A Specter Leaves the World, Another Threatens England – Folha de S. Paulo, June 18, 1969

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

Amid all the dramatic news items that news agencies constantly feed to the overexcited crowds of today, it is worth highlighting some highly promising information. We owe it to Mr. Addeke H. Boerma, Director-General of the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

During his recent visit to Rio, Mr. Boerma, who presumably has the most comprehensive information on the subject due to his position in that international organization, stated at a press conference that there will be no hunger on our planet in the 1980s. He explained that many countries are close to achieving agricultural development, and the global improvement in seed quality, among other factors, is helping eliminate hunger in the neediest regions. He cited the typical examples of Pakistan and the Philippines, which previously imported food and are now on the verge of exporting cereals. Thus, Mr. Boerma concludes, the world is moving toward abundance, not suffering. I am not an expert on this subject, but I have no difficulty accepting the statements of FAO’s Director-General, especially since his predictions are based on arguments confined to the agricultural field.

We are also getting equally promising news from another sector. Experts on underwater resources recently said that the oceans hold countless food resources that modern techniques can quickly access. If I am right, Chancellor Magalhães Pinto, citing scientific reports, recently told the press that the riches in the seas are even greater than those the land provides to support mankind. As we know, modern technology can extract these riches immediately and on a large scale.

I point out these hopeful aspects of our troubled reality to reassure the reader and to embarrass demagogues of all types.

When the Encyclical Humanae Vitae condemned the use of the contraceptive pill, some argued that the Church was contributing to overpopulating a planet already heading toward misery. How can they continue to support this bleak outlook now?

On the other hand, the loudest arguments of the relentless advocates for destroying private property are based on a supposed poverty where the world is said to be increasingly stuck. Given this information, what remains of their grimly tragic predictions?

I don’t think this will shake the demagogues. They’ve always been hostile to concrete data, real facts, and serious research. Their world is built on emptiness and illusions.

But at least I give readers some arguments to silence them.

And what a noble act it is to silence a demagogue!

* * *

A significant revolution is underway in Great Britain. The House of Commons recently approved a bill “expanding” the cases when divorce is granted. If this bill passes, a divorce by mutual consent will be granted after two years of separation between spouses.

This is nearly the same as the concept of free love practiced in Russia and other communist countries. Under this free love system, neither spouse’s consent is needed for divorce; just one person’s request is enough. However, it is easier for an unhappy spouse to force the other into agreeing to the divorce; they only need to brutalize the other. As a result, future English law could encourage cruelty. Admittedly, in England, it will take two years for someone to remarry after divorce, unlike in communist countries, where a new “marriage” can happen immediately after separation. Still, in many cases where the real reason for divorce is an extramarital affair, it would be naive to think that the affair will be relatively chastely paused due to the law and resumed after two years. Ultimately, the idea of “freedom” in two years will lead cohabitants to stick with a “trial marriage,” hoping for a new legal union.

In an article published in this section fifteen days ago, I quoted the opinion of the Russian magazine Agitator, which stated that the erosion of Western morals is leading the free world to accept a characteristic and fundamental aspect of the communist regime—that is, free love. Therefore, England will take a giant step toward communism if the bill is enacted. The tough question remains: what will the House of Lords do in this crisis, and what will the Queen do? Will the former approve and the latter endorse this communizing bill? Or will they refuse to approve this bill, which carries the seal of the venerable traditions and high principles they represent? If they do not resist, something worse than failure will happen: they will have lost their purpose and meaning.