Holocaust Israel Child Custody Laws Parents Family Jewish Divorce

We reflect on the tragedies that Jewish families suffered throughout Europe 60 years ago in the European Holocaust. How Jewish families were torn apart systematically by a Nazi totalitarian government. How children were separated from their parents.

Nazi persecution, arrests, and deportations were directed against all members of Jewish families, as well as many Gypsy families, without concern for age. Inevitably the children were among the prisoners at highest risk. Homeless, often orphaned, they had frequently witnessed the murder of parents, siblings, and relatives. They faced starvation, illness, brutal labor, and other indignities until they were consigned to the gas chambers. In relationship to adult prisoners, their chances for survival were usually smaller although their flexibility and adaptability to radically changed circumstances could sometimes increase the odds in their favor. That these Jewish children survived at all and also created diaries, poems, and drawings in virtually all ghettos and concentration camps is truly remarkable.

Full statistics for the tragic fate of children who died during the Holocaust will never be known. Some estimates range as high as 1.5 million murdered children. This figure includes more than 1.2 million Jewish children, tens of thousands of Gypsy children and thousands of institutionalized handicapped children who were murdered under Nazi rule in Germany and occupied Europe.

No one can compare the atrocities exercised by the Nazis to the lack of due process and blatant gender bias discrimination by Israel family courts and Israel child welfare departments in Israel. The real culprit being the cold, twisted and disturbed mother who goes to the Israel family court and separates child from father. But the deep emotional pain and suffering of planned, governmental systematic separation during the Nazi regime and today in Israel between child and parent - is the pain any different?

Why is it that if a divorced dad in Israel wishes to visit his children on Holocaust Memorial Day, he can and will be arrested and thrown into prison? Rather, the father, who serves in the IDF reserves, stands alone as the air raid sirens marking Holocaust Day resonate throughout the country, unable to explain to his children how and why their relatives were murdered in the Holocaust.

It used to be that the family was a sovereign institution. That was when we still thought that the family was the foundation of society in every nation on Earth, and as long as governments were considered to be the servants, not the masters of society. Liberalists don't like that very much, because as long as the family and the rights of the family are supreme and protect every individual, man, woman and child, the power of governments, of anti-family ideologists and of the proponents of sexual freedom is very limited.

The only thing that stands between the power of totalitarian governments and the condition of slavery for individuals is the protection of the family. If we want them, families are forever, but governments come and go. Throughout modern history it was the intention of people who wanted to usurp absolute power to limit, erode and abrogate the rights of the family. With the advent of the migration of individuals from rural areas to urban centres, families themselves lost the protection of their extended families and of their close communities.

Governments recognized that and established a number of schemes to alleviate the resulting hardships: social service agencies, health-care plans, pension plans and related institutions. All of these efforts at promoting and securing the safety of individuals within their families were not totally successful. The industrial revolution brought about the exploitation of individuals and families who had to rely on working for wages as their sole source of income. Out of that rose the labour movement and liberalism. Those prepared the ground for the rise of socialism and its more extreme variations: communism and feminism.

The Jewish family did not do well in the political and ideological upheavals, except to some extent in those countries where the family was considered nothing much more than a production facility for soldiers and workers. As many social problems occurred within families and always with individuals who were products of families, it was thought by some that more government control over families would alleviate some of the problems, whereas others saw the family as the source of many social ills and wanted to eliminate it altogether.

In a world in which women are necessary to ensure the production of children, where the growth of nations is measured in terms of their population, it is common to promote and encourage the production of children. Many nations did that to such an extent that in some countries it was possible for many families to make a living by having large numbers of children. Of course, that also made the husband and father unnecessary as a provider for his family. It even made it unnecessary for any family to have just a single father.

The first step in the destruction of the traditional nuclear family had been taken. Napoleon is reported to have said: "Who has the youths controls the future." It makes perfect sense for anyone who depends for his power on nationalism and hero worship to say that, but it also means that when he gets control of the youths the families raising them lose their influence and control over them. Nevertheless, it was a slogan that was eagerly picked up by many political and ideological interests in many nations.

Every political faction and ideological orientation in Germany began in the late 19th century to create their own youth organizations. The German youth movement became an enormously popular and powerful force, far more popular and perhaps far more powerful than the student radicals of the 1960s. The youth organizations had generally one thing in mind, the elimination of the stuffiness of the establishment. At the very least, none of them had very much respect for the establishment.

Lenin produced his own version of the slogan coined by Napoleon. It is said that he stated: "Give me your four-year-olds, and in one generation I'll construct a socialist State." Stalin continued Lenin's legacy and established a system for the indoctrination of youths that was virtually indistinguishable from that used by Hitler. Mao Tse Tung followed the same prescription for controlling and indoctrinating his people. One of the more remarkable results of that was the Chinese Cultural Revolution, which almost entirely eliminated a whole generation of intellectuals, a circumstance from which the Chinese economy is suffering to this day.

Hitler is often credited with the creation of the German youth movement. That is a false assumption. Hitler did not create the German youth movement; he consolidated it for his own aims under the concept of the Hitler Youth and put Baldur von Schirach, a homosexual, in charge of it. That a homosexual became the Reich Leader of the Hitler Youth shouldn't surprise anyone. The youth organizations were segregated by the sexes, and early peer sex was being advocated by many leaders of the youth movement before Hitler — who was a homosexual, too, and never even had sexual relations with his ostensible mistress and later wife, Eva Braun — came on the scene. The result of that was that many youths were introduced to homosexuality and that the most popular and likable homosexuals became political leaders. As things evolved, the more radical of those were communists and fascists. The Nazis were merely the more powerful ones and won the struggle for political domination.

After 1933, virtually every German youth was a member of the Hitler Youth. It was largely peer pressure that made younger children join at first. Ultimately, membership in the Hitler Youth became compulsory for every student organization. Virtually all children aged ten years and older joined, and students spent almost all of their spare time in activities within the control of the Hitler Youth. Aside from mostly sleeping and eating at home, although they often didn't even do that, they had effectively been removed from the control of their parents and placed under the total control of the State.

Thus all of the totalitarian leaders achieved the second major step in the destruction of families, control of the children. The attempts to achieve state control of the minds of our children by no means ended with the lives of the great totalitarian leaders. The principle first recognized in antiquity and implemented by Napoleon is still very true today. The war against the family continues. Although liberalists are still very much in the process of gaining control over our youth organizations and attempt by all sorts of subterfuge to subvert them to their will, youth organizations aren't all that important any longer. There are now far more effective tools to gather a captive audience and to indoctrinate it.

Television is currently the most influential of those, and the feminist-dominated and -controlled education curriculum is a close second. If the State had the least bit of interest in preserving and protecting the power of the family, we would not see the daily diet of filth, violence and moral corruption — most of all not the constant vilification of men and the father figure — that far too many of our children are being subjected to for many hours each day of the week. However, the State is no longer our servant, not since "the tyranny by the majority" (formerly called democracy) was replaced by the tyranny by the minorities. The systematic destruction of our families continues, actively promoted by radical extremist minorities that are in virtually total control of the State. What was called "liberty and equality" during the French revolution is now called equal rights for women and for homosexuals. What was called "free love"* by the communists is now called sexual freedom. [See Communist Manifesto] The easy dissolution of marriages for a minimal fee of a few Kopecks under the early communists in Russia (they soon changed their minds about that on account of the Pandora's Box that opened) has been replaced by no-fault divorce and false allegations of sexual abuse or domestic violence. After all, if you were to make divorces available for a minimal fee, then that would make it impossible for the divorce industry to derive its enormous profits from the process of the systematic destruction of our families.

The destruction of Jewish families continues on many fronts. Just to mention a few: On November 19, 1999, Canada held a vote by its children as to which items of a set of ten articles (to be taken from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child) Canadian children wish to have introduced as legislation to be promoted and established as changes to family law in Canada. The children's vote was being promoted by UNICEF and Elections Canada, neither one of which is an elected body, but both of which are very much manifestations of family-hostile forces. The UNICEF proposal for the children's vote hadn't even been discussed in Canadian Parliament. However, it had been funded out of tax revenues.

In Germany a proposal is being pushed through the Bundesrat (the German Federal Senate) to provide by law a five percent pocket money allowance to wives, to be paid by the wives' husbands.

In October 1999, the British Minister for Women announced plans to compel employers to pay men's wages into their wives' bank accounts. Baroness Jay said that the new rules, which were to come into force in April 2000, will reduce poverty in the family by ensuring that family income is not wasted. She said that wives will have sole discretion over whether or not they receive their husband's wages directly. This is in line with the current regulations which allow wives to decide which partner is paid Child Benefit.

Given that the feminist social engineers who drive the international agenda for the planned systematic destruction of our families network very intensely, it is quite likely that Canada's feminist bureaucrats provided the motivation for the U.K. for the exploitation of working men and fathers and the sowing of consequential dissent in families. Except that Canada did not go quite so far as to penalize all married or cohabiting men. In 1997, Canada implemented changes to the Income Tax Act that deprived men obligated to pay child support of their right to deduct the child support amounts they pay from their taxable income. Ostensibly, the revenues gathered through that — which even Canada's socialist totalitarian government estimated to be in the order of about $500 million a year — was intended to pay all single mothers in the lowest 20-percentile of the income distribution a total of $250 million a year in child tax credits — leaving a cool extra $250 million per year in the government's revenue coffers to be applied in the uncontrolled and escalating spending spree of the Liberals.

Some sources a bit more reputable and credible than the purveyors of the government propaganda estimated that the extra tax revenues collected through that exploitative scheme are more likely in the order of $750 million per year. Of course, the extra tax revenue thus collected is money that is for all intents and purposes taken out of the mouths of Canada's children of divorced and single-parent families. Although divorced and child-support-paying fathers objected to the scam, the Liberal Government got re-elected with an even larger majority than in the previous election — a direct outcome of the promise in their election platform to help single mothers in poverty. Moreover, since the scam got cooked up in virtual secrecy and was eventually passed in record time as the very last act concluded by Parliament prior to the election, it got virtually no attention in the media, while the election promise to help poor mothers was the corner stone of the Liberal Party's platform.

In India property rights for women are being given preferential treatment, with government-assisted loans being made available to women to purchase real estate or to establish business ventures (to which their husbands have no rights, but, I suppose, to which they are nevertheless expected to contribute the fruits of their labour). The reasoning there is identical to that in the proposed legislation in the U.K.: men, and only men, are wasteful; women are not. In addition, the reasoning in India is that women and children form permanent units and that by giving them financial advantages, women can do what men are said to have been incapable of doing, lift their families out of poverty. No nit-picking now. It's feminist logic, therefore infallible.

We need basic and immediate reforms in Israel's outdated Family Custodian Act of 1962. Gender bias discrimination must be outlawed, fathers provided with equal access and children should be assured that they will receive love and care from both parents.

In Israel, the Rabbinical law of Shalom Biet or "Peace in the Home" is nothing more than a cruel joke.
Except that it produces revenue for the local Beit Dein. Shalom Biet, which is supposed to be one of the most sacred and essential pillars of Judaism - taken from the quiet and respect which surrounded the First Temple in Jerusalem - is not encouraged and is not enforced.

Where have our most basic values of Jewish family life gone? Why is the cherished Jewish family perishing under both Israeli and Rabbinical law?

Well, it's neither logical nor infallible, but it is most certainly feminist doctrine, and that doesn't need any justification at all, because it is based on "women's way of knowing." Karin Jaeckel, a German author of children's books and of books about families and about love within the family, says about the pocket-money-for-wives charter, in Pocket Money for Mom, that a family of four with an average income can ill afford 175 DM per month (350 DM if the husband will be granted the same right) just for fun money. She states that families barely scrape by as is and that to create this law will achieve nothing other than to elevate the already high levels of stress in many families.

However, what all proposals like that have in common is further intrusion by world states and the State of Israel into the lives of Jewish families, resulting in an escalation of the systematic destruction of our families. More children will be removed under the pretense of the law from the control and guidance by their parents, making them more "autonomous", and more men will become less inclined to become married. Before men even enter marriage they are being told that it is not they who'll have the power, but that it is the State who holds the power in families and calls all of the shots. Existing marriages will experience the additional stress described by Karin Jaeckel and therefore be more likely to break apart. If the proposed pocket-money-charter for wives becomes law, it will no doubt eventually result in a five percent tax being deducted right off the husband's pay cheque, thereby giving the government not only more power but an improved cash flow.

And that is what it is all about. When it comes to bringing about the systematic destruction of our families and to increase the power of the State, anything will do, even if it is just a "little" thing such as legislated pocket money for wives.

You don't dare for a second to ever call an Israeli a Nazi. Unless you work for Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad or the International Solidarity Movement which is responsible for the PR and spin of the Palestinians.
But please tell me what is different in being systematically separated by a government from your children? Why is it that if a divorced dad wishes to visit his children on Holocaust Memorial Day, he can and will be arrested and thrown into prison? Rather, the father stands alone as the air raid sirens marking Holocaust Day resonate throughout the country, unable to explain to his children how his relatives died in the Holocaust.

We need basic and immediate reforms in Israel's outdated Family Custodian Act of 1962.
We are not Nazis. Israel is supposed to be a "light onto other nations." Israel is supposed to be an enlightened democracy. But there is no democracy for both divorced fathers and their children in Israel today.
Only suffering and forced separation.