Friday, December 02, 2016

Conservapedia and the Inquisition


Conservapedia and the Inquisition

By Julio Severo
Conservapedia is an English-language wiki encyclopedia project written from an American conservative, creationist and Christian point of view. The website (www.conservapedia.com) was started in 2006 to counter left-wing bias and moral relativism present in Wikipedia.
The Conservapedia founder and owner is American homeschool teacher and Catholic attorney Andrew Schlafly, son of renowned Catholic conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly.
Schlafly graduated from Harvard Law School in 1991 with a J.D. in the same class with future U.S. president Barack Obama. He was an editor of the Harvard Law Review from 1989 to 1991.
Conservapedia was founded by him to confront leftist lies, but also to dispel misconceptions on major issues, including the Inquisition. It can be very helpful for conservatives in Brazil, the largest Catholic nation in the world. There is a movement among some Brazilian Catholics who originally actively advocated pro-life issues, but now they are actively advocating the revisionism of the Inquisition, even by downplaying the horror of people being burned at the stake. For example, a Brazilian Catholic, who is an immigrant in the U.S., said, “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.”
Conservapedia, whose owner cannot be accused of being “anti-Catholic” or left-wing by radicals, says about the Inquisition:
The term inquisition can refer to either an investigation by the Roman Catholic Church into heresy, or to the department appointed to perform such investigations. This is currently titled the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith since 1965, but was formerly been titled the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, and prior to that the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition. Several major inquisitions took place, under the management of differing departments.
Many of these inquisitions are known to have used brutal torture to extract confessions from accused heretics. While many of these accused heretics would be allowed free after repenting their views and stating their loyalty to the Church, a significant number — consisting almost entirely of those who refused to repent — were executed by a variety of deliberately painful methods including burning at the stake while alive, boiling in oil and the “breaking wheel.”
Execution was never carried out by the church directly for theological reasons, but by secular authorities. This procedure was clarified in the Ad exstirpanda papal bull written by Pope Innocent IV in 1252, which also authorized the use of torture for extracting confessions from the accused and recommended burning at the stake as the appropriate punishment for those found guilty and unrepentant. Ad exstirpanda marked the beginning of one of the most brutal periods of Inquisition.
The best known of the four major inquisitions was the Spanish Inquisition, which ran from 1438 onwards. One of its primary tasks was enforcement of the Alhambra Decree by the monarchs of Spain in 1492, ordering the immediate expulsion of all Jews from the country and its territories.
The Office of the Inquisition would not be established until 1542 by Pope Paul III, with its stated objective “to maintain and defend the integrity of the faith and to examine and proscribe errors and false doctrines.”
Portuguese version of this article: Conservapedia e a Inquisição
Recommended Reading on the Inquisition:

Sunday, November 20, 2016

Shifting U.S. policy to right, Trump chooses a pro-lifer and an anti-Islam, pro-Russian adviser


Shifting U.S. policy to right, Trump chooses a pro-lifer and an anti-Islam, pro-Russian adviser

By Julio Severo
President-elect Donald Trump signaled a sharp rightward shift in U.S. national security policy Friday by choosing Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions as attorney general and retired Lt. Gen Michael Flynn as his national security adviser.
Jeff Sessions and Michael Flynn
A former military intelligence chief, Flynn has accused the Obama administration of being too soft on terrorism and has said that Islam is a “political ideology” and driver of extremism. He sees Russia as a partner against the Islamic terrorism.
Trump’s initial decisions suggest a more aggressive military involvement in strategies against the Islamic terror and a greater emphasis on Islam’s role in stoking extremism.
Under left-wing President Barack Obama, U.S. foreign policy officials, including Hillary Clinton, focused on demonizing Russia by portraying Russia as the biggest threat and on fighting demonization of Islam by portraying Islam as a religion of peace. ISIS has made havoc among Christians and in the Russian borders. Trump has recognized that ISIS was created by Hillary. But Obama has antagonized Russia since Putin passed a law banning homosexual propaganda to children. This law eventually led the Obama administration to launch sanctions against Russia, even though Obama said that the sanctions were motivated by the Russian “invasion” of Crimea, a region traditionally Russian for 1,000 years.
Jeff Sessions is best known for his solid pro-life views. He has a 100% pro-life voting record according to the National Right to Life Committee and has consistently voted for pro-life legislation and in opposition to taxpayer funding of abortions.
Sessions, who will be the first pro-life attorney general since President George W Bush, said, “Our policies in this country as a nation should focus on life, should focus on decency, and focus on love for even the least of these.” He will bring to the Justice Department a consistently conservative voice.
Under pro-abortion Obama, pro-abortion Attorneys General have labeled pro-life advocates terrorists, went after pro-life people who peacefully protest outside abortion clinics, and refused to properly investigate and prosecute the Planned Parenthood abortion business for engaging in the sales of aborted baby body parts.
Of Trump’s new personnel picks, Michael Flynn will have the most direct access to the president. His role as a national security adviser will center on coordinating the policy positions of the secretaries of state, defense, justice and other members of a president’s national security team.
He is known in the military intelligence community as a smart professional and unconventional thinker. He was forced out of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014 because he disagreed with Obama’s approach, which was to focus on Russia, not on the Islamic terrorism.
In Flynn’s book, “The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and its Allies,” he condemned U.S. leaders who have called Islam a religion of peace. “This insistence on denying the existence of jihad led President Obama to the absurd claim that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam,” Flynn wrote.
In August, he called Islam a “cancer,” which is in line with Trump, who said in a CNN interview last March that “Islam hates us.”
In advising Trump’s campaign, Flynn has emphasized that the Islamic State poses an existential threat on a global scale. He shares Trump’s belief that Washington should work more closely with Moscow.
Flynn traveled last year to Moscow, where he joined Russian President Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials. His warmth toward Russia worries left-wing and neocon experts.
Trump’s warmth toward Russia also worries them. During his campaign, Trump was accused by neocons of being a “Russian agent.” The Trevor Loudon blog 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.”
Trump’s choices are definitely shifting U.S. policy to right. But while left-wingers are worried about Trump’s pro-life choices and both Republican and Democratic neocons are worried about Trump making Russia a partner against Islamic terrorism, conservative Christians are worried about his soft treatment of the gay ideology, especially his appointment of homosexualists, including Peter Thiel.
Trump’s two appointments — Sessions and Flynn — are a blow to two powerful industries in the United States: the abortion industry and the main neocon industry, the military-industrial complex. If Trump wants to be successful, he should not let the gay agenda industry untouched.
With information from the Associated Press and LifeNews.
Recommended Reading:

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Homosexualist billionaire Peter Thiel’s influence grows in Washington as Trump names him for his transition team


Homosexualist billionaire Peter Thiel’s influence grows in Washington as Trump names him for his transition team

By Julio Severo
Donald Trump announced Friday the appointment of PayPal founder Peter Thiel as one of 16 leaders of his Presidential Transition Team Executive Committee.
“The mission of our team will be clear: put together the most highly qualified group of successful leaders who will be able to implement our change agenda in Washington,” Trump said in a statement.
Thiel’s appointment for a major government role is a sign of the influence the homosexualist billionaire will have in shaping the new administration. He will also help choose the leaders for the Trump administration
Why did Trump choose a notorious anti-Christian homosexualist? To lead the conservative movement to fall into a trap? In 2011, I was victim of Thiel’s abusive power favoring the homosexual movement. You can watch this Catholic video (https://youtu.be/fSSjmMwQNn4) and this evangelical video (https://youtu.be/oZ8fzSkiB5A) on my case.
Probably, Trump thought only in financial terms. The co-founder of PayPal and board member of Facebook, Thiel had contributed $1.25 million to the Trump campaign.
The week prior to Election Day, Thiel defended his decision to support Trump. Although the president-elect had, by the advice of evangelical leaders, taken positions against the gay agenda over the course of his presidential campaign, Thiel insisted Trump would be “expansive” on LGBT rights.
Thiel has been a successful open homosexualist within the Republican Party. Months ago, he became the first speaker at the Republican National Convention to publicly tell the audience he’s “proud to be gay.” He was able to break a powerful barrier for the homosexual activism within the Republican Party at a time conservatives want the Republican Party to fight the gay agenda.
When he said that he was proud to be a homosexual and a Republican, he got a standing ovation, after adding: “Who cares what bathrooms people use?”
Liberal-minded Republicans could be saying to themselves: “Who cares about billionaire homosexual Thiel affirming his pride on homosexuality among us while he uses his fortune for our political cause?”
Conservative-minded Republicans asked other questions. Peter LaBarbera, founder and director of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (www.AFTAH.org), asked in his Twitter account, “How many open adulterers have addressed a GOP convention? Homosexualism is just a different sexual sin.”
As a conservative evangelical, I also ask questions. Can Thiel, the PayPal founder, restore my account? Can he apologize and declare that he yielded to homosexual activists who were harassing and persecuting me?
In 2011, PayPal closed my account definitively, after a campaign orchestrated by U.S. homosexualist group AllOut. To me, PayPal explained that I am ineligible to receive donations from my friends and readers because “you are not a registered non-profit organization.” To AllOut, PayPal explained that it closed my account because “We take very seriously any cases where a user has incited hatred, violence or intolerance because of a person’s sexual orientation.”
In a listing of the top ten anti-Christian acts in 2011, the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission ranked the gay pressure on PayPal as fourth top anti-Christian act, as reported by Charisma magazine.
Peter Thiel has supported gay rights causes such as the American Foundation for Equal Rights and GOProud. In 2010, he held Homocon 2010 for GOProud. In 2012, he donated $10,000 to Minnesotans United for All Families, in order to fight legislative efforts by conservative Christians who wanted to ban homosexual “marriage” in Minnesota.
Thiel believes in Libertarianism, whose followers traditionally believe in freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
A true libertarian would never have terminated my PayPal account when I was a victim of bullying from AllOut. But Thiel’s anti-Christian act against me and my family (my account was used to receive donations from my friends to support us) is explained by what he wrote in a 2009 essay for the Cato Institute. He said: “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”
The hard way, I understood that he practices what he believes and says.
Thiel, who supports homosexual “marriage,” was one of the original backers of Facebook (a move that made him a billionaire) and is still one of its board members.
He is also a co-founder of Palantir, a company long associated with doing data analysis for U.S. intelligence and surveillance agencies.
He supports the legalization of marijuana, something which Republicans have long opposed.
Thiel’s decision to endorse Trump, even though liberal Democrat John F. Kennedy is his favorite President, shows that he seems as an unpredictable Republican as Trump.
Clearly there is far more to Thiel’s motives. Because he is a capitalist worth nearly $3 billion, he seems to believe that Trump will manage the economy well. His capitalist ambitions seem to be a little above his homosexual militancy.
Yet, definitely his capitalist power has been at the service of his homosexual militancy. PayPal vowed to discontinue the expansion of its services in North Carolina after its governor passed a law to protect women and children against homosexual predators by not allowing biological men to use women’s restrooms and locker rooms.
The presence of homosexual billionaire and bully Peter Thiel as a leader at Trump’s Presidential Transition Team Executive Committee seems to have been calculated to weaken conservative values within a Trump administration.
The Associated Press reported last October that “Donald Trump says he would be a better president for gays than Clinton.” Thiel insisted Trump will be “expansive” on LGBT rights. Is Thiel a part of this “expansive” strategy?
With information from Washington Blade, The Washington Post, Bloomberg, CNN and DailyMail.
Recommended Reading:

Friday, November 11, 2016

Sanhedrin Asks Putin and Trump to Build Third Temple in Jerusalem


Sanhedrin Asks Putin and Trump to Build Third Temple in Jerusalem

By Adam Eliyahu Berkowitz
“Thus saith Hashem to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him, and to loose the loins of kings; to open the doors before him, and that the gates may not be shut.” Isaiah 45:1 (The Israel Bible™)
The Nascent Sanhedrin is calling on Russian President Vladimir Putin and US president-elect Donald Trump to join forces and fulfill their Biblically-mandated roles by rebuilding the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.
Rabbi Hillel Weiss, spokesman for the Sanhedrin, contacted Breaking Israel News to announce that the election of Trump, who has promised to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, coupled with Putin’s expressed desire for the Temple to be rebuilt, prompted the Jewish court to send a letter offering the two the opportunity to act as modern-day Cyrus figures: non-Jewish kings who recognize the importance of Israel and the Temple.
Cyrus the Great, King of Persia in the sixth century BCE, announced in the first year of his reign that he was prompted by God to make a decree that the Temple in Jerusalem should be rebuilt.
“Thus saith Koresh king of Paras: All the kingdoms of the earth hath Hashem, the God of heaven, given me; and He hath charged me to build Him a house in Yerushalayim, which is in Yehuda.” Ezra 1:2
Cyrus sent the Jews under his rule back to Israel with a considerable sum of money with which to rebuild the Temple. The Sanhedrin plans to call on the two world leaders to take up this ancient Biblical decree and support the Jewish people in their holy mission.
Rabbi Weiss explained that the US elections have made the eternal Jewish dream a very real possibility.
“We are poised to rebuild the Temple. The political conditions today, in which the two most important national leaders in the world support the Jewish right to Jerusalem as their spiritual inheritance, is historically unprecedented,” Rabbi Weiss told Breaking Israel News.
The Sanhedrin’s letter notes that Trump’s upset victory was due to his support of Jerusalem, and reminds Trump of his campaign promise to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, effectively recognizing the city as the capital of Israel. The Jerusalem Embassy Act, passed in Congress in 1995, initiated the moving of the embassy, but has been vetoed since then by every American president. The Sanhedrin calls on Trump to withhold the veto after he takes office.
The Sanhedrin also recalled Putin’s connection to the Temple in its letter. During his third official trip to Jerusalem in 2012, Putin paid a late-night visit to the Kotel (Western Wall). When he arrived at the holy site, the Russian leader stood in silence for several minutes, offering up a personal prayer, after which he read Psalms from a Russian-Hebrew prayer book.
An Israeli bystander called out in Russian, “Welcome, President Putin.” Putin approached the man, who explained the importance of the Temple Mount and the Jewish Temple. Chadrei Charedim, an Orthodox Hebrew news site, reported that Putin responded, “That’s exactly the reason I came here – to pray for the Temple to be built again.”
Watch the video of Putin in Jerusalem: https://youtu.be/fKo0AQNZCSc
After this remarkable exchange, the Sanhedrin sent a letter to Putin calling on him to fulfill his prayer. At the time, President Putin did not respond to the Sanhedrin’s request, but now that the incoming US president is a potential ally in the project, the Sanhedrin believes it is time for Putin to take an active role in rebuilding the Temple.
In addition to its requests concerning the Temple, the Sanhedrin is also calling on Putin and Trump to renew the 1920 League of Nations resolution known as the San Remo treaty, which essentially enabled the creation of a Jewish State by dividing the Ottoman Empire. It incorporated the Balfour Declaration, issued by Great Britain in 1917, which gave official recognition and backing for the establishment of Israel.
US President Calvin Coolidge ratified the San Remo agreement in 1925, thus making recognition of a Jewish State legally binding by US law. The Sanhedrin emphasized that it is imperative at this time, when the Palestinian Authority is attempting to rewrite world history by campaigning against the Balfour declaration, to strengthen the historic American commitment to the State of Israel by readopting the agreement.
Rabbi Weiss emphasized that supporting the Jewish claim to Jerusalem would bring benefit Russia and America, as well as the entire world.
“The leaders of Russia and America can lead the nations of the world to global peace through building the Temple, the source of peace,” Rabbi Weiss explained. “This will offset the disgraceful UNESCO resolutions that are the root cause of increasing terror and violence.”
Last month, the United Nations Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization (UNESCO) passed two resolutions denying any  connection between the city of Jerusalem and the Jewish people, ceding to Islam a religious monopoly on many of Judaism’s holiest sites.
Recommended Reading:

Wednesday, November 09, 2016

It Is Official: White Evangelicals Gave Victory to Trump


It Is Official: White Evangelicals Gave Victory to Trump

By Julio Severo
White evangelicals are doing a powerful difference in the United States. Thanks especially to them, Donald Trump is now the president of the United States. Thanks to them and their love of Israel, one of the first measures of Trump was to invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the U.S. for talks.
White evangelicals (including Pentecostals and charismatics) voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump. According to the Washington Post, 81 percent of them chose Trump and just 16 percent chose Hillary.
In contrast, among traditional Protestants (Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, etc.), 59 percent chose Hillary and just 35 chose Trump.
Among Catholics, 52 percent chose Trump and 45 percent chose Hillary.
Among Jews, 71 percent chose Hillary and just 24 percent chose Trump.
So WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was right when he said that evangelicals were the only “establishment” massively supporting Trump. But this support was not easy, because evangelicals were worried about his personal sexual behavior.
Trump’s candidacy led to divisions within different evangelical camps. The prominent evangelical theologian Wayne Grudem endorsed Trump, pulled back his endorsement and then re-endorsed him.
In spite of his personal moral weaknesses (which were not worse than the moral problems of Hillary and her husband Bill), Trump continued to receive support from major evangelical leaders, including Pat Robertson and Tony Perkins.
Even though Trump has always been a nominal Presbyterian, he and his vice-president have been receiving today personal regular advice, prayers and visits from evangelical, charismatic and Pentecostal leaders.
Trump’s support from white evangelicals could be explained by their deep dislike for Hillary’s pro-abortion and pro-sodomy activism.
Black evangelicals — who represent 2 in 5 evangelicals — also dislike Hillary’s activism. But, according to Christianity Today, they largely chose Hillary.
Among Latinos (including Brazilians), about 71 percent chose Hillary.
WND (WorldNetDaily) said that the impact and the growth of liberal-leaning minorities, mostly Latin American, will be felt in the next four decades.
According to WND, 2016 was the last presidential election where whites were a majority. In the next elections, they will be a minority, and the new majorities from other races and their liberal proclivities will prevail.
Massive immigration to America, brought by liberal politics, will have the expected effect against white evangelicals who are preserving and defending Christian conservatism in America.
If God does not intervene, this may be the last opportunity for white evangelicals make an impact for Jesus Christ in the U.S. government. For decades, American conservative evangelical presidents, including George W. Bush, promised to acknowledge Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, but they never fulfilled their promises.
If evangelicals encourage Trump to make this acknowledgement and transfer the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, God will move for these evangelicals, Trump and America.
The anticonservative strategy of the socialist opportunistic Democratic Party is to facilitate the immigration of liberals who will transform the majority of white evangelicals into a weakened minority.
But evangelicals have a strategic God. If this is the last chance for white evangelicals as a majority, they should work hard to use it in the best way possible.
Large families are one of God’s strategies. If evangelicals did not follow the contraceptive mindset, they would have larger families, who would keep their necessary majority and could resist for more decades the massive immigration of liberals.
God and large families are the only hope for conservative evangelicals in America.
With information from Washington Post, WND (WorldNetDaily), Christianity Today and The DailyBeast.
Recommended Reading:

Tuesday, November 08, 2016

Trump Defeats Pro-Abortion Warmongering Hillary and Is the New President of the United States


Trump Defeats Pro-Abortion Warmongering Hillary and Is the New President of the United States

By Julio Severo
Trump has won, not only an election. He has defeated Hillary Clinton, one of the most powerful abortion advocates in the world. He has defeated powerful media outlets and pundits, who clearly wanted him to lose. He has defeated several establishments, especially neocons, who have controlled both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Now he is officially U.S. President Donald Trump.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said that Trump “had every establishment off his side. Trump does not have one establishment, maybe with the exception of the Evangelicals, if you can call them an establishment. Banks, intelligence, arms companies, foreign money, etc. are all united behind Hillary Clinton. And the media as well. Media owners, and the journalists themselves.”
According to Assange, evangelicals were the only “establishment” supporting Trump. I am an evangelical. I am not an American, but what do I expect from Trump, especially from his foreign policy?
Hillary created ISIS, which has been torturing, raping and slaughtering Christians in the Middle East. Besides, she was at war with Christian values, with the pro-life and pro-family movement and with Russia, which is more conservative today.
She would keep dialogue just with pro-abortion, Islamic and homosexual activists. How do I know? Obama always kept this kind of unilateral dialogue and used the U.S. government as a bestial machine to spread and impose abortion and the homosexual agenda around the world. Hillary would certainly do the same.
With Trump, we expect better.
We expect him to stop the U.S. government from being used as a machine to spread and impose abortion and the homosexual agenda around the world.
We expect Trump to be able to fulfil his promises and continue his confrontation with neocons, who have Christian blood on their hands through their warmongering meddling in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine. Neocons should be stopped.
In his campaign, Trump kept close contacts with evangelicals and with the pro-life and pro-family movement. In his presidency, we expect him to increase these channels of communication.
In his campaign, Trump confronted neocons over Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine. In his presidency, we expect him to reinforce this necessary confrontation.
In his campaign, Trump stood against Hillary and neocons demonizing Russia and praising Islam. In his presidency, we expect him to fulfill his promises about partnership with Russia and pass measures banning the flood of Islamic immigration to the U.S. We also expect him to fulfil his promise of giving preference to oppressed Christian refugees, who are the main victims of Islamic violence.
Trump’s idea of partnership with Russia against Islamic terror was the most politically incorrect proposal in the modern U.S. history, because neocons’ and Hillary’s intent was exactly opposite: a partnership with Islamic terror against Russia.
May the evangelical “establishment,” which stood with Trump for his electoral victory, keep standing with him for victories against neocons and their warmongering expansionism that spills Christian blood around the world.
Recommended Reading:

Monday, November 07, 2016

What Is Neoconservatism (Neocon)?


What Is Neoconservatism (Neocon)?

By Julio Severo
Recently, former U.S. President George H. W. Bush and his son, former U.S. President George W. Bush, were reported as indicating that they would vote for the official Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Both Bushes never backed Donald Trump, the official Republican presidential candidate.
Hillary Clinton
How could both Bushes, who are Republicans supposed to advocate pro-life and pro-family values, despise Trump for socialist Hillary, who is pro-abortion and pro-sodomy?
What has a conservative in common with a socialist?
In pro-family terms, nothing. In neocon terms, everything. In 2014 George W. Bush described Bill Clinton as a “brother from another mother” in a gushing interview about their surprising friendship, according to Daily Mail.
He added that his own father “serves as a father figure” to Clinton, who pushed the elder Bush out of office in 1992.
The Daily Mail reported that after becoming president, Clinton frequently sought Bush Sr.’s advice, just as Bush Jr. did with Clinton when he was elected America’s 43rd president.
Did these mutual advices include abortion and homosexuality? After all, before Obama, Clinton was the most prominent pro-abortion and pro-sodomy U.S. president. In contrast, Bush was generally pro-life and pro-family.
Does their friendship involve moral clashes? No, because their union is not based on pro-family interests, but only on neocon interests.
A real conservative Christian would never do vote for socialist Hillary. But a neoconservative (neocon) would do it.
What is a neocon? Neoconservatives are present in both the Democratic and the Republican Parties and their focus and priority is not to conserve pro-life, pro-family and Christian values. They want to conserve and expand the U.S. military and political hegemony around the world. Neocons work with any U.S. president having this focus, whether a right-wing Bush or a left-wing Obama.
U.S. neoconservatism focuses on foreign policy as its main concern, to keep the United States as the only superpower molding the New World Order.
The term “neoconservative” was popularized in the United States in 1973 by socialist leader Michael Harrington, who used the term to define the ideology of Irving Kristol, Daniel Bell and Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Daniel Bell was a Jew who once described himself as a “socialist in economics, a liberal in politics, and a conservative in culture.”
Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a Catholic member of the pro-abortion and pro-sodomy Democratic Party.
Irving Kristol, dubbed the “godfather of neo-conservatism,” was a powerful liberal writer during the 1950s and 1960s. He had grown disenchanted with the Democratic Party by 1970 and switched to the Republican Party, welcoming the name “neoconservative” for the band of liberal intellectuals he brought with him.
Kristol described a neoconservative as a “liberal mugged by reality.” He was immensely persuasive in the shaping of the neocon movement, especially among Catholics.
During the Cold War era, most neoconservatives vigorously opposed the Soviet Union. Even though most neocons stand against communism, their ideology, which gives no priority to the Christian values that founded America, is basically socialist, except for the exacerbate warmongering and expansionist nationalism. Hillary Clinton is an example. She is opposed to North Korea, an officially communist nation. She is supported by most capitalist conglomerates in the world, but she is opposed to pro-family and Christian values. In a sense, she is capitalist. In a sense, she is socialist. But in every sense she is neocon.
In American politics, a neoconservative is someone presented as a conservative but who usually do not participate in the March for Life and do not stand up for traditional marriage. Neocons emphasize putting America first in a very militaristic nationalism. They support attacking and even overthrowing foreign governments, even when the result is more persecution of Christians. Some neocons have profited immensely from the military-industrial complex.
Even though neocons praise the Iraq War, the DailyMail said that this war “was one of the biggest mistakes made in the history of modern America.”
Both George W. Bush and senator Hillary Clinton approved it. From a Christian and humanitarian perspective, this war was a total disaster for Christians.
Before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, there were over 2 million Christians. Today, they number less than 300,000. The U.S. military presence in Iraq did not protect Christians and even after the genocide, the U.S. has massively opened its immigration doors to Muslims, not their Christian victims.
The ten Islamic terrorists who attacked the U.S. on 9/11 were not from Iraq. They were from Saudi Arabia. Even so, the U.S. did not invade and attack Saudi Arabia, which is, in fact, the biggest sponsor of worldwide Islamic terrorism. The U.S. invaded Iraq as if the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqis.
Saddam Hussein was not a good man, but at least he protected Christian minorities much better than the U.S. did after the invasion of Iraq. The U.S. military mission in Iraq was a failure and eventually brought ISIS and chaos and genocide to Christians.
The difference is: Iraq under Hussein was an enemy of Saudi Arabia, which has been always a friend and ally of U.S. neocons, including the Bushes, the Clintons and Obama.
The U.S. invasion of Iraq left a predictable vacuum that resulted in the murder of thousands of Christians there and the rise of ISIS. During the Republican presidential primaries in 2016, Donald Trump humiliated the neocons’ insistence on war in Iraq, Ukraine, Libya and Syria.
The highest priority of the neoconservatives has been to increase military action by the United States in the Middle East and to expand it to a confrontation against Russia. There is a revolving door between some neocons and highly paid positions in the defense industry, which may explain the constant neoconservative demands for more wars.
Neoconservatives favor expensive foreign interventionism with massive federal spending, often to replace a dictator with a new system of government that may be worse, especially for Christians. Sometimes this is expressed as a desire to install a democracy in a culture incompatible with it.
The neoconservative position was discredited in the failure of democracy in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. In all of these nations, which were home to Christian communities and churches, a measure of tolerance was replaced by Islamic radicalism and purge of Christians after U.S. interventions, and today no Christian church is left in Afghanistan.
In contrast to traditional conservatives, neoconservatives favor globalism through U.S. hegemony, downplay Christian values and are unlikely to actively oppose abortion and the homosexual agenda. Neocons do not care about the evangelical foundation of America and they do not care about making alliances with Islamic terror groups to confront Russia. Neocons favor strong active U.S. interventions in world affairs.
On foreign policy, neoconservatives believe the mission of the United States is to install democracy around the world. When fulfilling this mission, both Bushes talked about a New World Order.
A second main line of development of neoconservatism was strongly influenced by the work of German-American political philosopher Leo Strauss. Some of Strauss’ students include former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz under George W. Bush. Wolfowitz, an American-Jewish neocon, had a known affair with Shaha Riza, a Muslim woman who grew up in Saudi Arabia. (It reminds current CIA director John Brennan, who converted to Islam in Saudi Arabia. U.S. neocons want to be close to Islam, but not close to Christian Russia.)
According to Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy in the Reagan administration and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, Wolfowitz created the Wolfowitz doctrine, which is basis for the U.S. foreign policy toward Russia. His doctrine regards any power sufficiently strong to remain independent of Washington’s influence to be “hostile.”
The Wolfowitz doctrine justifies Washington’s dominance of all regions in the world. It is, according to Roberts, consistent with the neoconservative ideology of the U.S. as the “indispensable” and “exceptional” country entitled to world hegemony.
Roberts said that “Russia is in the way of U.S. world hegemony” and that “Unless the Wolfowitz doctrine is abandoned, nuclear war is the likely outcome.”
Yet, the Wolfowitz doctrine can be used not only against Russia. In 2008 American prophet Chuck Pierce told us, a small group of Brazilians in São Paulo, Brazil, that “God had removed his national anointing from the U.S. in 2008.”
“Pierce also said that God was looking for another nation to grant this anointing. He told that if Brazil got closer to Israel, God was going to give the anointing to Brazil. Then he had a vision about what would happen if Brazil began to develop into an international power: He saw the U.S. government encircling and stifling Brazil economically and militarily. He saw the U.S. filled with envy. He saw the U.S. totally determined to hinder Brazil’s economic rise. What I understood from his vision is that the U.S., as the only superpower today, will not accept the rise of any other nation to rival its hegemony. The development of every nation is to be under the submission of U.S. interests, and these are wicked interests, because the U.S. government has abandoned the Lord long ago. The U.S. sees the economic rise of other nations as competing with its power.“
Perceiving or not, Pierce described neocons, who demand all the nations to be dependent on the U.S.
Neoconservatives are often described as “conservative,” but their positions on social issues are mixed. There are two main groups of neocons:
·         There are neoconservatives who hold to liberal positions on social matters, and are unlikely to agree with Christian conservatives on issues like abortion, prayer in school and same-sex marriage.
·         There are neoconservatives who tend to have greater degrees of agreement with Christian and cultural conservatives on social issues.
Neoconservatives differ from libertarians in that neoconservatives tend to support Big Government policies to further their military objectives.
Because Trump has openly opposed neocons and their ambition for more U.S. military expansion, Commentary, the leading neoconservative magazine in the U.S., said, somewhat hyperbolically, that Mr. Trump is “the No. 1 threat to American security” — bigger than the Islamic State.
The big lesson in this U.S. election is the way neocons were exposed by Trump, notwithstanding his imperfections. Because of this confrontation, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said that Trump “has had every establishment off his side. Trump does not have one establishment, maybe with the exception of the Evangelicals, if you can call them an establishment. Banks, intelligence, arms companies, foreign money, etc. are all united behind Hillary Clinton. And the media as well. Media owners, and the journalists themselves.”
If evangelicals are the only major group supporting Trump, where is the second largest Christian group in America, Catholics? Why are not they supporting Trump? Why most U.S. Catholics prefer neocon Hillary?
A simple Google search shows that Catholics are predominantly mentioned as predominantly involved in neocon politics and geopolitics.
A search for “Catholic neoconservatives” delivers 3,100 results.
A search for “evangelical neoconservatives” delivers just 43 results.
A search for “Protestant neoconservatives” delivers just 4 results.
Evangelicals and Protestants, in this search, account for about 1 percent of Christian neocons. Religiously, Catholics are in the frontlines in the neoconservative movement.
It is not known why Catholics would sacrifice Christian and pro-life and pro-family values for a foreign policy of U.S. ideological interventionism and expansionism that slaughter other Christians. For example, in the Iraq War thousands and thousands of Christians were sacrificed in the aftermath of the U.S. invasion, approved by right-wing Bush. Later, left-wing Obama expanded the sacrifice when his left-wing State Secretary Hillary Clinton helped create ISIS, which has been torturing, raping and slaughtering Christians masses in Iraq and Syria.
The U.S. foreign policy, carried by neocons in the Republican Party and Democratic Party, has been very bad for Christians in the Middle East.
Most Christians slaughtered in Syria and Iraq are Orthodox Christians. Because powerful U.S. neocons are Catholics, some could wonder if they would approve such invasion, meddling and massacres in Syria and Iraq if Christians there were exclusively Catholic.
Actually, the U.S. has been soft with Islamic terror against Middle East Christians in the same way the Vatican has been soft.
A conflict between Christian powers, motivated by a millennial hostility between Catholics and Orthodoxies, but masked as insincere concerns about the communism of the defunct Soviet Union, is everything Islam needs to advance more and keep its yearly martyrdom of 100,000 Christians.
The same Vatican that is soft with Islam is now more aligned, in terms of global governance, with the U.S. government. There are scholarly works confirming that the Vatican is very connected to the U.S. In fact, the survival of the State-Church Vatican has been dependent on the U.S.
The big question is: How did a nation born essentially Protestant and pro-Israel and pro-Jews unite itself with a State-Church historically against Israel and Jews?
“Rome in America: Transnational Catholic Ideology from the Risorgimento to Fascism,” by Peter R. D’Agostino, shows that in the past, the essential association was between the Vatican and Italy. Now it is increasingly between the Vatican and the U.S. In effect, the U.S. has become the Vatican’s new Italy.
Another fundamental book is “Parallel Empires: The Vatican and the United States — Two Centuries of Alliance and Conflict,” by Massimo Franco, which says:
“The Vatican view [under Pope John Paul II] is that the American response to [Islamic] terrorism, the battlefront of the third millennium, is too strident and more likely to exacerbate the problem than to solve it. While Islamic fundamentalism is the main threat to the West, Vatican officials press their arguments that historically Islam and Christian communities have generally managed to coexist in the Arab world.”
This explains the soft U.S. stance on Islamic terror. But what does explain a hard U.S. stance on Orthodox Russia?
For centuries, Catholics advocated an Italian nationalism (and an overwhelming majority of popes were Italian) because the Vatican was linked to Italy. Today, Catholics, even in Brazil, the largest Catholic nation in the world, advocate an exacerbated American warmongering nationalism. Why? For the same old reason: The Vatican today is linked to the United States in many respects and ambitions.
There was a time, before the foundation of the Soviet Union, when Catholics, even U.S. Catholics, wanted the supremacy of the Vatican. Now do Catholics heavily involved in the neocon movement want the U.S. supremacy, not in pro-family advocacy, but exclusively in military and political hegemony? Why?
Most the U.S. suspicions of the current Russia come from Catholic neocons. Catholics have for one thousand years had suspicions of the Christian Orthodox Church. And today the largest Orthodox Christian nation in the world is Russia. Before the birth of the Soviet Union, they had suspicions of Russia — for religious reasons. During the Soviet Union, they had suspicions, rightly shared by evangelicals, over Soviet Marxism. But after the Soviet Union’s downfall, why do their suspicions remain?
They had many suspicions of the largely Protestant and capitalist U.S. society, but they overcame this prejudice. Why not in regard to an Christian Orthodox Church that is fighting for the same pro-family values as a Reagan’s America would do?
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has for the first time in the U.S. history confronted neocons in the Democratic Party and Republican Party. He is not a conservative in the Christian sense of having a history of pro-family advocacy, but he has not the neocon advocacy of Hillary Clinton, shared by George H. W. Bush and many other Republicans, to conserve and expand the U.S. military and political hegemony, especially through NATO, at the expense of Christians values and even Christian lives.
While both Republican and Democratic neocons want greater U.S. military interventions in Syria, Iraq and Ukraine, which are not U.S. territories and do not have a U.S. population, Trump wants the U.S. to stop this meddling, including NATO meddling.
Trump wants a partnership with Russia against Islamic terror, but neocons — including Obama, Hillary and both Bushes — want a partnership with Islam against Russia.
Even though personally Trump has a personal moral life as doubtful as Bill Clinton, he is right and very courageous to confront neocons and their ambitions.
God can use strange things and men to speak to people and nations. I believe that He used Trump to speak the truth in the neocon issue. Much Christian blood has been shed by neocons, through wars and Islamic violence.
How has Trump confronted neocons? He blasted them over the Iraq War and the U.S. meddling in Syria and Ukraine and demonization of Russia.
According to DailyMail, Trump has “criticized Clinton’s handling of U.S.-Russian relations while Secretary of State and said her harsh criticism of Putin raised questions about ‘how she is going to go back and negotiate with this man who she has made to be so evil’ if she wins the presidency.”
Demonization of Putin and Russia is the core of the neocon passions.
The Ukrainian case is a showcase of neocon ambitions. While Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and George Soros were calling the Ukrainian revolution a people’s revolution, in a WND report Savage said,
“The situation in Ukraine has been painted as a conflict between Vladimir Putin’s Russia, the so-called bad guys, and Ukrainian rebels, the so-called good guys who seek to oust Russia from a position of influence in Ukraine and install a new government that will be responsive to the Ukrainian people. Don’t believe a word of it. The Ukrainian nationalists are fascists. Washington’s original purpose for staging a coup in Ukraine was to move Ukraine away from Russia and bring Ukraine into the European Union. In other words, the neocons and the bought-and-paid-for ‘moderates’ in the Obama administration wanted to wrest control of Ukraine from Putin’s hands and gain economic and energy control over the country. As Dr. Stephen F. Cohen has pointed out, Western nations, with the U.S. leading the way, have been provoking Putin for decades. We’ve expanded NATO to include former Soviet states – Ukraine looks like the next target – and we’ve attacked allies of Russia, including Libya and Iraq. The U.S. – along with other Western nations – through our incursions into the politics, economics and national security of Russia and several of its allies, has effectively caused the situation that is now unfolding in Ukraine. Cohen is right.”
Savage points that Obama and his neocons, not conservatives, created a revolution in Ukraine to draw it away from Russia and put it, eventually, into NATO’s orbit.
While Trump has praised Russia and his advisers were supporting pro-Russian forces in Ukraine, neocons have openly praised the Ukrainian revolution as the best democratic example against dictatorship. The Ukrainian revolution was the biggest Soros revolution, massively funded by him.
Obama and his neocons want Ukraine in NATO and are willing to go to war over it. In contrast, Trump has shown, so far, no willingness to follow neocon passions for war in Ukraine against Russia.
Last September, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko invited Trump for a meeting, but, according to DailyMail, “the Ukrainian government says the Republican candidate blew them off.”
Yet, Hillary Clinton met Poroshenko and promised him that she would stand with Ukraine against “Russian aggression.”
While Obama, Hillary and neocons want Ukraine in NATO’s orbit and they are using the Ukrainian situation to strengthen NATO, Trump has again been in conflict with their interests.
The best explanation about neocons’ intent was given by Savage, who said in WND:
“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.”
Savage is right. And Trump agrees with him, because Trump has been reading his books and had a very positive interview with Savage. But neocon-minded individuals do not agree. The Trevor Loudon blog 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.”
Trump’s approach to seek to get along with Russia and meet Putin is correct, but despised by neocons.
Ronald Reagan tried Trump’s approach in the past, when Russia was the Soviet Union and was officially atheistic and communist. In that time, America under Reagan officially valued the Bible and Christian values. Today, the U.S. government officially despises these values, while Russia has officially left atheism and has embraced its Orthodox Christian Church.
It impossible for socialists Hillary and Obama to get along with modern Russia, especially after Russians passed a law banning homosexual propaganda to children.
Yet, if it was possible for evangelical Reagan to seek to get along with Soviet atheistic leaders, why should not Trump be commended for seeking to get along with a non-atheistic Russia?
Neocons and their love of Islamic partnership against Russia and hatred of Russia are the biggest challenge. In this respect, Trump’s confrontation with neocons is to be commended and imitated.
The heavy Catholic involvement with the neocon movement should be studied.
Even though former U.S. President George H. W. Bush was a neocon, his son, former U.S. President George W. Bush, was a good evangelical misled by neocons, who filled his administration. Reagan also was misled by them. As said Scott Lively, Bush was just their puppet. Many evangelicals have been duped by the neocons’ warmongering nationalism.
Incredible thing. Trump, a Presbyterian, has no history of confrontation with neocons and no history of Christian activism. It is not known if his current confrontation is sincere or not. But it is obvious that he showed who neocons are and what they are after.
Perceiving or not, he was used by God to warn evangelicals and other Christians.
With information from Conservapedia, WND (WorldNetDaily) and DailyMail.
Portuguese version of this article: O que é neoconservadorismo (neocon)?
Recommended Reading: