was stupid to say what he did. Dugin later foolishly blamed Putin for not coming to his aid. Obviously, this man is an egotist who has no influence on Putin whatsoever, and I doubt he ever did.  Putin was recently interviewed by Russian media and was asked what his ideology was. Putin said he had no ideology at all and that he was a conservative and a pragmatist. This was a strong signal to the public that he was not in any way tied to Dugin and would not be swayed by his ideology.

JULIO SEVERO: Thanks, Don. If Russia followed the U.S. free speech model, Dugin would never be fired, because thousands of American professors proclaim nonsense and even murders (especially of unborn babies) and go unfired. In fact, the fad today in the U.S. is to fire only professors who speak out against abortion and homosexuality. So it is very interesting that in the Russian model, Dugin was fired. Now, another question:

A few days ago, the Kremlin hosted an international forum on large families and the future of humanity. Originally, the World Congress on Families was scheduled to hold its big pro-family event at the Kremlin. But leftist and homosexual groups successfully pressed the U.S. government to ban Christian and conservative groups from attending it. So the World Congress on Families had to comply under this massive negative pressure. What is the power today of U.S. gay and leftist groups to stop the freedom of Christian and conservative groups? Why haven’t other great U.S. conservative groups denounced it? On the contrary, gay activists in the U.S. trashed the Moscow event. The U.S. leftist group PFAW (People for the American Way), which attacked me some weeks ago, also trashed the event. In fact, American ultranationalists as Cliff Kincaid trashed it too. Even the secular Russian newspaper The Moscow Times, following the secular U.S. media, trashed the event, using basically the same words of Kincaid, saying that the Russian speakers were “corrupt” and accusing the American and the international participants of being “neo-cons.” This was the first time in my life I was accused of being a neocon. How do you interpret this strange “alliance” against the pro-family event in Moscow?

DON HANK: First of all, Julio, I want to heartily congratulate you for being able to attend that conference. I believe that God was with you in opening up the hearts of your readers to donate so generously to enable you to make this trip. It is incredible that the government of a “Christian” nation could allow itself to be pressured to ban your entering the Kremlin. What a wonderful and historically educational visit that would have been! I can’t tell you exactly why conservative groups have not complained about this absurd ban, but I do have a theory. Ever since web sites started publishing my articles about Putin and Russia, I have been receiving some emails from groups that I call “professional Russophobes,” activists who support the neocon view of Russia and are paid for speaking engagements and for writing books that denigrate Russia. This is little more than prostitution of their talents. Russophobia is racism, just like anti-Semitism. Both imply a fear and/or hatred of an ethnic group, which they consider morally, intellectually or otherwise inferior, while considering themselves superior. Jesus warned against this self-righteousness in his parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector praying in the Temple. Unfortunately, many Western Christians are also Russophobes, and this is a sign of spiritual blindness — the same kind of spiritual blindness that prevents Christians from effectively defending their faith against Islamization and the encroachment of the homosexual agenda. Only a spiritually blind person could possibly fail to see how Russia today is defending Christianity against both Islam and the homosexual agenda.

The Moscow Times is anti-Putin. The accusation of you being a neocon is beyond absurd. These people have no idea what a neocon is. Today's neocons are anti-Russian. There is a very strong anti-Putin movement in Russia and it consists mostly of what they call Westerners, who want to align themselves with the West. This dichotomy between Slavophiles and Westernizers goes back to the 1800s in Russia. The difference between these movements can best be understood by reading Turgenev's novella Nest of Noblefolk (it is available as a movie online. I highly recommend it to movie buffs who like classics). It is hard to believe, but the Westernizers are still active today and want a Russia that is closer in ideology to Europe and the US.

JULIO SEVERO: Some American pro-family leaders were very courageous and attended the Moscow conservative meeting. Now the Human Rights Campaign, the most important U.S. gay group, wants the State Department to investigate them. Is there a Gaystapo (a gay oppressive surveillance machine with state assistance) in America? Why don’t homosexual activists in Russia have the same “freedom” and apparatus to be a Gaystapo against Christians?

DON HANK: Julio, I like your word “Gaystapo” because it perfectly describes many gay activists and the state apparatus that protects them while persecuting Christians who dare to call homosexual behavior sin. I once regularly attended a church where the pastor taught the biblical view of homosexuality. There was a rebellious boy from a local seminary who occasionally attended with this pastor’s son. Once as the pastor was preaching about homosexuality, this boy jumped up from his seat and ran out the door, followed by the pastor’s son. It was a bizarre display but I suspected what was behind it.

A few weeks later, after this pastor had again preached the biblical view of homosexuality, the pastor’s home was torched and burned to the ground. Police investigators found that the fire was the result of arson, but no one was able to locate the perpetrators. Suffice to say that gay activists who portray themselves as victims are anything but victims.

JULIO SEVERO: Scott Lively, who is the greatest Christian authority today on the gay agenda, has said that possibly the Obama administration may have used the Ukrainian crisis to attack the Russian stance against the gay agenda. Before this crisis, all the U.S. media were consistently and increasingly attacking Russia over its law banning homosexual propaganda to children. In contrast, in the March cover story of Decision magazine, Franklin Graham praised the Russian government for this law and for stances more favorable to Christians. Do you believe that the Obama administration and neocons, who provoked the Ukrainian crisis, used it to draw away the attention from the Russian conservative measures?

DON HANK: Westernism, or Western liberalism, is a religion. From what I have observed, its followers are true believers, absolute fanatics who will stop at nothing to assert their goals. Julio, I therefore believe that you are right and that the Ukrainian crisis was indeed used for this purpose, but also to enforce the Wolfowitz doctrine, which demands that Russia must be contained and isolated from the former Soviet republics. This isolation is absolutely unfair in itself, but the association agreement between the Ukraine and the EU is a direct provocation of Russia. This agreement makes it illegal for Ukraine to trade bilaterally with Russia without the permission of the EU, and according to the Russians, this ban will cost Russia billions of dollars in lost trade. The EU (European Union) is a failed pseudo-state that is bringing nothing but misery to its members. Most of the northern members in Europe no longer wish to be part of the EU, but their leaders have betrayed them by denying them a referendum that would enable them to be sovereign again. I believe that the EU will eventually fall, and with it, so will the US. Both of these entities are nothing but dictatorships and have lost all legitimacy. It makes me sad to say this because I am an American. But it looks as if the America I was born in is not the America that I will die in. If it were not for my faith in God, I don’t know if I could stand the pain of seeing my country fall so far from grace. But my allegiance is to God Almighty and to Jesus Christ His Son, not to any country. Ronald Reagan once said: “I did not abandon the Democrat Party. It abandoned me.” Likewise I say that I did not abandon my country. It abandoned me.

JULIO SEVERO: Who are the neoconservatives, or neocons? Are they helpful or not to the Christian conservative movement? What is the power of neocons?

DON HANK: The term neocon describes in reality a group of powerful politicians and their enablers who simply pretend to be conservative but are left leaning promoters of a New World Order, or one world socialist government that, if it comes into being, will be a platform for the US oligarchs and their allies in banking and geopolitics to rule the world according to the doctrine of Western liberalism. Obviously, these people are not at all helpful to Christians. While they pretend to support fairness, democracy and “freedom,” one of their main goals is the destruction of Western civilization. They want to eliminate the borders around the US just as the EU has eliminated the borders around its member countries, which, as a result, are now bursting at the seams with hostile Muslims who threaten them with jihad. It is a desperate situation that, according to my European friends, will one day surely lead to civil war.

The power of the neocons in geopolitics is almost unlimited, or rather it is limited almost exclusively by Russia in the international sphere and by a few brave conservatives in the national sphere. People like you, Julio, who are not afraid to tell the truth and expose them.

The reason they are so powerful is that their policies and their ideology pervade both major political parties in the US and also extend to NATO and the EU. Essentially, the neocons first emerged within the Republican Party but their ideas in foreign policy have extended to the Democrat Party as well. A perfect example of this is Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. Nuland’s husband is historian Robert Kagan, Council on Foreign Relations member, and co-founder of the think-tank “Project for the New American Century” (PNAC). The CFR is a carrier of the idea that borders must be eliminated in order to pave the way for a one world government. The fact that Kagan was an advisor to both Republicans and Democrats clearly illustrates how neocons cross party lines. This is why it seems meaningless for many people to vote for a candidate of either party, since both parties accept neocon policies that invariably lead to the destruction of Christians communities.

JULIO SEVERO: How have America, Europe and Russia, with their Christian traditions, capitulated to the Islamic and homosexual ideologies?

DON HANK: The elites of Europe and America have abandoned Christianity. Christian traditions mean nothing to them. Russia is the only world power that embraces Christianity (and this is not just a political trick. It fully reflects Russian Christian thought as expressed in the 19th Century literature. The EU and the USA are failing. The economies of these two entities are no longer sustainable in the long run, since they operate on the basis of debt, not on any sound business or banking principles. They are both in their late stage of existence, a stage where the only strategy left for them is to issue currency. But issuing currency to pay debts is like adding water to the soup when new guests arrive. Once too many guests have arrived, the soup no longer is soup. It is just water with a few vegetables floating around in it. Zimbabwe and the Weimar Republic of Germany, for example, failed as a result of this policy.

To make matters worse for the US in particular, the Russians and their BRICS partners, including Brazil, are starting to de-dollarize international commercial transactions, basing them on rubles or yuan, for example. Once this strategy has advanced to a certain level, the dollar will have lost so much of its value that it will be almost worthless.

JULIO SEVERO: How could America, Europe and Russia, with their Christian traditions, work together to defeat the Islamic and homosexual ideology?

DON HANK: At some point, because of the failed policies, the US will depend on Russia and China almost completely, and at that point, the neocons will lose their power. Russians can then demand that the US and even the EU help them fight Islamization and, if they choose to do so, accept the Russian policies regarding homosexuality.

But none of this can happen without God’s intervention. We must all just wait and see….and pray.

Julio, thank you very much for this opportunity. I wish you and your readers all the best and I pray that God will continue to richly bless you all.

Portuguese version of this interview: Entrevista com Don Hank: Interpretando o que está acontecendo com os EUA, Europa e Rússia hoje

Source: Last Days Watchman

Article by Don Hank:

Whom do you trust: God or man?

OLAVO DE CARVALHO AND THE INQUISITION