John Lennon and the overpopulation myth [John Lennon şi mitul suprapopulării]

It happens that, in spite of seeing myself as having broad tastes in music (here are just a few examples), I don’t like The Beatles. And by no means because of religious or ideological reasons, although I could agree with many such reasons.

Their music is (and has never been) simply not appealing enough to me, and I don’t think I ever more or less liked another song apart from Yesterday, nor tolerated other songs than Yellow Submarine.

On the other hand though, my dislike of their music could make me deny the evidence that – whether I like it or not, whether they were a good or rather catastrophic model – The Beatles are an iconic brand of post-WWII Britain.

All in all, irrespective of my opinion of the band and, thanks to a friend of mine, I could listen to this very wise opinion of John Lennon about the myth of overpopulation. No matter how immoral he or anti-Christian (although that’s not so sure!) he was, he was certainly no stupid guy.

Whether you choose to click to see the short recording or not, I am reproducing a short dialogue from a TV show, occuring after a woman in the public had a question for Yoko Ono, Lennon’s Japanese wife.

“I wanna know how you, as a woman, feel about overpopulation in the world and it’s relation to polutting the environment”, a dark-haired woman in her early twenties asks.

Yoko Ono: “I think the problem is not overpopulation, as people believe to be, but it’s more of the balance of things. In some parts of the world there’s wasted food, in some parts nobody has food. If that kind of balance is solved, I don’t think we’d be worried so much about overpopulation”.

She answered just like I would have answered, didn’t she? And it’s amazing how her husband subsequently says the same thing; and there was no time for the spouses to ‘rehearse’ their answers!

John Lennon: “I think it’s a bit of a joke the way people have made this overpopulation thing into a kind of myth. I don’t really believe it, you know… I think whatever happens, will balance itself out, will work itself out.

It’s alright for us living ones to say «Well, it’s enough us, so we won’t have any more. Don’t let anybody else live.» I don’t believe in that.

I think we have enough food if we wanted to feed everybody. The natural balance, even though old people will last longer, will show that there’s enough room for us, and some of us can go to the Moon…

I don’t believe overpopulation. I think it’s just a myth that government is throwing out to keep your mind off Vietnam and (Northern – my note) Ireland, and all the important subjects.”

This is Lennon’s blunt opinion, to which someone from the audience (a man this time) says: “Oh, I think you’re wrong about that”. “Oh, I don’t care”, Lennon swiftly replies.

Let us wonder what Lennon would have said today about another myth – anthropogenic global warming! It’s very likely that he wouldn’t have belived this crap either, because, no matter what their shortcomings were, these rock ‘n roll characters always had a “take no shit” attitude.

I guess he would have said a lot to say about the connections often made between the overpopulation myth and the anthropogenic global warming myth. And so would have done Mahatma Gandhi, another one who misunderstood Christianity.

The father of modern India once said that “The earth has enough for man's need but not for man’s greed”, and I am afraid that I often have to agree with him on another quote: “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

I don’t want to legitimate any other of Lennon’s or Gandhi’s ideas, as long as, according to my view, they missed the chance of knowing the Truth. But I wanted to highlight that both pop idols of yore, as well as famous thinkers, were at least intelligent.

A quality which could be hardly found among the ‘stars’ of MTV generations or among the wise people who keep chewing and throwing up in our faces the same ideological bullshit. Today’s fashinonable thinkers simply do not ‘think’, do they?

[For all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

Liberă să alegi... uciderea unei FIINŢE UMANE nenăscute [Free to choose… the killing of an unborn HUMAN BEING]

De Ziua Internaţională a Copiilor – câţi or mai reuşi a se strecura prin sita unei industrii ucigaşe – nu ştiu cât ar mai putea rezona vreun apel antiavort cu inimile împietrite ale românilor (sau ale oricăror civilizaţi cetăţeni ai UE).

Deja, este foarte posibil ca mulţi pensionari dintre cei care se târâie de la o pensie la alta şi pe care se face un experiment în aceste zile, să îşi primească plata pentru o parte din zecile de milioanele de avorturi care împovărează România.

Este doar începutul. Peste încă 20, maximum 30 de ani, lipsa nenăscuţilor dintre noi va reprezenta o catastrofă economică faţă de care actualele vremuri de criză să pară o ‘epocă de aur’. Desigur, dacă mai îngăduie Dumnezeu lumea încă 20-30 de ani.

Despre faptul că se doreşte facilitarea cu orice preţ a avorturilor; că în spatele asasinatelor stau oameni de afaceri prosperi; că, de câteva decenii, omenirii civilizate (?!) i se vâră pe gât mitul suprapopulării... am tot scris.

Nu ştiu cu ce folos, nu ştiu cui îi mai poate păsa – mai ales dintre cei cărora nici de mântuirea proprie nu le pasă, darămite să simtă gravitatea acestui asasinat în masă pentru întreaga omenire, aşadar pentru fiecare dintre noi.

Măcar am grupat nişte linkuri (vezi aici, aici, aici, aici, aici, dar şi în alte locuri) care, poate, i-or fi de folos cuiva care intră pe acest blog. Sunt atâţia alţii care au spus ceea ce tot spun eu – şi mai argumentat, şi mai iscusit.

Acum, vreau să atrag atenţia asupra altui cadou otrăvit pe care l-a primit România din UK – o filială a acestei organizaţii care vrea să faciliteze cu orice preţ uciderea nenăscuţilor, ascunsă după tot felul de eufemisme.

Ar fi nenumărate lucururi bune pe care le-am fi putut învăţa de la britanci, dar văd că nu ne putem lăuda cu prea multe. În schimb, avem şi noi acelaşi drept la alegere, dar şi această fundaţie care să asigure, doritoarelor, “cele mai bune servicii” (oare?!).

Multe lucruri distrugătoare (atât pentru trecătoarea noastră viaţă de acum, cât şi pentru cea veşnică!) sunt ‘la liber’ de decenii, aşa încât nu cred că s-ar mai putea interzice avortul. Nici nu cred că vreo interdicţie ar avea vreun efect mai puţin nociv.

Eu aş vrea numai ca oricine se vede pusă în faţa alegerii unui “serviciu rapid, sigur şi profesionist” şi ajunge pe mâinile aceste organizaţii care promite “sentimentul alegerii bine făcute”, să ştie ce alege de fapt.

Nimic altceva decât uciderea unui OM nenăscut. Aceasta este alegerea. Legea nu o pedepseşte, dar pedeapsa vine negreşit pentru cine nu se căieşte de acest păcat.

Iar aceşti prieteni ai femeilor, ai ‘dreptului la alegere’, nu-s deloc mai prieteni decât a fost şarpele din Grădina raiului cu Eva. Sunt prieteni şi cu autorităţile avorţioniste din China, au fost prieteni şi cu naziştii, de la care cei din urmă au luat ideea eugeniei.

De fapt, nu drepturile femeilor, cât mai ales propriile fantasme ucigaşe (justificate de ‘binele omenirii’) au fost scopurile dragi ale fondatoarei. Care avea să moară de cancer la sân – la fel ca milioane de alte femei care au făcut avorturi ori se încred în beneficiile contraceptivelor.

Ştiu că este o afirmaţie în răspăr cu autojustificărtile hedoniste ale omenirii de azi, care NU doreşte să fie deranjată de mici adevăruri, la fel cum nu-L doreşte pe Iisus Hristos, Adevărul.

Doar lumea nu vrea să creadă nici că fumatul ucide... Cel puţin în acest caz, ţigările înrobesc prin lanţurile dependenţei. Dar cine poate invoca scuza că este dependent de ucidere şi că aceasta ar fi un act necesar?

Totuşi, cine vrea, poate citi aici, aici, aici, aici, aici, aici, aici, aici şi aici despre legătura dintre avort + anticoncepţionale şi cancerul de sân, dar şi despre mitul propovăduit drept adevăr ştiinţific vreme de decenii că nu ar exista vreo legătură.

[Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la/For all the posts on this blog go to: Contents/Cuprins]

Witty bits from what I learned in the UK (13) [Vorbe de duh din ce am învăţat în UK]

Ever since Thomas Robert Malthus came up with his fatalist claim – that “the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man” – many in Britain have been frightened by the specter of overpopulation.

Overcrowding (of England in particular, see here and here) is a ‘threat’ which many politicians, scientists, artists or others and fashionable thinkers in the UK often invoke, in order to draw attention upon them.

There’s no need to offer evidence of overcrowding (although some doubt it), as long as they can quote Malthus saying that “population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio”.

There’s a simplistic ideology (based on only apparently solid facts), claiming that “many people born = a bad thing,” while “fewer people born = a good thing.” But are things really that simple?

Is a healthy (God-given!) birth rate a genuine threat or is this danger the result our our egoism? Large families manage their resources far better than the forcibly (through contraceptives and abotions!) reduced ones.

In those families where couples set themselves a limit of 1-2 children, the offspring are turned into their parents’ idols (spoilt) or into their trophies (forced to reach standards, to perform, to succeed).

I wonder whether any honest scientist (sociologist, demographer, economist) has ever made a study proving something that seems very obvious to me…

…that the more children one family has, the less resources it consumes. Siblings are taught to share, while parents are stuggling to become economical.

On the contrary, contemporary hedonistic families (especially in a hedonistic country like today's Britain) with few or no children at all exhaust the planet, with all the delights of modern life they consider themselves entitled to.

Unknown to people who can only care of themselves, there’s an ongoing war on population. Some may say that I’m just a weirdo fooled by a conspiracy theory, but I simply can’t believe in the existence of coincidences.

Global warming hysterics claim that too many children harm the atmosphere, human right activists insist on recognizing abortion (assassination) as a fundamental right of the woman, and they succeeded in doing so.

Let aside the onslaught of broken families, alternative families, promiscuity, pornography, compulsory sexual education... Could all of these be merely innocent coincidences?

No, they are part of the prevalent ideology in today’s civilised world (?!), where those who bring to life as many children as God wants are irresponsible, while those who use contraceptives are sensible people who care about the planet.

This war on population is carried out on several fronts. Two of the main ones are the tireless abortionist agenda (offering murder as a lifestyle choice), and the attemps to curb immigration.

Also, on a subliminal front, women are gradually being seduced by the idea that childbearing is rather a distress than a bliss. They are taught to worship themselves, and the supposingly marvellous (but actually murderous) Pill.

Let us make no mistake: playing God, deciding when to have children (often in the late 30s or early 40s), after having aborted some, will have severe consequences!

And not only in the afterlife of which some are not aware, and others refuse to admit its existence – as if they could have refused to be born?!

After 40-50 decades of massive abortions, for countries like the UK and Romania there surely will be a reckoning day in the next 40-50 years. Only the Lord knows if a due punisment wouldn’t come even sooner.

Europe’s population is aging, and Britain makes no exception. When faced with such a dreadful perspective – countless milions of elders with no one to look after them – ‘wise thinkers’ no longer see immigration as problem, but as a solution for Britain.

Nevertheless, I remember having heard a completely different assesment of this challenge, while I was a Chevening Fellow: “All simulations show that migration is no solution to the aging problem.”

[For all the episodes of this series, and all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate episoadele din această serie şi toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]