Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Got No Heart, Part 4

I wasn't sure if there was going to be a Part 4 to this series. I should have known to just give them time.

In Part 1 we saw how the UK government was intervening early on in the lives of children that government bureaucrats decided might become problems for society at some point in the future, with a goal of preventing those problems from ever cropping up. How early?

Predictably, by one year later, the situation was out of control with secret government courts to decide who was a fit parent. From The unnatural justice of secret family courts, August 27, 2007:

The Sunday Telegraph highlights today yet another case in which a mother has been threatened with losing her baby to local authority care. The mother had not shown any sign at all of harming her child, for her baby has not yet been born.

Understand, the child is not yet born.

Insofar as abortion rights are concerned, this is not a child, but a fetus, and may be destroyed.

But, insofar as the government being able to intervene, this is not just a child, but one that will turn out bad unless the government does something.

We also speculated whether government bureaucrats might not be getting into the baby business under cover of the public interest.

Well, in Part 2 we saw this was indeed the case:

So, local government entities were promised more money from London if they increased the number of adoptions. In turn, using excuses like "a chance [the parent] might shout at [the baby] when he was older", they started taking babies from innocent families, because babies are easier to adopt out.

In Part 3, we stopped short of actually saying that the UK government was involved in human trafficking of the babies of UK citizens, only because I produced no evidence documenting a money trail of kickbacks to government officials.

However, you can argue that it is human trafficking nonetheless.

Now, this: I reproduce in its entirety from March 19, 2012:

Instead, the primary pupils are being encouraged to play in large groups.

Educational psychologist Gaynor Sbuttoni said the policy has been used at schools in Kingston, South West London, and Surrey.

She added: "I have noticed that teachers tell children they shouldn't have a best friend and that everyone should play together.

"They are doing it because they want to save the child the pain of splitting up from their best friend. But it is natural for some children to want a best friend. If they break up, they have to feel the pain because they're learning to deal with it."

Russell Hobby, of the National Association of Head Teachers, confirmed some schools were adopting best-friend bans.

He said: "I don't think it is widespread but it is clearly happening. It seems bizarre.

I don't see how you can stop people from forming close friendships. We make and lose friends throughout our lives." The Campaign for Real Education, which wants more parental choice in state education, said the "ridiculous" policy was robbing children of their childhood.

Spokesman Chris McGovern added: "Children take things very seriously and if you tell them they can't have a best friend it can be seriously damaging to them. They need to learn about relationships."

I'm not making this up.

(See also UK Schools Ban Children From Making Best Friends, March 22, 2012.)

First, take a moment and research the UK's gun laws. Basically, you aren't supposed to have them - except certain kinds under very limited conditions.

Now, step back and put this all together.

The British people, who more than seven decades ago basically stood alone in the West to stop Hitler, were first disarmed by their own government late in the last century.

Next, secret government courts make the most important decisions about who will raise your children, and if you speak out about it, you go to prison. People no longer have a right to have families, and they do not have a right to complain about this fact or protest it.

Finally, schools are beginning to prevent children from having best friends.

The direction this is moving in is that people will be in trouble if they have close associates; relationships are intended to be casual.

This is important, because a very close friend will risk his life for you, and will help you when you are in trouble. But, when a casual acquaintance sees government goons coming after you, he will step back and let them take you. And, since your "friendships" are all shallow, you won't know whom to trust, so you can't make any effective plans to retake Britain from those who now control it.

Understand, this banning of best friends is in its infancy, but make no mistake about what will happen when this policy grows up.

The people of the United Kingdom fought off the Nazis, they were integral in winning the Cold War and defeating communism... but, the bad guys won. Children in the UK are growing up in a world every bit as bad as Hitler or Stalin ever sought to create.

And, my fellow Americans, don't think this won't happen on our side of the Atlantic.

The US government is already building its database of who your friends are...

Director of National Intelligence Gains New Powers, Expands Datamining of US Citizens

Under revised guidelines for the National Counterterrorism Center, the intelligence agency officials will be able to profile and track American citizens, suspected of no crime, for up to five years. The change represents a dramatic expansion of government surveillance and appears to violate the Privacy Act of 1974, which limits data exchanges across federal agencies and establishes legal rights for US citizens. In 2003, Congress put an end to a similar program. For more information, see EPIC - Total Information Awareness.

No comments:

Post a Comment