To compare the “population control holocaust,” or the havoc that family courts wreak on families, to the Holocaust pursued by the Hitler regime evokes images that don’t ring true. It is a logical absurdity to compare the pain caused by family courts to the harm done by the Holocaust, founded in at least two logical fallacies of the type “non sequitur” (it does not follow) and “reductio et absurdum” (disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion). Yet, many individuals routinely make that comparison and equate the two, but such a comparison should never be made, regardless of what other calamity or atrocity is being used in it.
That comparison can of course be made, but the one thing cannot be equated to the other. They are two different things, in nature, in size and in extent. They are even different on the level of impact to individuals.
- One involved the wish to solve “the Jewish question,” by neutralizing, exploiting, enslaving and even the killing of a whole race of people who lived in one nation or in the territories occupied by that nation. That nation was neither the first nor the last throughout history to attempt doing that. For example: Babylon did; the Romans did and caused the great Jewish dispersion; parts of Europe did during much of the Middle Ages, and then it was done again by the Hitler regime during modern times. Yet, the Jews are still around, as is the Hebrew religion and much of the Jewish culture, and that is good. Nevertheless, even today, in spite of the Hitler regime having been destroyed and still being vilified for what it had done to the Jews. Still, the ancient hatred against the Jews is still being nurtured and promoted in many nations.
- The other involves all of civilization, all of humanity, by dismantling the institution of the traditional nuclear family – the foundation and building blocks out of which communities, tribes, villages, nations and even all of civilization grew, with the objective of that being to achieve:1.) The deconstruction of civilization and its reconstruction into a global, socialist, totalitarian regime, and
2.).The reduction of the size of the global human population down to about a billion to 300 million people.
No nation has a monopoly on the population control holocaust or on the role that family courts play in it, but population control affects all nations on Earth. Family courts are agents that operate within the scope of the population control holocaust, they are a part of it. They operate in most developed nations but not in all nations on Earth. The larger scope of the population control holocaust, in which family courts play their role only in some localities, affects every single nation on Earth to varying extents and most severely in all developed nations.
All developed nations have begun the end phase of their desired decline. When a nation’s shrinking population is being bolstered through large-scale immigration, it will no longer be what it was, no more so than an axe is still the original axe after it has had its handle and its head replaced as those broke and wore out, respectively.
The population control holocaust is not a unique national objective, process, project or program. It is being promoted by a relatively small group of like-minded individuals and organizations of no specific national character but united by the common objectives I mentioned above, people with power and wealth (through owning or having access to and influence on wealth and power).
It is neither a conspiracy nor driven by a hidden agenda, as it is not a secret but in plain sight, and the objectives and methods for it are being openly promoted, implemented and applied. People with absolute power have no need to conspire. They just do what they wish to do and to have done, and they achieve it.
Call it the New World Order or anything else you want, it is still the same, but it is not the same as the Holocaust. It has vastly different goals, dimensions and outcomes. To compare it to the Holocaust belittles it. To compare the suffering of the individuals targeted by it would understate the suffering caused by it to individuals, but it would overstate how bad it makes them feel. No one is likely to truly feel the pain of not being able to experience what he never had or to miss what he has become indoctrinated not to be able to appreciate is his human right to have a family and to be an integral part of it but to want to forego it, even to hate it, to be made to see being deprived of it as a blessing and a desired state of existence. That makes “humane” forms of the population control holocaust in the “free” developed nations enormously insidious.
Yet, although the methods and objectives are always the same, there are differences in the methods applied and the forces driving them. For example, take the absolute, brutal government force with which China implemented its “one-child policy,” aside from the fact that it never was a one child policy in China’s rural circumstances (a limit of two children per family applied, whereas urban areas had the constraint of only one child per family and are permitted now to have two).
In the developed nations, more “humane” methods were used all along to achieve the same end, through a combination of things: indoctrination, peer pressure; punitive taxation of families with children and two parents but only one income earner; through voluntary but taxpayer-funded sterilization and abortions, and much more, not the least of which were programs that made the yearning of people to have families politically incorrect and gave us “no fault” divorce.
Those “humane” measures that people were made to begin to clamor for had a fine effect in the developed nations. The latter’s total fertility rates fell below that of China (the “free” developed nations had the jump on China, with respect to low TFRs), without any government ever acquiring the bad reputation of having used brute force to make them happen. The governments are being loved for it, because they gave the people what the people wanted! That is very slick and demonstrably more effective than brute government force, although China’s totalitarian methods were motivated by the very ideological objective that motivated all other developed nations to engage in a competition as to which nation could reduce its population the fastest and the most. China made source documents from the West that summarized it – published by the Club of Rome – the foundation of its brutal population-control measures, and USAID financed much of China’s population control holocaust that was the result. The progression of the decline in its total fertility rate reflects the time line of what Robert Zubrin describes in the article from which the following it quoted.
In June 1978, Song Jian, a top-level manager in charge of developing control systems for the Chinese guided-missile program, traveled to Helsinki for an international conference on control system theory and design. While in Finland, he picked up copies of The Limits to Growth and Blueprint for Survival — publications of the Club of Rome, a major source of Malthusian propaganda — and made the acquaintance of several Europeans who were promoting the reports’ method of using computerized “systems analysis” to predict and design the human future.
Fascinated by the possibilities, Song returned to China and republished the Club’s analysis under his own name (without attribution), establishing his reputation for brilliant and original thinking….. In no time at all, Song became a scientific superstar.
Song proposed that China’s rulers set a limit of one child per family, effective immediately. Deng Xiaoping liked what Song had to say, so those who might have had the power to resist the one-child policy were quick to protect themselves by lining up in support….
Thus began the most forceful population control program since Nazi Germany….«
Except that China’s brutal population control program, horrible and totalitarian as it was and still is (although it is being relaxed a bit now), was not at all an attempt to bring about the genocide of a large sector of a people as was the Holocaust pursued by the Hitler regime.
At the same time, no one being made to suffer the consequences from any of those population control measures was ever thrown into a concentration camp, to become a member of a large pool of slave labour that a government used for gain, re-education or for profit from contracting it out (well, except for vocal objectors, in countries such as the USSR and China), no matter whether any of them tattooed numbers on their arms or not.
Most people afflicted by the population control holocaust are totally unaware of what is being done to them or that what they experience is part of a greater scheme to harm them. A few, such as the Jewish woman mentioned by someone who said that the woman had tattooed her court docket number on her arm, to demonstrate that a Jewish woman was once more being made a target of a holocaust, experienced the pain of it because of something that not even the Hitler regime routinely engaged in, a massively escalating trade in children. With fewer people having children, and with fewer children being born, the demand – by prospective parents who are infertile by nature or choice – to adopt other people’s children is growing proportionately.
It does not follow that all victims of the family-court “holocaust” are Jewish, the vast majority of them is not. Still, the Jewish woman had her child ripped from her for profit. The more painful the ripping is made for millions of parents, the more the legal industry profits from the ripping. The longer the process of the ripping is stretched, the bigger the profits to be made, aside from the advantage that one malicious parent may gain over the other by being granted ownership and control of a child, thereby securing a steady and copious income stream (provided the mother is the one who acquired kids, car cash and castle – mothers must rarely pay child support; they pay only a small fraction of what fathers are being made to pay, and they virtually always default without impunity on paying most or all of it). Often the child will not even wind up in the hands of either parent, such as when it is being adopted, which provides further profits for the legal industry and its adjuncts. There is a fortune to be made in that.
The adoption business experienced a boom that puts Hitler’s Lebensborn program to shame, but, never fear, that boom is happening in “free” developed nations, not in totalitarian ones. “Free” choice is good, therefore all is good, but what a choice! What is free about it? What is so free about any of the choices people make within the scope of the population control holocaust? Their “freedom to choose” is about a free as is the “free” choice someone makes to get a move on when his pants our his house were set on fire.
All of that intensifies the effectiveness and consequences of the “humane” methods used in the “free” developed nations to discourage people from having children. It serves to convince hundreds of millions of people, that to have children and families is as risky as playing Russian roulette with every second chamber loaded.
Will the drive to import immigrants in unprecedented numbers from underdeveloped nations put an end to the downward trend in birth rates? That depends on what the immigrants have to say about it. Furthermore, they bolster the declining numbers of young consumers in the developed nations (the old and the elderly do not buy many consumer products anymore) which is surely one of the main reasons why the demand for immigrants is so high. They have far more money to spend than they did in their countries of origin, and they now have access to consumer goods they previously only dreamed of. One way or another, they will consume, they crave it, and they are eager to consume.
Walter H. Schneider, Bruderheim, 2017 12 24