Bolsonaro defends birth control and says that “more educated people have fewer children”

By Julio Severo

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro underwent a vasectomy on January 30, 2020, a sterilization surgical procedure for men who wish to have no children or stop having children.

Although during the 2018 presidential campaign Bolsonaro had, in reaction to feminist groups that preach sterilization and abortion, said, in an emotional tone, that he undid a vasectomy so that his third wife, Michelle, could get pregnant, he decided to get sterilized again.

For Bolsonaro, who considers himself a Catholic, sterilization is problematic, as the Catholic Church prohibits this procedure. Maybe that’s why he asked for secrecy about his new vasectomy.

If example is the greatest of all sermons, Bolsonaro only did regarding his personal birth control procedure what he has defended for a long time.

It is not the first time that Bolsonaro’s attitudes clash with Catholic conservatism. In 2019, the Brazilian president defended family planning policies saying that “more educated people have fewer children.”

He said:

“It is not control… Family planning. You see that more educated people have fewer children. I am an exception to the rule, I have five, okay? But this is the rule.”

Bolsonaro has a history of defending birth control, which he calls “family planning,” ignoring that Margaret Sanger, who founded the International Planned Parenthood Federation (the largest family planning, sex education and abortion organization in the world), coined the term “birth control.” There is therefore no difference between family planning and birth control. Both came from the same source.

As a congressman, Bolsonaro is the author of Bill 4322, of 1993, which proposes “the realization of tubal ligation and vasectomy for the purposes of family planning and birth control.” If he hadn’t been serious about it, he wouldn’t have had a vasectomy himself.

At least, even though Bolsonaro is a contraceptive-minded Catholic, he is democratic. He has allowed his administration, amidst the constellation of birth control methods offered in health services and sex education for teenagers, to also present the option of sexual abstinence.

Typical propaganda by population control activists is to show images of wealthy Europeans and Americans with two children compared to poor Africans with ten children. If population control were not so loved by left-wingers, it would not be difficult to see racism in the comparison between rich white Europeans and poor black Africans.

Probably, seeing the propaganda of the population control promoters Bolsonaro came to the conclusion that having many children is synonymous with poverty. But, as he made clear, he is an exception — although his exception was having 5 children with three different wives, which means he practiced a lot of birth control.

However, why use poor Africans as a standard of large families? Are Africans the only example and standard? Of course not. American Christian families historically had an average of 8 children, and were not poor. They read a lot, especially the Bible, and worked hard. Large families in the U.S. helped to preserve their culture and religion, which was predominantly Protestant. The U.S. Republic was founded by a 98 percent Protestant population.

Large families have always been the norm and standard of the U.S. for centuries. The U.S. of the past, with large families who read the Bible and worked hard, created today’s U.S. with its enormous wealth. You don’t create wealth without work. And you cannot have blessings on your work without God and the Bible. All the wealth accumulated today in the U.S. is the result of generations of large families from the past who, in large part, valued the Bible and hard work.

With the growth of the contraceptive mindset and the consequent decrease of families, the U.S. was getting farther and farther from its old big family pattern and became more and more dependent on immigration, with an increasing number of Muslim immigrants taking advantage of the space left by millions of Americans who were prevented from being born by birth control or deliberately killed before being born in abortion clinics.

The obvious consequence of the decline of American families is that the original culture and religion of the U.S. is declining. Today Protestants are less than 50 percent of the U.S. population while Catholics are less than 25 percent.

So, instead of comparing today’s rich small American families with numerous poor African families, you should compare modern American families, who are no longer large enough to preserve their culture and religion, with American families of 100, 200 and 300 years ago who were numerous enough to preserve their culture and religion.

The men and women who built the United States with their best values and wealth had large families. Therefore, it makes no sense to accept population control propaganda that chooses only large poor families from India or Africa when the best example is the millions of large families that built the United States, lifting their nation out from spiritual, cultural and financial poverty and making it great and Christian.

Despite having a lot of wealth, the United States is already facing demographic problems with low birth rates. But Brazil, which has not even reached the level of wealth in the United States, is also already facing similar demographic problems.

NPR said,

“Brazil has undergone a demographic shift so dramatic that it has astonished social scientists. Over the past 50 years, the fertility rate has tumbled from six children per woman on average to fewer than two — and is now lower than in the United States.”

NPR mentioned preference changes, especially of women, as the cause of the Brazilian low birthrate, but it did not explain what caused them.

What happened 50 years ago, according to NPR, that changed Brazil so much demographically that it reduced its population?

In the 1970s the CIA created a document called NSSM 200 for the U.S. government, classifying Brazil as one of the main nations that should be the target of secret population reduction policies. Among these policies were widespread dissemination of birth control and cultural stimuli so that girls and women might spend as much time as possible studying, as a way to avoid marriage and pregnancy.

The CIA plan worked so perfectly that today even a Brazilian president defends and practices birth control without the slightest pain in his conscience. President Jair Bolsonaro does exactly what the CIA planned 50 years ago.

Brazil is already in the process of a demographic crisis, but Bolsonaro and other advocates of birth control do not realize the danger. Sooner or later Brazil will be forced to import millions of immigrants, as the Brazilian population is already suffering demographic aging, and the nations that have these millions of immigrants to send are the Muslim nations.

From the point of view of demography and Catholicism, it is a mistake for Bolsonaro to accept birth control policies for himself and for Brazil.

As a follower of Jesus, what do I think? Those who follow the Bible know that children are blessings. A large family is God’s will. From this perspective, any method of birth control disrupts God’s plans to multiply blessings in Christian families.

However, whoever does not follow Jesus and the Bible seriously is obliged to see children as blessings and have a large family? No. In fact, the Bible says that the offspring of people who do not know God will disappear. From this perspective, birth control in these people’s lives only helps to fulfill God’s will.

Christians should follow the beautiful model of the large families in the Bible and the United States in their past Protestant generations who were hardworking, ethical and had many children.

Those who do not follow Jesus and the Bible should be free to sterilize themselves.

Portuguese version of this article: Bolsonaro defende controle da natalidade e afirma que “pessoas que têm mais cultura têm menos filhos”

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading on Birth Control:

Churches Closing and Mosques Opening in The United States

Muhammad is one of the top 10 baby names for first time in the U.S. history

In Germany, the Catholic Church and Protestant churches lost more than 430,000 members in 2018

Blood in the Rivers: the Contraceptive Culture and Prophecies in Revelation

The folly of man’s planning

Anti-Baby Vegans Preach It’s Morally Wrong for People to Have Babies and Revile Those Who Disagree with Them

John Calvin: Women Will Be Saved by Having Babies

Anthony Comstock: the first pro-life activist in the modern history

Recommended Reading on Population Control:

Ideological Scam: Scientists Use “Climate Change” to Call for Population Control

Exposing the Global Population Control Agenda

Ideological Scam: Scientists Use “Climate Change” to Call for Population Control

To solve a problem that doesn’t exist, scientists want to aggravate a problem that already exists

By Julio Severo

Thousands of scientists around the world have signed a letter declaring that without population control “untold human suffering” will happen.

The “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency” was published in the journal BioScience on November 5, 2019, and was signed by 11,258 scientists from 153 countries.

In the statement, the signatories listed both economic growth and a global population increase as “among the most important drivers of increases in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion.”

The statement was published after the Trump administration formally declared that the U.S. was withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord, an international agreement set to go into effect in 2020 under which many UN member countries pledged to reduce their carbon emissions.

The Vatican under Pope Francis has supported the Paris agreement, and such support is in line with statements by John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI condemning global warming, an ideological scam promoted by left-wingers. Francis even had with Obama, in 2015, an alliance against global warming. But, different from left-wing scammers, the popes have not embraced population control.

Left-wingers do not like when I expose the global warming scam. In 2017 the “Die Hard Democrat” condemned me for saying that Hurricane Harvey in Texas could be a consequence of sin, not global warming.

In their statement, the scientists, known as Alliance of World Scientists, said, “The world population must be stabilized.”

Yet, isn’t the U.S. population “stabilized” enough? Isn’t the European population “stabilized” enough? The reality is that the U.S. and European populations are so “stabilized” that Europe and the U.S. are in need to receive millions of immigrants, and who is taking advantage are Islamic invaders, who are taking the place of European and American babies who were never been allowed to be born because of birth control.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the birth rate in the United States hit an all-time low in 2018 with the total fertility rate at 1.7 — well below the replacement rate of 2.1. According to demographic prospects in the 2019 Revision of World Population Prospects, for the years 2015-2020, Western Europe was estimated at 1.68 live births per woman. Latin America and the Caribbean fell just under replacement level at 2.05 live births per woman.

Successful population control policies, the report noted, “make family-planning services available to all people, remove barriers to their access and achieve full gender equity, including primary and secondary education as a global norm for all, especially girls and young women.”

Trump has not abandoned the Paris Climate Accord because of “family planning,” also known as birth control. He left it because it says that excessive consumerism and excessive production endanger the ecological system. No nation on the earth produces more and consumes more than the United States does.

The spell has turned against the sorcerer. The most destructive population-control document was NSSM 200, produced not by left-wingers or Democrats. It was produced by a Republican, right-wing administration in the U.S. in 1974. It advocates two main strategies to reduce the world population: Integration of family planning in the medical services and promotion of extensive education for girls and women, with the real goal not to help them, but to keep them away from marriage.

While in the 1970s the Soviet Union was the leading promoter of communism, the U.S. was, in the shadows, the leading promoter of population control.

NSSM 200 was drafted by the CIA, USAID and the State Department and their secret objective was to reduce the world population for the U.S. interests. Some large nations, including Brazil, were targeted for the population control measures of CIA to hinder their own population from using their own natural resources, which would be saved for the U.S.

So NSSM 200 promotes population control to protect the U.S. excessive consumerism and excessive production.

While the United Nations, which was founded by the U.S., promotes population control to reduce excessive consumerism and excessive production, NSSM 200 promotes population control exactly to protect U.S. excessive consumerism and excessive production.

No one promotes evil without being harmed by it. The U.S. is being harmed by NSSM 200, which greatly harmed other nations, including Brazil, by indoctrinating officials and populations to use birth control without informing that the real purpose was to save their natural resources for the U.S. interests, including U.S. excessive consumerism and excessive production.

The U.S. is being harmed by NSSM 200, which greatly harmed other nations, including Brazil, by indoctrinating officials and populations that excessive education for girls and young women was to empower them without informing that the real purpose was to keep them away from marriage, not for their real well-being, but for the U.S. interests, including U.S. excessive consumerism and excessive production.

Fulfilling the NSSM 200’s goals, today Brazil has a population fully engaged in birth control and girls and young women who do not dream about marrying and having children, but about studying excessively to become some sort of professionals. Marriage is a far-away option in these educational and professional plans, while sexual activity and birth control are always near.

In the 1970s, famine was used as an excuse for population control, and fear-mongering authors as Paul Ehrlich used famine as an example of how population without birth control measures produced famine. But today it is known that the large famines that ravaged especially Africa in the 1970s and 1980s were produced by communism.

Widespread famines in Africa were used in the population-control scam to hide the consequences of communism.

Now the ideological scam is global warming or climate change. This scam is the real problem, because the population in the West is below the replacement rate and there will be serious economic consequences in the next decades as a increasingly lesser number of babies are born in Europe and the U.S. To talk about a population problem in the West is non-sense. The West needs desperately population growth. The West desperately needs more and more babies.

Even though Trump has abandoned the Paris Climate Accord, it is unlikely that he has abandoned population control scams. His administration heavily funds birth control for the U.S. population. His administration is pushing for the normalization of homosexuality around the world. Homosexuality is a powerful way to reduce the world population.

Population growth with traditional Christian and work ethics, as the example of the U.S. shows, produces creativity, development and progress. Population growth with no Christian ethics, as the example of Islamic and communist nations show, produces no creativity, development and progress.

Population growth with the Protestant work ethic has produced unparallel progress and development for the U.S. Population growth without such ethic produces unrest and violence, and Islamic nations are rife with unrest, violence and sordid tyrannies.

Population controllers should preach and implement population control to Islamic nations, where it is the most necessary. To preach and implement population control to the West, where its population is dying, is demographic euthanasia.

The West has made excessive population control in itself by embracing the contraceptive mindset, which includes abortion. It is not necessary to be a scientist to know the West is in a serious demographic crisis, with Muslim multitudes ready to take over.

It is time to reject the ideological scams of scientists. It is time to reject the contraceptive mindset, including homosexuality, which is an effective population control behavior.

Trump should be commended for leaving the Paris Climate Accord. But he needs our prayers to understand that birth control and the homosexual agenda are essential tools of the population control agenda behind the climate emergency scam.

With information from DailyMail, Catholic News Agency and the New American.

Portuguese version of this article: Golpe ideológico: Cientistas usam “mudança climática” para pedir controle populacional

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Anti-Baby Vegans Preach It’s Morally Wrong for People to Have Babies and Revile Those Who Disagree with Them

The folly of man’s planning

Exposing the Global Population Control Agenda

Anthony Comstock: the first pro-life activist in the modern history

Blood in the Rivers: the Contraceptive Culture and Prophecies in Revelation

Trump Administration Pushing LGBT Agenda on Country of Georgia, But the People Fight Back

Vladimir Putin dismisses Greta Thunberg as a “poorly informed teenager” and in answer she mocks him

Pope and Obama: Alliance against Global Warming

“Die Hard Democrat” Criticizes Julio Severo for Not Blaming Hurricane Harvey on Global Warming

Former Top-Secret U.S. Government Document Fueling Left-Wing Attacks and Misinformation on Brazilian Efforts against Communist Terror in the 1970s

By Julio Severo

O Globo, one of the most prominent — in a usually left-wing prominence — Brazilian newspapers, said last week:

“A memo by former CIA director William Egan Colby on April 11, 1974, and addressed to then US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger suggests how former President [Brazilian] Ernesto Geisel learned about and authorized the execution of hundreds of political opponents during the military dictatorship in Brazil.”

Folha de S. Paulo, another Brazilian newspaper with a usually left-wing prominence, said,

“A 1974 secret document released by the United States Department of State states that former President Ernesto Geisel (1974-1979) approved the continuation of a policy of ‘summary executions’ of opponents of the military dictatorship.”

All the Brazilian left is feasting on the declassified information made available on the U.S. State Department website.

Brazilian President Ernesto Geisel

Yet, what O Globo called innocent “political opponents,” the U.S. State Department called “the most dangerous subversives and terrorists.”

So what is the problem of the Brazilian military regime executing the most dangerous subversives and terrorists?

All of these terrorists were communists. They were not engaged in innocent political activities. They were engaged in killings, bank-robbing and many other violent crimes. Above all, they were killing to establish in Brazil a communist dictatorship.

There is a massive difference. While communist regimes around the world — including in the Soviet Union, China and Cuba — were randomly killing anyone pacifically opposing their dictatorship, the Brazilian military was not randomly killing people not involved in terrorist activities.

What did the State Department document say?

“[CIA director William] Colby reported that [Brazilian] President [Ernesto] Geisel planned to continue [former Brazilian President] Médici’s policy of using extra legal means against subversives but would limit executions to the most dangerous subversives and terrorists.”

This was top secret. Why is it now freely available for left-wingers to trash an unpleasant, but necessary event?

There is no problem in limiting executions to the most dangerous subversives and terrorists. If they had not been executed, these dangerous subversives and terrorists would overthrow the Brazilian government and not limit any of their executions: they would execute everyone and anyone, including the most innocent citizens.

The violence of these terrorists was not sparing even Americans in Brazil:

* “In October 1968 the VPR [Vanguarda Popular Revolucionária, a Marxist group] raised the stakes when they assassinated U.S. Army Captain Charles [Rodney] Chandler as he stepped outside his house in São Paulo. Chandler was taking university courses (at the highly conservative Mackenzie University) as part of his training to teach Portuguese at West Point.” (Thomas E. Skidmore, The Politics of Military Rule in Brazil, 1964-1985 [Oxford University Press, 1990], page 87.)

* Charles Burke Elbrick, U.S. Ambassador to Brazil, was kidnapped and held for four days in September 1969.

So there is no point in defending the most dangerous subversives and terrorists, as the Brazilian press is doing. To treat the most dangerous subversives and terrorists as mere political opponents is to trample on the blood of their victims. As the old saying goes, he who saves the wolves sacrifices the sheep.

What else did the State Department say?

“The [State] Department informed the [U.S.] Embassy [in Brazil] that, given the rapid economic development of Brazil and congressional hostility to indefinitely continuing assistance programs, bilateral assistance (with the exception of narcotics and family-planning assistance) would be phased out.”

This was top secret. Its date was May 18, 1973.

Why was the U.S. government so intent on not phasing out its “family-planning assistance” to Brazil?

Mentioned prominently in the declassified document is Henry Kissinger, then State secretary, who was very worried about the Brazilian affairs. Kissinger was also, with the CIA, responsible for the NSSM 200 (National Security Study Memorandum 200). It is also called the Kissinger Report, and it was drafted during the Republican administration of Richard Nixon.

NSSM 200’s subject was “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests” and treats the growth of the Brazilian population as a threat to the U.S. access to the Brazilian natural resources.

NSSM 200 identifies Brazil as one of the primary targets of the U.S. population control policies, which included the integration of the health care services for family planning and indoctrination.

A major victory of NSSM 200 was to integrate family planning in health care services. Before NSSM 200, family planning (which is a euphemism for population control) was not health care and was not integrated in health care services. Its integration was a population control victory of the Nixon administration, a Republican administration obsessed to reduce the world population and that, not surprisingly, saw abortion being legalized under the Republican noses.

Other powerful measures implemented directly from the NSSM 200 were indoctrination that the ideal family size was 2 children and that women should be “encouraged” or even pushed to work outside home, exactly to make it hard for them to have babies.

While the Brazilian government was working to execute the most dangerous subversives and terrorists — a necessary measure that would not displease any decent man and woman —, the U.S. government was working to “execute” new Brazilian generations through stealth population control intended to reserve Brazilian natural resources not to the next generation of Brazilians, but to the next generation of Americans.

Meanwhile, the same Brazilian left-wing media that has been careful not to call communists actively engaged in violence and terrorist attacks as dangerous communist subversives and terrorists has been equally careful not to expose and attack population-control efforts from the U.S. government.

The State Department document said,

“Crimmins informed the [State] Department that the Brazil-FRG [Federal Republic of Germany] agreement on nuclear cooperation reflected Brazil’s desire for major power status. The Ambassador concluded that if Brazil became a nuclear power, it would strain its ties to the United States.”

If Brazil wants a peaceful co-existence with the United States, it cannot achieve a major power status. I know this because in 2008 U.S. prophet Chuck Pierce prophetically said to me and a group of Brazilian Christian leaders that if Brazil supported Israel, God would raise Brazil as a power and the result would be jealously and opposition from the United States. You can read my full report here. Currently, as a nation that does not respect Israel, Brazil does not deserve to become a power.

The State Department document said,

“The [U.S.] Embassy commented on the election of Geisel as President, noting that the return to representative government promised by the Médici regime had not taken place.”

I support, in the U.S. context, representative government for the US, because its institutions are strong. But in the Brazilian context of the 1970s, when the Brazilian institutions were seriously under threat from subversive and armed actions from communists funded by foreign communist dictatorships, a representative, peaceful and democratic government to fight armed communist violence and guerrilla would be national suicide. Communists themselves were demanding “representative government,” as if they wanted democracy. In the Brazilian context, representative government would be a springboard for communist chaos and revolution.

Even so, the U.S. government was worried about a lack of such representative government, even though it has never pressured in any way its great ally, the Islamic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, to have a democratic government.

The State Department document said,

* “[U.S. Ambassador to Brazil] Crimmins discussed the prospects for political liberalization in Brazil. He concluded it would be a continuing source of difficulty for the Geisel administration.”

* “Crimmins suggested possible topics for Kissinger’s prospective trip to Brazil. Specifically, the Ambassador requested that the Secretary raise with Geisel political liberalization, in particular human rights abuses.”

* “Crimmins maintained that it was unlikely that direct U.S. Government assistance programs could be used to mitigate human rights abuses, but that regional assistance efforts could be effective.”

* “Ambassador Crimmins reported on steps taken by the Embassy to impress upon Brazilian officials the U.S. Government’s concern regarding human rights abuses.”

* “The Department instructed the Embassy to deliver a démarche to [Brazilian] Foreign Minister Silveira to inform him of congressional concern over human rights abuses.”

* “In telegram 45319 to all diplomatic posts, February 25, the Department requested information and analysis regarding human rights abuses in countries receiving U.S. economic development or military assistance.”

* “The Embassy recommended that an invitation for the head of the Brazilian Army Intelligence Center to visit the United States be deferred in light of concerns over human rights and Operation Condor.”

What is striking in this communication under a Republican, conservative administration is that the whole document of the State Department contains no expression of worry about human right abuses committed by communist terrorists against Brazilian citizens. There is no such worry by Henry Kissinger, the U.S. Ambassador to Brazil, the CIA and the State Department.

How could the Brazilian military government deal democratically with communist terrorists, who were already committing all kinds of violence, without “abuses” on their human rights?

While the Brazilian military government was dealing with communists — who with Muslims are par excellence human-right abusers —, the U.S. government was taking the Brazilian government to task for human-right abuses against communists. Had the State Department doubts that communists sought to establish in Brazil a human-right abuse dictatorship against the Brazilian population?

I want to make it very clear that, as an evangelical, between the anti-Israel Brazilian military government and the pro-Israel U.S. government, I would prefer the U.S. government. But between revolutionary communists intent on overthrowing the Brazilian government and the Brazilian military government, what were the innocent Brazilian citizens to choose?

I can understand today the Obama administration worried about human right abuses of the Brazilian military government in the 1970s, but I cannot understand how the same Republican, conservative administration of Nixon that tolerated all kinds of terrible human right abuses in Saudi Arabia complaining about the Brazilian military government not respecting the human rights of communist terrorists.

The Republican Party and its Nixon administration were not kind and fair to Brazil in the 1970s. I am not defending everything done by the military government under General Ernesto Geisel, the Lutheran president. In fact, the was the first Protestant president of Brazil.

The State Department document also said,

“In telegram 43532 to all diplomatic posts, February 26, the Department informed posts in countries receiving U.S. security assistance that ‘human rights factors must, under existing Department of State policy, be carefully considered in planning and carrying out our Security Assistance Programs.’ (Ibid., D750069–0367) Crimmins raised the cases of Kucinski and Wright in a meeting with Araujo Castro on April 25. (Telegram 7073 from Brasília, August 14; ibid., D750281–0294).”

Probably, Crimmins meant Paulo Stuart Wright, born in Brazil to U.S. missionaries. Wright was a Brazilian politician actively engaged in socialist activities. The Brazilian military government made him “disappear.” His brother was Jaime Nelson Wright, a Presbyterian minister actively engaged in socialist propaganda, especially in the Social Gospel (known in Brazil as Theology of Integral Mission). Even though he was not involved in armed violence, his propaganda supported communists involved in such violence.

As a conservative evangelical, I do not support Wright’s left-wing political militancy and equally I do not support what the Brazilian military government did to him. Even though armed violence is fought with armed answer, bad propagandas are fought with better propagandas — especially the Gospel, which is enough to counter atheistic or “Christian” socialism. If Wright was involved only in socialist propaganda, not in armed violence, the government should have found another way to deal with him. Jaime Wright, who became a human right advocate for Brazilian socialists, was fundamental in pressuring the U.S. government to make the Brazilian government accountable for the disappearance of his brother. He was successful in such pressure only because his parents were Americans.

Both Wrights could have avoided much personal suffering if, instead getting busy with socialist activism, they had got busy only with the mission of preaching the Gospel, healing the sick and expelling demons in the name of Jesus.

But, again, if the U.S. government could tolerate Saudi Arabia, a champion of human right abuses, why not tolerate the lesser abuses in Brazil?

In the U.S. context, with many evangelical churches influencing the U.S. government, it was possible to fight communism with democracy. But in the Brazilian context, it was impossible to fight communism with democracy.

I understand the Democratic Party and its socialist administrations of Carter, Clinton and Obama not being kind and fair to the Brazilian fight against communist terrorists. But why were the Republican Party and its Nixon administration equally unfair?

Why were the Republican Party and its Nixon administration worried about the human right abuses of communist subversives and terrorists in Brazil?

Now, the Brazilian left is using the complaints of the Nixon administration, as made available in the State Department website, as a confirmation that the Brazilian military government committed human right abuses against communists.

This is by far one of the greatest disservices of the U.S. government to the anticommunist fight in Brazil. The other great disservice was the U.S. population control campaign, launched by a Republican administration, to target the Brazilian population for reduction and indoctrination.

I confess that I was myself a victim of this indoctrination, being taught that birth control and family planning are a human right — just as NSSM 200 teaches. But after contact with Mary Pride (especially her excellent book, “The Way Home,” published by Crossway Books in 1985) and Dr. Paul Marx, the founder of Human Life International, I understood that my pro-birth control mindset was a result of the population control indoctrination initiated long ago in Brazil by a U.S. Republican administration and its NSSM 200.

My first contact with Paul Marx was through Last Days Ministries in 1986. I had already contact with Last Days Ministries, of Keith Green, before, being much blessed by its evangelistic, devotional, inspirational and pro-life literature. By reading its pro-life literature, I became fully pro-life and I asked its help to report an illegal abortion clinic in Brazil. Because Last Days Ministries had no office in Brazil, they gave me the contact of Paul Marx, whose Human Life International had Catholic contacts in Brazil. Even though ultimately these contacts could not help me close the abortion clinic in São Paulo, my mother and I were able to do it.

By revelation of the Holy Spirit, we were divinely warned not to report to the local police, which was in some way connected with the clinic. A police station of another region was contacted.

I thank God that there are Americans fighting hard to educate people around the world about the evils that the U.S. government, under Republican and Democratic administrations, do against other nations through its stealth population control efforts.

Portuguese version of this article: Documento do governo dos EUA que era extremamente secreto vem alimentando ataques e desinformação da esquerda sobre esforços brasileiros contra o terrorismo comunista na década de 1970

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

U.S. Betrays Military Men Who Protected Brazil from Communist Threat

Exposing the Global Population Control Agenda

Brazil, the Next (Regional or Global) Threat to the U.S. Economic Supremacy?

The Religious War between CIA and KGB in Latin America

Amid Crisis in Brazil, Evangelicals Emerge as the Main Conservative Power