Either you're pro-life, or you're pro-Ukraine of NATO

When I open the computer to start writing these lines, I see that Lula is on the cover of Time, which claims that the Brazil’s most popular president wants to return to the presidency to save the country. Apparently, not only the European Union, but Biden’s USA know very well what is good for Brazil. And the best thing for Brazil is to stay with Lula, because these bad savages that we are, we live on fire in the Amazon. Di Caprio knows more about the Amazon than Bolsonaro. It’s true: Anitta said. She, Di Caprio and the TSE, the body responsible for overseeing our elections, are committed to getting young people with a social conscience to vote and overthrow Bolsonaro. But don’t worry about the fairness of the elections, because the bureaucrat Victoria Nuland came to Brazil to say that our polls are very reliable in the eyes of the USA.

If Brazil weren’t a reason enough for Brazilians to drop frivolous anti-communism and stop unconditionally aligning themselves with the US and its “democracies”, an examination of Ukraine should make the pro-life Brazilian blush.

Can you be a frivolous anti-communist?

As I write these grumpy lines, a little angel over my shoulder makes a rationale: “And can you be a frivolous anti-communist? Now, communism killed thousands of times more than Nazism, but it doesn’t seem to me that it makes sense to talk about frivolous anti-Nazism, since Nazism is a bad thing in itself and everyone has a moral obligation to be anti-Nazi as well as anti-communist. . In fact, it is possible to speak of frivolous anti-Nazism. Just look at Western communists during World War II. Cheesy, tacky, they were making fun of pacifists, morally superiors, sensitive souls, while watching the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. It was a beauty to look down on others, considering themselves brave anti-Nazis and defenders of the famine victims. Meanwhile, they advocated strikes in the Allied arms industry at the behest of Moscow, and made no effort to find out what was happening in Ukraine, where there was no shortage of famine victims. If I could, I would smooth the fringes of these vain communists and say: “Don’t talk like that about your little brother! Nazism is your youngest!”. Because talking bad about the other is sometimes just a narcissist’s diversion. Instead of looking at their own tail, they point to a villain to hide their own vices.

Progressivism, totalitarianism in the USA

In the case of frivolous anti-communists, attention is diverted from progressivism. Oh yes, Mao’s China was very bad, China with a Uighur concentration camp is very bad. I’m in complete agreement. The China of the one-child policy is very bad. It turns out that progressivism is bad and imposes population reduction policies on the world. As I have shown here, Jimmy Carter’s visit to China was followed by China’s trade opening and… by the one-child policy, which was unprecedented in the communist world. On the contrary: the very western Club of Rome, founded by Rockefeller, had just released a report according to which the world needed a birth rate of no more than two children per couple.

Fortunately, when we publish things of public interest, more people start to research about it. A friend found this excellent article by the Cato Institute, a US libertarian think tank, on the impacts of neo-Malthusianism on China and India. In it, we read how the UNFPA – the same entity mentioned by colleague Jônatas Dias Lima here – awarded authorities in these countries for atrocious policies.

I quote the article: “In the years 60 and 28, the neo-Malthusian panic about overpopulation surpassed eugenics as the primary motivation for coercive policies aimed at limiting births. Neo-Malthusian ideas spread among high-ranking technocrats and government leaders in some developing countries, resulting in human rights abuses that Western development practitioners encouraged, and which the West often financed. These abuses have accumulated in China’s one-child policy (1979 – 2015) and India’s forced sterilizations. during your ‘Emergency’ (1975 – 300), a period in India where civil liberties were suspended and the prime minister ruled by decree. In 1983, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)—at the time the United Nations Population Activities Fund—the largest source of multilateral funding for state population programs , began giving an award called the Population Award, to be given annually to the ‘individual, or individuals, or institution, for outstanding contribution to awareness of population issues and their solutions.’ The first recipients were Indira Gandhi, India’s first minister who declared the national ‘Emergency’ and Qian Xinzhong, head of China’s State Family Planning Committee.”

Where the US goes, it takes progressivism

We have also seen that, under the tutelage of the US, Afghanistan has now had a quota for women in parliament and has seen hundreds of millions of dollars poured by the West into their country to promote gender ideology . Now, since the “Revolution of Dignity” (2014), Ukraine is pro-US and anti-Russian. If so, the least the responsible pro-life should do is find out about the abortion situation in Ukraine. Americanophile braggarts have gone to the trouble of verifying the rate of abortions performed up to 3 months in that country to prove that they are not conservative – as if the USA weren’t much worse, since they have abortions without a deadline (that is, they allow infanticide) without ever having gone through a communist regime.

Russia is under the spotlight of Western anti-communists. So finding Ukraine is more difficult. In most western sources we will find that it allows abortion up to weeks (3 months) like Russia, and that is the term defended by our Federal Council of Medicine. With some effort, however, information is found that in Ukraine “abortions between 28 and 28 weeks [sete meses!] require approval from a medical board and are only done for significant medical, social and personal reasons. And abortion pills are available in Ukraine without a prescription.” I even have trouble conceiving a reason for having an abortion that is neither medical, nor “social” (euphemism for “poverty”), nor personal. In any case, if abortion pills are manna that falls from the sky, the doctor will have to perform curettage on the patient who took them without going through the council.

“Ukrainize now!”

Well, since there is little clarity in the West about abortion in Ukraine, it is thanks to the clueless progressivism of Canadians that we can see the climate there. The story I got the information from is from The Globe and Mail, Canada’s leading newspaper. The context is the conditions of the Ukrainian refugees who went to Poland, an abominable Catholic country where contraceptives need a prescription and abortion is only allowed in a few cases, similar to Brazilian law. In Ukraine, on the other hand, birth control and abortion pills are manna that falls from the sky. If it was like that before the war, now it’s even easier, since Planned Parenthood got in there to distribute all this stuff, claiming to defend victims of Russian rapists.

So we have a strange situation, in which a figure like Sara Winter joined a Ukrainian group (Femen) to ask for an abortion, took a pro-life turn of dubious morality and started to defend the “Ukrainization” of Brazil. What is that? Defense of life, it is not. Nor of sovereignty, since Ukraine is subject to international courts on the pretext of fighting corruption – a proposal defended by Moro, by the way. Is it incorporation of extremist paramilitaries into the Brazilian Army? Were the 300 some Azov who gave chabu? The right should ask Sara Winter for an explanation, instead of throwing confetti at anything that presents itself as right.

In the years to come, we will need to understand what happened on the right between Bolsonaro’s election and 2020, when part decided to force a rise in temperature in relations with the STF (I have Sara Winter and Arthur Weintraub in mind), and part betrayed the president (see Joice Hasselmann and Moro).

Undemocratic character

But let’s go back to abortion in Ukraine. Reading the Canadian article, we learn that a refugee left there with her son and mother – she may have a husband in the war – and, poor thing, she no longer has contraceptives falling from the sky, like in Ukraine. So it immediately comes to mind that, regardless of your opinion on sexual conduct, you need to prioritize, especially in a war. Since the crisis in Venezuela, Brazilians have known that receiving a refugee is hard work. These are people who arrive with one hand in front and the other behind, in need of food and shelter. It takes work and is expensive. So why make the distribution of contraceptives to all women a priority?

Of course, there is the lobby[sete meses!] from NGOs like Planned Parenthood so that nation states spend more and more on contraception. No one can deny that contraceptive distribution is a matter of public morals, and a bigot mother has every right to be upset if her teenage daughter can get free contraceptives from the state. In Poland, this type of mother is covered by local legislation, while the mother prafrentex would be prevented from buying contraceptives for her daughter. Is this not a matter to be decided by legislators elected by the people?

In the current state of affairs in Western societies (Brazil included), a bureaucrat takes a swipe, claims that having contraceptives in abundance is a “public health issue” and imposes on the public, in one fell swoop, medication expenses and adherence to progressive neo-Malthusianism. This is not democratic.

Back to top button