Genocide in Biblical and Modern Times, Part Three

This is the last of a three-part series on the topic of genocide. Last time we looked at the United States Code definition of genocide, and explored some examples. This time we’ll consider the last statutory offense listed in the statute: “whoever transfers by force children of the group to another group; or attempts to do so.” When one group removes another group’s children, and forbids them to have more children, with the intent of destroying the group, it is an act of genocide according to the United States, and the United States places heavy penalties for the crime. If someone from the group dies as a result, the criminal must pay with up to $1 million and death or life in prison. If no-one dies, the criminal must pay up to $1 million and twenty years in prison. A person who does not commit the direct crime, but incites it, must pay up to $500,000 and five years in prison. I don’t intend to give a legal analysis here, but I refer to this statute in order to underscore the seriousness of the crime. The United States lawmakers take it seriously, and very likely the rest of the Western world does as well.

The U.S. statute goes beyond genetic groups in its definition of genocide. The above actions done, “with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group” constitute statutory genocide. The United States is a national group, but it is a historical melting pot in which most people in the country are not closely related to one another, and many new immigrants are not related to anyone else in the country. Ethnic groups are often closely related, and racial groups are more distantly related but share similar genetic makeup. Religious groups may also be ethnic, but are not necessarily so. Newer religions are often made up of people newly acquainted with each other who are not genetically related. Older, world-wide religions, are made up of diverse genetic groups of people spread out over the planet.

The Biblical study in Part One showed that destroying the members of a nation, tribe, or family, is the worst thing that can be done to someone on earth. There is nothing worse than having one’s genetic material cease to exist. People will endure profound hardships to prevent this from happening to them. But in most Biblical cases, as well as most historical cases, the father was not left alive to spend years contemplating the destruction of his seed. This was partly prudence. If you wipe out a person’s seed, you don’t want him around to take revenge later.

The last part of the U.S. definition brings us back into contact with the Law of the Manstealer. Historically, menstealers took poor people and/or their children and sold them for money. They took wealthy people and/or their children and let their relatives redeem them for ransom money. If you take a parent’s children from them, they will typically do anything within their power to get them back and prevent harm to them. If they cannot come after you directly, they will likely do whatever you tell them to do as a condition of return. Ransom kidnappers bank on this fact. If the parents are unable or unwilling to fulfill the conditions, then the children can be sold as property to others who are willing to pay for them. In this last case, and if it involves all of a man’s children, then it fits the common-sense definition of genocide according to the United States Code interpreted in light of the Bible.

In Biblical Law, the manstealer who steals a person to sell is punishable by death. The sale could be to strangers, or it could be a redemption by the person’s family. Under United States law, someone who steals children with the intent to destroy the group that the children are taken from, is punishable by death if death results from the kidnapping, and twenty years in prison otherwise. Both of these cases are related to tribalism, though in the Biblical Law the relation is more direct and obvious. A tribe cannot easily develop its human resources if those resources are insecure under the threat of crime or war. If you cannot confidently consider your children safe, you will spend energy defending and protecting them rather than developing them. Safety must come first.

Unfortunately, the tactics described here are used routinely in the United States and other countries, with government approval, or under the color of law, by groups charged with the protection of the country’s children. If they are honest, they will tell you that they are not protecting your children, they are protecting America’s children, or whatever country you reside in. You don’t have any children. You have only been given default temporary revocable custody of children that actually belong to your government. You can give up or be stripped of your rights to those children, but you cannot give up your financial responsibility. (Your laws and mileage may vary). In many jurisdictions, your children can be taken from your group and given to another group, and you can be made to pay for their support. Let’s analyze that a bit.

First, someone calls the stealers. This is “directly and publicly inciting another to violate [the laws against genocide].” Then, the children are taken from you. You are given a list of demands which you must meet in order to have them returned. The stealers also typically demand money to compensate them for their cost of doing business, and the cost of caring for the children at whatever level they feel is reasonable. This is the manstealer seeking ransom. If you pay the money and fulfill the demands, you will get your children back. If you fail to fulfill the stealer’s demands, then the children are sold to another family for a high price through the adoption process. This is the manstealer selling the children for money. It is also the genocidal criminal “taking the children from one group and giving them to another group, with the intention of destroying the first group.” In practice, the stealer’s demands are often made so burdensome that they cannot be fulfilled. Sometimes, as a condition of getting your children back, you are required to incriminate yourself or others, particularly on charges of sexual abuse. This is “subjecting the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part.” Then the stealer gets paid both ways. They get ransom money from the parents to ensure that the children are not hurt, with the false promise of return. Then they get sale money from the parents that they sell the children to. In addition, they get money from the government (your taxes) as an added bonus, and they may get to continue to charge you ransom money up to the time that the child has been adopted. If at any time you refuse to pay the ransom money, you can be taken away yourself (jailed). During any part of this process your child may die or suffer grave harm with no punishment at all for the stealer. Also, the child will likely be diagnosed with a mental illness and given experimental psychiatric drugs, and the stealers will demand extra ransom money to pay the drug companies. This is the racketeering organization paying their street dealers’ salaries with the extortion money that they got from you. It is also the genocidal criminal “causing the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members of your group through drugs.” To add the final insult, if you have any more born children they will be taken at birth and given to another family (group). This is the genocidal criminal “imposing measures intended to prevent births within your group.”

Given the Biblical importance of family and tribes, there is little imaginable worse than this. What is my interest in the matter? I’m not writing about this because I have been bitten. I haven’t been bitten (though it can happen to anyone, any time). In fact, other people who have been bitten have written about it, and I add my voice to theirs precisely because they are not afforded any credibility of their own. After all, they are “confirmed child abusers.” Who would listen to them? Rather, my exploration of Biblical tribalism and Hebrew society compels the conclusion that the existence of an agency which encourages or even allows the kidnapping of children from parents with government force is antithetical to a tribal culture. It is absolutely contrary to a Biblical, Hebrew way of life. It is also contrary to the morals of thousands of years of human history.

The foregoing analysis has been purposefully one-sided; I intend to argue the other side separately, in another article. The other side does have some good and valid arguments, otherwise no free person would have ever allowed these agencies to come into being. I will eventually argue, however, that a tribal solution will be more beneficial to real victims of child abuse than an institutional solution. Then I will suggest some reforms to the current institutional system which will make it less hostile to families. This concludes the three-part series about genocide.