'Parens Patiae' is the legal phrasing that the government owns the children. This has been kept under wraps from the general public because no rightful parents would agree to this.

The article is very sad, but it reveals the hidden truth in children custody cases.

In Blair Adams’ volume: "WHO OWNS THE CHILDREN?", the author examines some of the court cases and legal precedents that shed light on this important question. In his “Preface” he writes:

• [A]ccording to the courts of this land, ... “A child is primarily” not his parents’ offspring but “a ward of the [S]tate”; ... parents hold relationship he owes allegiance to the government”; ... parents serve as a mere “guardianship” which “the government places [the child] under”; ... parental authority must be “at all times exercised in subordination to the paramount and overruling direction of the [S]tate”; ... “the natural rights of a parent to the custody and control of... his child are subordinate to the power of the [S]tate”;... in deciding whether parent or State will control a child’s education, the child’s academic progress under the parents - even as measured by State-approved tests - has been termed by State prosecutors as “irrelevant and immaterial”; and finally ... such legal principles and policies form the basis of all this nation’s compulsory education laws. (pp. xix-xx)*

And it goes on to examine the American legal history of actual court cases and contexts in which these judicial statements were made, some as early as 1840.

Someone said quite crudely:

"When women fail, they just start fucking the new alphas."

The statement is quite crude, but it contains a lot of truth. All through history this has really been the story. Interpreting this with peace and war, the differing constructs between male and female are manifested by the policy of the ruling class. After all, what better way to avoid the threat of uprisings than by control over the kingdom's women? In the early 1960s, 'No Fault Divorce' was introduced in the United States, which had its origins in the former Soviet Union. It was so effective in destroying traditional marriages in the Soviet Union, it was introduced here to further government control over the wards of the State; women and children.

In war and conquest, women are subject to repeated rape and even being murdered. These often cruel and barbaric acts sends shock waves through the dispossessed population. The lucky few are carried off into captivity to live another day. I want you to think about this in terms of sex trafficking and the trafficking of women and children today. Things have not changed. They have never changed.

Whether it is peace or war (as in marriage and divorce), the elite benefit in the form of what we know as the harem concept. Europe had its own form of it and was called the gynaeceum. A gynaeceum actually has its origins in ancient Greece and Rome and can be described as a house or a section of a house reserved for women members. The male elite who acted as their male-providers in society often created gynaeceums for their personal pleasures.

Concerning the medieval gynaeceum, Phillipe Aries and Georges Duby writes:

“In the chansons de toile, women were seen to be dependent and in a virtual state of rebellion against the institution of marriage.” Women’s time was a time of waiting; and was experienced inwardly, and in despair . . . . Women’s space is closely guarded, for within it resided the women in whom the quality of the lineage was vested. In the gynaeceum, a woman was exalted in her role as mother. Men may enter, but only for a limited time. In parts of the household where multiple female functions were on display (lady, retinue, nurses) spatial functions were absent. In the gynaeceum, the child received its earliest education; the segregation is functional . . . The women’s group has a very distinctive character. It defines itself in terms of boundaries . . . Withdrawal is another constant.” -- "A History of Private Life, Vol. 2: Revelations of the Medieval World"

The gynaeceum is alive and well today. It is found under the legal precedent known as 'Wards of the State'. Government has replaced the father and is quite evil having a very inept ability to replace the father. Yet, this is not really their purpose, is it? It is not really any different than what is found in North Korea or communist nations. The legal system in the West just does a much better job at hiding it from the general public.

'Parens Patiae' is the legal phrasing that the government owns the children. This has been kept under wraps from the general public because no rightful parents would agree to this.

The article is very sad, but it reveals the hidden truth in children custody cases.

In Blair Adams’ volume: "WHO OWNS THE CHILDREN?", the author examines some of the court cases and legal precedents that shed light on this important question. In his “Preface” he writes:

• [A]ccording to the courts of this land, ... “A child is primarily” not his parents’ offspring but “a ward of the [S]tate”; ... parents hold relationship he owes allegiance to the government”; ... parents serve as a mere “guardianship” which “the government places [the child] under”; ... parental authority must be “at all times exercised in subordination to the paramount and overruling direction of the [S]tate”; ... “the natural rights of a parent to the custody and control of... his child are subordinate to the power of the [S]tate”;... in deciding whether parent or State will control a child’s education, the child’s academic progress under the parents - even as measured by State-approved tests - has been termed by State prosecutors as “irrelevant and immaterial”; and finally ... such legal principles and policies form the basis of all this nation’s compulsory education laws. (pp. xix-xx)*

And it goes on to examine the American legal history of actual court cases and contexts in which these judicial statements were made, some as early as 1840.

Someone said quite crudely:

"When women fail, they just start fucking the new alphas."

The statement is quite crude, but it contains a lot of truth. All through history this has really been the story. Interpreting this with peace and war, the differing constructs between male and female are manifested by the policy of the ruling class. After all, what better way to avoid the threat of uprisings than by control over the kingdom's women? In the early 1960s, "No Fault Divorce" was introduced in the United States, which had its origins in the former Soviet Union. It was so effective in destroying traditional marriages in the Soviet Union, it was introduced here to further government control over the wards of the State; women and children.

In war and conquest, women are subject to repeated rape and even being murdered. These often cruel and barbaric acts sends shock waves through the dispossessed population. The lucky few are carried off into captivity to live another day. I want you to think about this in terms of sex trafficking and the trafficking of women and children today. Things have not changed. They have never changed.

Whether it is peace or war (as in marriage and divorce), the elite benefit in the form of what we know as the harem concept. Europe had its own form of it and was called the gynaeceum. A gynaeceum actually has its origins in ancient Greece and Rome and can be described as a house or a section of a house reserved for women members. The male elite who acted as their male-providers in society often created gynaeceums for their personal pleasures.

Concerning the medieval gynaeceum, Phillipe Aries and Georges Duby writes:

“In the chansons de toile, women were seen to be dependent and in a virtual state of rebellion against the institution of marriage.” Women’s time was a time of waiting; and was experienced inwardly, and in despair . . . . Women’s space is closely guarded, for within it resided the women in whom the quality of the lineage was vested. In the gynaeceum, a woman was exalted in her role as mother. Men may enter, but only for a limited time. In parts of the household where multiple female functions were on display (lady, retinue, nurses) spatial functions were absent. In the gynaeceum, the child received its earliest education; the segregation is functional . . . The women’s group has a very distinctive character. It defines itself in terms of boundaries . . . Withdrawal is another constant.” -- "A History of Private Life, Vol. 2: Revelations of the Medieval World"

The gynaeceum is alive and well today. It is found under the legal precedent known as 'Wards of the State'. Government has replaced the father and is quite evil having a very inept ability to replace the father. Yet, this is not really their purpose, is it? It is not really any different than what is found in North Korea or communist nations. The legal system in the West just does a much better job at hiding it from the general public.