Family Courts as Centers of Industrial Genocide, Part 2
Continued from Part 1 of ‘Family Courts as Centers of Industrial Genocide’
The Family Court Industrial Complex
A common experience upon entering the genocidal machine of Family Court as an innocent victim is one of disbelief that a judiciary could truly be aiming for one’s complete destruction; that authorities would knowingly cause needless calamity; and that there would be no way out. The kinds of death and destruction met in the Family Courts — the kinds one would have thought would call in the National Guards — are met with total indifference, if not sneers and mockery at the loving parent’s panic. These cognitive dissonances create a frantic attempt on the part of the parent to regain control: “What if I responded more ‘reasonably’ [to the annihilation of my children]?” “What if I produced more proof of the abuse?” and “What if I behaved with better compliance [to the impossible demands]?”
As we know from other genocides, there is almost nothing one can “do”, once one is identified as a member of the targeted group to be eliminated, and all other rescue systems are incapacitated. And the harder one tries to prove one’s innocence, the tighter the vise constricts. Indeed, Family Court protocol goes far beyond “kids for cash” to the operation of a slave trade, where children are sold to their rapists, batterers, and murderers — and those who would be witnesses or whistleblowers are discredited and decimated. “Fixing” results to the advantage of the perpetrator, which coincides with the destruction of all evidence, including his victims, is the service Family Courts sell for a hefty price.
Therefore, euphemistic explanations such as Family Courts protecting “parental rights” over children’s rights; children being “collateral damage” to well-intentioned Courts; Courts simply defining “best interests of children” differently; judges needing “more education” on domestic violence and child abuse; and Family Court judges being “overwhelmed with cases” belie the fact that any close observation reveals the fallacy of these assumptions. No doubt there are exceptions where the above excuses apply, but for the vast majority of Family Court cases where child transfers to their abusers are involved, the arrangements are deliberate, systematic, and coordinated with all other associated players. Indeed, the industrial efficiency of the torture, rape, and murder, as well as the manipulation of “judicial” procedures indicate the necessity of an opposite conclusion.
What one sees far too commonly is the erasure of children’s voices altogether; the abolition of rights of the good parent; the shunning of data and all learning; the search for loopholes and “open windows” in each case to effectuate illegal and unconstitutional rulings; the critogenic (Court-caused) crises, such that the Courts are the greatest source of calamity in all these lives; and the judicial overreach into areas of child protection, law enforcement, schools, and medical care, as well as the prolongation of cases to years if not decades, in order to control outcomes. I base these assessments on the three dozen Family Court cases I have been directly involved in as an expert witness across ten different states; on the hundreds of anecdotes I have received over two years, since announcing my research; and on the Department of Justice- and nonprofit-sponsored nationwide studies of death rates, as well as other scientific literature.
In Part 1, I described the target group to be “mothers and children who allege abuse in Family Court,” refined as: “loving family members who are emotionally bonded in ways that the abusive father is not.” However, further refinement can be made: “family members with independent thought who will not submit to the abuser’s delusional narrative.” When these members are marked for punishment or elimination, it is because reality must be eradicated for the psychopathic mind. When Richard Gardner misused his knowledge of child psychiatry to twist children’s normal reactions to abuse into “signs of coaching” and the loving parent’s normal protective impulses into “lies to gain an edge in the divorce” — and Family Courts fervently embraced him — a door was open for abuse. Because his personal theories contradicted all well-established scientific findings about human behavior, all manner of antiscientific, antidevelopmental, and antimedical theories crept into the Family Courts, which hired Gardner for four hundred cases, even as scientific organizations denounced his theories. Family Courts, where normal standards of evidence and due process do not apply because of almost unlimited “discretion” and self-imposed secrecy, thus became lucrative centers of human trafficking, pedophilic sex rings, and child pornography production — all under the protection of “judicial immunity.”
Financial and business interests are no strangers to genocides: for example, they have played major roles in the Jewish, Kurdish, and Darfurian progroms. Family Court genocide is heavily tied to financial incentives. Family Courts not only effectuate the “sale” of children to their abusers but also the transfer of funds along with them, through child support, seizure of assets, and a variety of back-channel, money-laundered, illegitimately-procured sources of funding. There is also the transfer of federal funds to state coffers via the manipulation of Social Security Act Title IV-D, which allows the Department of Revenue and Child Support to penalize a targeted parent for “withholding” financial support the Family Court’s designated sole custodian of a child. These actions can involve seizure of bank accounts, revocation of driver’s licenses, removal of business licenses, and incarceration, which Family Courts employ with the goal of total destruction of a life.
The industrial element, therefore, is a continuation of the mental element of Family Court genocide that deals with opportunity. According to the United Nations (UN):
Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted — not randomly — because of their real or perceived membership of [a group]. This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable … and “substantial”.
That the victims of Family Court are deliberately, not randomly, targeted is the basis for my argument of genocide based on social group. Once they are identified not only as “mothers and children who allege abuse in Family Court,” but as “loving family members who are emotionally bonded in ways that the abusive father is not,” Family Courts exploit the abuser’s psychological yearning for “revenge”. Hence, the more the proof there is of the abuse, and the more the loving mother tries to protect her children, the more they will be retaliated against — or imputed to be an “alienator” — and acquire targets on their backs for pursuit until their virtual annihilation. The “loving” quality makes them hated objects for violent perpetrators, for they expose the qualities that they lack. It also identifies them as vulnerable, “easy” prey: their empathy not only keeps them from viciously attacking back, but also may prevent them from suspecting the other side’s predatory motives, thus giving the abuser a strategic advantage. Additionally, they are likely to have been traumatized, intimidated, and psychologically manipulated by their narcissistic and psychopathic partners into defending their abuser or faulting themselves for the problems.
(To be continued.)
