Submitted by: Donald Hank

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.

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

 

NOTE OF DONALD HANK:

I have found that trying to debate with Neocons is useless. That is why I never answered Cliffy's article about me. It was absurd on its face. What is the point arguing with a guy who has so much time on his hands that he can dedicate an article for pñublication to a message to a group of friends that he doesn't agree with? Look, if you can't insert a link to a report, you don't have an excuse to write an article about it. Professionals don't do that. I hadn't even published my opinion, for crying out loud. But a man desperate to get revenge will grasp at straws. And Twinkies.

But I think Julio did a very thorough job of answering this, and once you get through reading his fine piece, you will want to see my article that made Cliffy so mad he decided to risk it all and shoot himself in the foot. (Don't read it now, only when you've read Julio's commentary below. It's here: http://thelibertarianalliance.com/2014/09/24/so-dugin-is-putins-adviser-mr-kincaid/).

Don Hank