 Every
crime has at least one victim and one perpetrator and adoption
is no different.
Just
as in any regular kidnapping, the first victim - the first
mother, is taken for a ride, in this case by an organized
crime syndicate, overseen by the government and executed by
its appointed agents. Adoption victims are told to get lost,
made to get lost, banished into exile and rewarded with the
approval of professional perpetrators, for keeping their mouths
shut about what actually happened. The second victim of adoption
is the ransomed baby that is not returned.
Remember
Patty Hearst, the famous kidnap victim who was brainwashed
by her kidnappers, terrorized and victimized so effectively
she came to believe they were her supporters.
By
the time she had blasted her way through a few banks, they
were her only supporters because no one else could understand
the process she had undergone. Whatever made Patty Hearst
pick up a gun and assist her kidnappers to rob banks!
Who
could possibly relate to that? First mothers can.
They
identify with their oppressors, just like Patty Hearst. They
have their reality distorted by the perpetrators, all those
who gain from adoption crime. Like Patty, adoption victims
are temporarily grateful for the approval extended in return
for their compliance.
Then
they come to their senses. By that time, adoption consent
is signed and they are in a prison of exile, complete with
psychological bars to maintain the threat of ‘confidentiality‘.Like
Patty, they only get that approval when they do what these
criminals want them to do - rob the bank, surrender the baby.
And like Patty, they need deprogramming afterwards in order
to know and understand exactly what happened to them, how
they were disempowered by their own overwhelming, situational
fear created by their tormentors, who practice a mental form
of rape.
Adoption
is the only kidnapping in the law books where the perpetrators
actually get to keep the ransom. The only way for the mother
to protect herself and her baby from the threats of these
kidnappers, is to surrender it to them. Guns are not needed
- fear of the future is the main weapon used in this crime.
It’s ridiculously easy to distress and confuse any new
mother suffering from an imbalance of hormones following a
birth. Like taking candy off a baby, or taking a baby off
your victim once you have her vulnerable, confused, depressed,
and also desperate for your approval. In rape literature this
is known as ‘dehumanising’ your victim.
When
a baby is abducted in public there is a public outcry. The
bereft mother is seen on TV, surrounded by grim faced police
officers coaching her to beg for the rapid and safe return
of her stolen child. Public sympathy is with her. There can
be no doubt in the viewer’s mind that the mother is a
victim every bit as much as the child. Her suffering is apparent.
No one questions her anguish. The nation prays for the safe
return of the abducted child and rejoice when it happens.
This does not happen with adoption crime, which is carried
out in private. But by not speaking out against adoption,
the public becomes just another category of perpetrator, by
default. Or perhaps they are planning to adopt?
Often
the public abductor is a woman who is infertile or has suffered
the loss of her own child. After being caught and the baby
safely restored to the arms of its grateful mother, this perpetrator
is offered psychiatric treatment for the previous loss that
drove her to such deviant, anti-social behaviour.
But
for all the horrified sympathy, there is no doubt in the publics'
mind that the kidnapper is quite mad to have done such a thing.
She must also be punished, but criminal court judges tend
to look upon such crimes with pity, on the premise that anyone
driven to such a desperate act as stealing the child of another
woman is mentally ill and quite deranged and needs firm correction,
tempered with a good dollop of compassion. It is understood
that the personal pain of irreversible infertility or child-loss
is so damaging that this kidnapper was driven to steal the
baby. Clearly, overwhelming personal pain explains this wickedness.
No
one doubts the bereft mother has suffered enormously. We identify
with her - what loss we ourselves would feel should our precious
child be abducted. And in a normal, safe place like a shopping
mall, a maternity ward, a bank. But the kidnapper is merely
exercising a short cut to stranger adoption, cutting out all
the middle men and women, the retailers, those social workers
and lawyers and legislators, the adoption brokers, the fences’
of these stolen goods. The role of the illegal kidnapper is
therefore that of wholesaler to the adoption industry.
The
other perpetrators of adoption must also be in some kind of
personal pain. This may comprise guilt presenting as denial.
Perhaps they too have lost a child or are infertile, and cannot
face their grief. Another woman’s child becomes the band-aid
for their wound. This certainly applies to the receivers of
adoption crime. For the other perpetrators it may just be
plain old-fashioned greed, that heart-stopping moment at the
traffic lights, when they look out of the window of their
elderly station wagon and the Porsche is right there, with
an engine so quiet you can’t even hear it. I can relate
to that. And so can the judges in the family courts who bless
and bible these transactions of legalized kidnapping. But
then all robbers use distributors to shift their stolen property.
The
health ‘professionals‘, the adoption social workers,
clearly
suffer from emotional problems. They understand they were
created in the image of God and therefore like to imitate
his works. They also have an income issue. They base entire
careers on a specialization that includes advancement and
salary increments. Imagine if you can, building your own future
doing God’s work, placing children almost in their own
families, with the added benefits of a guaranteed career path
with guaranteed advancement, only to realize that what you
are doing is wrong.
It’s
like a person with an overweight problem eating chocolate
to deal with the depression they feel when they remember how
destructive they are being, opening another box of chocolates
to make themselves feel better. If adoption no longer feels
good, arrange another one quickly, to push the guilt away.
Any surfacing of guilt or regret at swindling defenceless
young mothers out of their babies, and all the brainwashing
techniques that involves, can only be assuaged by doing another
adoption, and another and another. The dynamics of adoption
are remarkably similar to drug addicted behaviour. It becomes
compulsive behaviour, not to mention repulsive behaviour.
Having distanced their ‘professional’ heads so far
from any sense of human decency, adoption social workers become
unable to distinguish between right and wrong. They have become
amoral, along with their literature.
There
is a huge, so-called ‘body of knowledge’ that has
grown up around adoption social work that allays any doubts
an individual social worker might have as to the ethics of
what she is doing when she arranges an adoption. Yes, of course
they write it themselves - silly you!
But
social workers come very close to not taking the baby away
from the mother - as close as they can get without actually
doing it. They ‘match’ the characteristics of the
natural parents with those of the adoptive applicants to ensure
that this child is placed as nearly as possible into its own
natural family. Matching is promoted on the basis that the
child is most likely to be accepted and attach to substitute
parents of similar genetic and social aspects to the natural
parents, which makes nonsense of adoption at every level.
If children are better off in their own families then surely....Silly
me, I keep forgetting the money.
Another
consideration is that carrying out adoptions creates a feeling
better than Prozac, better than religion, better even than
late model cars. It gives the perpetrators an adrenalin rush.
Better than God. And the receivers are so grateful to the
judge, the social worker, and the lawyer. They may even thank
the mother nicely, if coolly, for her ‘gift’ to
them before they send her on her way with a couple of letters
and an out of focus photograph that won’t identify the
ransom that they are, astonishingly, allowed to keep.
The
perpetrators of adoption may be suffering from psychiatric
and social dysfunctions that cause their destructive, compulsive
behaviour. Perhaps they are exhibiting a psychiatric condition
not yet diagnosed that includes a power need so great they
are prepared to destroy the new mother psychologically in
order to sell off her child to the highest bidder. But probably
there is nothing more to adoption crime than good old-fashioned
human greed, just like any old robbery planned and carried
out for personal gain, no different to any other criminal
doing any other crime. The brokers of adoption, the middle
men and women, so empathetic with their clients who pay and
pay and pay for the child they believed they wanted, continue
to retail this traffic in human babies.
And
like all armed robbers on the way to the bank, they prefer
not to think about the injuries they are about to inflict.
That would get in the way of the money. And that’s mostly
what North American adoption is about.
If
considered at all, the first mothers of stolen children, many
of whom now suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder amongst
other serious conditions, as a direct result of adoption kidnapping,
are seen as just another bank guard who accidentally got in
the way. As any armed robber will tell you, they didn’t
mean to hurt anyone. They just wanted the cash. The gun went
off by itself. Funny how they always claim they never touched
the trigger.
Voices
From Exile March 2003 "The Perpetrators of Adoption Crime"
Copyright © 2003 Joss Shawyer
|
