Children and the State

What does the State do with children taken by force from their parents? The luckiest ones go in foster homes and the cost of their care increases the national debt. The unlucky ones enlarge the elite’s herd and serve as fresh meat. They are used for medical testing, snuff movies (pornography/torture/infanticide), ‘pedomaniac’ rings, and Satanic ceremonies.

For decades, the media have been filled with horror stories about the mistreatment of children — helpless victims who are beaten and even raped by nasty parents. The propaganda concerning parental abuse has allowed the creation of child protection agencies such as the French DDASS, Quebec’s DPJ (Direction de la protection de la jeunesse) or the American CPS (Child Protective Services). Most countries have similar agencies. Their purpose is to apply the recommendations of UNICEF (United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund). Established in 1946 by the UN, its mission is to impose laws meant to control all the children on earth.

In 1989, the CRC (Convention on the Rights of the Child) officially recognised the right of the State to rule over the life of ‘its’ children. The parent had been relegated to the role of guardian. To insure that the inalienable rights of children are respected, each State established strict standards concerning health care (vaccination, medication), education (idiotisation, mind control), along with social, civil, and legal services. The last are meant to force aside parents who are too zealous.

Despite the efforts of such agencies, parental mistreatment has increased worldwide. The World Health Organisation (WHO) reports that about 50% of children say they are physically abused. Four explanations come to mind concerning such high numbers.

1. The legal definition of the word abuse has been modified.
2. The population has been encouraged by the media’s propaganda to report such abuses to the State.
3. Protection agencies are well-subsidised and eager to ‘help’.
4. The social background (stress, solitude, the media, poverty, hunger, alcohol, drugs) increases the chances of parental mistreatment.

In fact, all four explanations are true.

What do all child protection agencies have in common? They can abduct a child from her family without the need of a court sentence, simply on the recommendation of a social worker, psychiatrist, or medical doctor, while the parent cannot use the advice of other experts. If your child has been taken away from you and placed in a foster home or has been adopted, it is possible that you will never see her again. You may not even know if she is still alive. If the court gives you permission to visit her, it may be only for a few hours a week or a month. It would have been much cheaper and efficient for the State to leave a child with her parents and send specialists directly at home. Why does the State prefer abducting children?

The reason is simple: The protection of children is big business! Do you know that, worldwide, Quebec is the place where the most children are taken by force from their parents? The rate of abduction by the Quebec DPJ is twice that of the American CPS, six times higher than in the UK and 17 times bigger than in Spain. In 2009, Quebec’s budget for its “DPJ Industry” climbed to one billion dollars. It was used to finance judges, lawyers, psychologists, foster homes, and social workers. The latter even received a bonus for each child taken away from her family.

And what does the State do with these children? The luckiest ones go in foster homes and the cost of their care increases the national debt. The unlucky ones enlarge the elite’s herd and serve as fresh meat. They are used for medical testing, snuff movies (pornography/torture/infanticide), ‘pedomaniac’ rings, and Satanic ceremonies.

The State also encourages the population to serve as informants. In 2005, in Quebec, more than 70,000 cases were reported in this way to the DPJ. How is the selection done? The State chooses children from families that have fewer chances of fighting back, such as those with single, sick, or poorly-educated parents. They also go for unconventional parents who favour spirituality, vegetarianism, natural medicine, no vaccines, alternative housing, longterm breastfeeding, a family bed, etc. The preferred type of family is single-mom homes. These represented 40% of Quebec families in 2007. One complaint from anyone is enough to start the process.

To facilitate the surveillance process of at-risk families, some countries now place cameras and microphones directly in their homes. More than 20,000 families in the UK are now watched in such a way. Parents and children must also sign a contract with rules concerning homework, bedtime, regular meals, and non-violence. That is how the State prepares its population to go along with constant electronic surveillance, exactly like Orwell’s novel 1984.

Families are no longer what they used to be. Is this a reason to trust the State more than parents? Two stories are worth repeating. In Quebec, 20,000 “Duplessis orphans”, born from single mothers in the forties and fifties, were used for horrible neurological experiments. Some were tortured, sexually abused, and later abandoned.

Also, between 1870 and 1985, 100,000 Native children from Western Canada were placed in Christian boarding schools. They were beaten, raped, sterilised, and starved. Many received electric shock treatments and some were murdered. Kevin Annett estimates that 50,000 died of such abuse, perpetrated by maniacs from political, legal, police, and clerical circles.

Do you think that being a good parent will protect your child from a State that is so hungry for fresh meat?