Read all of Joss's Column:
|
Voices From Exile, By Joss ShawyerThe Perpetrators of Adoption CrimeEvery 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. Copyright © 2003 Joss ShawyerRead all of Joss's Column written for Origins:
|