The genocide in Gaza shows that many liberal prejudices must be dismantled, Bruna Frascolla writes.
Join us on Telegram
, Twitter
, and VK
.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
The genocide in Gaza has led the pro-NATO conservative Right to take its incoherence to unprecedented levels: in its eternal eagerness to denounce the “hypocrisy of the Left,” the typical right-winger points out that the Arab world in general is not gay-friendly, while Israel has gay pride and feminism. Well, if you claim to be conservative and anti-woke, what’s the point in unconditionally supporting the only country with a gay pride and feminism in the region?
Extrapolating this reasoning, we can also point out that the pro-NATO conservative should, roughly speaking, reject NATO and support those countries aligned against it. Russia has criminalized LGBT propaganda, Ukraine has deployed a US military transvestite to conduct war propaganda. (Who would have imagined this in 2014?!) There is a margin of error—for example, Hungary is a NATO member and, since Orbán, has been conservative; Mexico isn’t conservative and isn’t part of NATO—but that’s NATO’s ideology. Even Communist Party China is more conservative and anti-woke than NATO. If Israel didn’t depend on the support of the Pentecostal Right, they would have already created a transvestite division, which would be making videos on TikTok.
On the Left, something similar occurs. Faced with images of dead, already formed fetuses, the “pro-choice” Left points out the inconsistency of the pro-life Right, which supports the massacre of Palestinians in the womb. Now let us see one thing: if killing or not killing intrauterine life is a mere matter of choice, then those fetuses are nothing more than temporarily denied “choices,” and Israel didn’t kill anyone. All women of childbearing age can choose to become pregnant, and before doing so, they can think of it as an abstraction. Once pregnant, however, they have a concrete human life. It is possible to choose to kill it—just as it is possible to choose to kill a neighbor. How can one remain a staunch defender of the human right to abortion while condemning Israel for killing Palestinians in the womb?
In a recent interview with Opera Mundi, the president of the Palestinian Arab Federation in Brazil, Ualid Rabah, highlighted the demographic importance of intrauterine life in the ongoing genocide. When asked about the number of deaths caused by Israel, he responded that the current figures, which disregard underreporting and deaths resulting from the precarious conditions caused by Israel (for example, patients left without dialysis because Israel destroyed all the infrastructure that provided it), are 77,646, or 3.39% of Gaza’s population, according to Médecins Sans Frontières. However, another very important figure is 12,000 fewer births in one year: according to the sinister UNFPA, the Malthusian UN Population Fund, there were 41% fewer births in the first half of 2025 than in the equivalent period in 2024. Israel’s alleged war kills more women than any normal war – and intrauterine life isn’t included in the statistics.
Ultimately, the ideology that human life only counts after birth serves as a way for Israel to target pregnant women and kill, so to speak, two for the price of one.
But where does this ideology come from? The Right usually points to the USSR, because it was the first country to legalize abortion. However, the USSR had a variable stance, as it criminalized abortion when it faced demographic problems. The country that spearheads pro-contraception and abortion propaganda worldwide is the United States, whose NSSM-200 memorandum, written by the Zionist Jew Henry Kissinger in 1974, saw the demographics of 13 Third World countries (Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, and Ethiopia) as an existential threat to the US and prescribed the promotion of abortion, through NGOs, as a remedy for this situation. Indira Gandhi won a UNFPA award for her work in India’s demographic containment, which included forced sterilization.
The previous year (1973), the US had made the most impactful Malthusian move within its own country: the Supreme Court banned the criminalization of abortion nationwide with Roe v. Wade. The decision document claims that there is no scientific means of determining when life begins and reviews the foundations of two opposite positions: one, which holds that life begins at conception and therefore prohibits abortion from conception, which is the Catholic position; and another, which holds that life only begins at birth, meaning abortion can be performed at any stage of pregnancy (killing the baby before taking him out of the belly). This position is attributed to the Stoics, the majority of the Jewish faith, and a large segment of Protestants. Given that in 1993 another decision was issued, Planned Parenthood v. Wade, Casey, which allowed states to create laws legalizing abortion without setting a time limit, we can conclude that “the predominant attitude of the Jewish faith” prevailed—and that much of what is claimed to be scientific or technical is, in fact, a way to launder theological positions in a secular state. Even with the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, it is still possible to have a “late-term abortion” in Alaska, for instance.
The subject of religion brings us back to the interview with Ualid Rabah. When asked about Israel’s plans, he responded that the Zionists have to solve a demographic problem, as there are not enough Jews to populate a Greater Israel (either because there are too few Jews, or because they are unwilling to move from the Americas and Europe to the Middle East). Israel’s solution, then, would be to bring in Israeliized Christians to fill this void. In Rio de Janeiro, there’s televangelist Edir Macedo dressed as a rabbi, there are Uzi guns (which are Israeli) in organized crime, and finally, there’s the Israel Complex (which my colleague Raphael Machado has already written about here). According to Ualid Rabah, there would be a replacement not only of population, but also of Christianities: US interference in the Middle East always reduces the historic Christian population. Thus, Catholic and Orthodox Christians would leave, and Zionist Christians would enter with convert Jews. And it’s not even a racial issue, as Israel even accepts Peruvian Indians as Jews to settle in the West Bank. It is a religious issue.
Given this obvious problem of values, it is worth quoting the Jewish atheist and anti-Zionist Norman Finkelstein: “The verdict of History is crystal clear: those beholden to science—the ‘progressives’—were wrong, those in thrall to religion—the ‘regressives’—were right. The right to sterilize was about government interference in the reproductive process; the right to abort is about barring government interference in it. But at bottom the moral stake is arguably the same: the sanctity of human life. The devout opposed sterilization then and oppose abortion now, whereas progressives supported sterilization then and support abortion now.” (I will burn that bridge when I get to it!, p. 40).
The mainstream left believes that religion is harmful in itself and that its obscurantism must be overcome by science. Secularism, which holds that all religions are equal and should have equal rights to the city. The genocide in Gaza shows that this is not the case, and many liberal prejudices must be dismantled.
