Tags

, , , , , ,

What is “violence”? A simple search reveals simple definitions, in basically three different senses:

Definition #1: Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. Physical force used to inflict injury or damage. Swift and intense force. Rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment.

Definition #2: Strength of emotion, or an unpleasant or destructive natural force. Rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language.

Definition #3: The unlawful exercise of physical force, or intimidation by the exhibition of such force. An unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws.

What is Not violence

We would not say that a dentist is “violent,” when a tooth extraction or orthodontic adjustment from a dentist, causes pain, although we try to make it as easy as possible…And we would not term an injection from doctor, “violent.” When sports activities produce some aches and pains and even injuries, we do not protest, especially if our child is connected with a winning team…And when we watch the Gold Medal moment of a young Olympic skater, we do not term it “violence” all the parents had to put them through for years, in order to reach their pinnacle of success.

Do you call it “violence” when a policeman stops someone who is speeding through a school zone, and writes out a ticket which will “forcibly take away” the person’s hard-earned money? No, because the pain and discipline of the penalty should prohibit the much greater suffering for all, should a child be hit by a speeding car. Maybe the speeding driver was not disciplined as a child, teaching them that there are consequences to their choices, especially relating to human life. So, ironically enough, the penalty of forfeiting money is used as an attempt to reach their selfish heart.

article_vaccine-420x0So, what is “violence toward children”? Is spanking “violence”? Actually, it is not, if you carefully examine the above definitions. A few stings on the bottom with a little switch, delivered calmly by a loving parent who is mindfully training their child, does not fall into any of the above three categories. Such a spanking is not “intended to hurt [as in harm], damage or kill,” although a sports opponent might do so. It does not “inflict injury or damage,” and causes a lot less pain than a typical vaccination. A mindful and controlled parent is not “injurious or rough,” unlike most hockey and football players…And certainly it should never be deemed unlawful for parents to keep order within their own home by judiciously applying discipline to their children’s lives. This surely is not “an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power.”

The Supreme Law of Conscience

Even if some states now call it “unlawful,” the supreme Law of Conscience proclaims that parents have every right to expect obedience from the children they brought to into this world, as they are held responsible by their Creator – whether by the state or not – to control those children and raise them into a productive adulthood. They are certainly held accountable if they do not.

Ab-use of parental authority does exist. But often it comes from frustrated parents who are oppressed themselves, as in definition #3-type violence exerted upon them by their national government. Forbidden by law to simply and calmly spank their children in love, many parents come to the explosion point and verbally attack their disrespectful, out-of-control children. Some even get physically abusive, as parents in Sweden are increasingly doing. So there you see the results of some bad parenting…the State commits violence Definition #3 upon parents, and the parents turn around and take it out on their children.

Now, let’s consider another scenario, one that has existed on Planet Earth for millennia…

If children are born to parents who want them, who love them before they are born, who feed and clothe them properly from the time they arrive, then they start out on an excellent foundation. If their needs are met with tenderness, they learn early to trust and be secure with their father and mother. And then when the child becomes more mobile, with the emerging of independent action, boundaries are set and kept firm by the loving and watchful parents. Soon it is time to start teaching the child to keep itself within the boundaries of the parents’ love.

If there is disobedience, quickly the child senses disapproval from its mindful parent, and the child is brought back into their “safety zone.” A few little stings on the bottom from a little switch, to reinforce the right standards of loving parents, does not shatter the child’s world or make them insecure, when they know their parents love them and they are secure in that love. The child is happiest and most peaceful when connected like this to its parents. Really, the insecurity would come if they found inconsistency…if the child experimented over and over but found no boundaries to keep them safe. (And then the behavior begins to be appalling, as the child tries to find out if they give so much as a damn, in the true sense of the word…)

But rather, with a few tears, a few words, a hug and a kiss, the child goes on happily by the side of the parents. Only a minute or so has passed…

What is Violence

p14

Klosterzimmern, 5 September 2013

But then came the day when dark-suited strangers arrived with black gloves on, even carrying weapons, and they burst into the happy and secure home. The strangers intruded into bedrooms and bathrooms, made sharp demands, spoke roughly to the beloved parents of the once-happy children, sternly separated parents and children, and then loaded the children into vehicles and took them away to places unknown, to live with strangers.

 

p8

This would fall under Definition #1 of violence: “swift and intense force.” And also it would be Definition #2 of violence: “rough and immoderate vehemence.” These children had never seen adults act or treat others the way the dark-suited strangers did. It was “an intimidating use of force.”

Days passed, and passed, and passed…with no contact allowed between the parents and the children. The secure environment was gone. The fostering strangers may have been kind or cold…but they were strangers. Strange sounds, smells, foods, habits. Strangers raising your frightened little child. Empty, fearful days passed, days of insecurity and despair and tears. “Where are my father and mother? Why do they not come for me?”

Somehow, that forceful behavior from the dark-suited strangers seemed calculated to hurt and destroy the parent/child bond, especially when state officials promised to give the parents contact with the children right away, but then did not allow it. Some foster parents and educators spoke to young children repeatedly in a critical way about the true parents, and tried to intimidate the children into breaking their family standards and religious traditions. Some actually raised their voices to the children about these issues, and the children begged to not hear their parents and their religion criticized this way.

If a child is torn from their family and placed in a strange home to be ruled over by strangers, surely this maltreatment falls under Definition #2 of violence: strength of emotion, or an unpleasant or destructive natural force. Rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language. It also falls under Definition #3 of violence: An unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws [such as parental rights within the traditional family unit, and the child’s right to have family security and choose their own religion].

Some children were sharply questioned at length by officials, about the way their parents were raising them. What kind of mental torture is going on, when a child is oppressed with the realization that they could destroy their own family and their beloved parents with a single misplaced word or phrase, twisted by their interrogators? This is how the children felt. Maybe the officials were committing acts somewhat according to Definition #1 of violence, as in attempting to kill the family bond.

On the first visit of the dark-suited officials, some children were loaded into vehicles along with their mothers, and separated from the fathers for weeks…

But then, one day the dark-suited strangers burst in again! Very early in the morning, while children were still sleeping, breast-feeding, or eating breakfast, the officials came flooding in as a shock wave! Again, some had weapons, although this was a foster care facility where the broken families were already held. The officials came bursting harshly into their own state-controlled facility!

Screams of children and mothers shattered the early morning. The children, clinging in terror to their mothers, were forcibly pried away by the dark-suited strangers with black gloves on. One mother had her arms twisted behind her as the children were torn away. One mother had a nursing baby literally ripped away from her breast. A mother was forced into a room with officers and locked there, screaming, as windows were shut to keep neighbors from hearing. The little children, even nurslings, were separated from siblings and loaded into cars and driven away to places unknown to be with strangers. They did not know what happened to their beloved mothers who were screaming. What impression did that leave upon the children? And the parents were refused contact with the children, for weeks.

So now, finally, we see Definition #1 of violence, in action: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. Physical force used to inflict injury or damage. Swift and intense force. Rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment. And we see Definition #3 of violence again: the unlawful exercise of physical force, or intimidation by the exhibition of such force. An unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws.

Against their own Humanity

Government officials have to go against their own humanity to do such violence to families as was described above. They are abusing the mothers and the little children, right in front of each other. They have to persuade themselves, through complicated reasoning, that a few controlled stings on the bottom given from a loving parent in a secure environment is “wrong” and “evil”… while the repeated violence they have done is “warranted” and even “justified.”

Common sense…the sense that is common to sensible people…tells real human beings that secure and happy children are not ab-used (mis-used) by the sting of a spanking.

A spanking is not a “beating” or a “caning.” Those are inflammatory terms deliberately chosen to put good parents on the defensive, and to make insecure people ashamed that they spank. The “beating” and “caning” terms are calculated to set public opinion against the special place of spanking in the parent/child relationship.

This application of language is a cunning argument, calling a good evil, and it is working. Parents are being cowed and shut down and silenced into feeling stupid and inadequate next to the professionals with their black gloves and their armed associates…who have been violently abusing the Twelve Tribes children, and many, many others. Those officials are instilling fear into the people, using psychological pressure and the threat of violence to keep the public under control. It is not just for the Twelve Tribes – we are merely the vehicle at this time. The control is being exercised, and the fear is being instilled, upon everybody.

So, think about it. Will the children of the Twelve Tribes “love” the State now? Do you think the children “trust” the hands that grabbed their own mother in front of their very eyes, and twisted her arms behind her back, and pried her children’s arms away from her as they screamed and she screamed? Who do you think the children regard as ab-users, miss-handlers, of children and of people? The answer is an easy one, very easy.

What upon the earth is the Jugendamt trying to accomplish…but control? Obviously, it is not trying to instill love, trust, and loyalty. Will any German citizen love and trust their mother country more because of all of this? Does the Jugendamt represent what German citizens want for their country, among all the nations of the earth?

What do those officials think about at night, when they have taken off their black gloves and black clothing? What is it like at bed-time for their own children? Do they have kisses of affection, and bed-time stories? Did those women officials breast-feed their own babies? What were they thinking when they tore that baby from its mother’s breast?

Do they actually imagine that they are somehow “better” or more “law-abiding” than the Twelve Tribes parents? Or do they think of their “cases” as less than human? And what about you? What do you think?

Those who live merely by “the law,” and not from their own human conscience, will end up wondering whatever happened to their innocence — to their joy in life. But as a man reaps, he sows: it is an inexorable law. The Bible simply says, “Woe to those who deprive the innocent of his right.” (Isaiah 5:23)

 

This is a very significant issue, for as writer Stefan Mayr says in Mit Aller Gewalt, “The gap between the “Twelve Tribes” and the authorities thus runs along the definition of violence.”

Laws outlawing spanking in countries such as Germany and Sweden represent a break, a rupture with all human history. They represent an abridgement of the natural law written on every man’s heart. A new day is dawning, but what day? What will this day be like? Read all of Isaiah 5:20-24 to get the whole picture, and jump up to Isaiah 24 to get the denouement.

Denouement: the outcome of a complex series of events.