All societies worldwide sustain their emotional homeostatis by using children as poison containers.

What is a poison-container? The term can be found at the History of Child Abuse essay at www.psychohistory.com.

Important note : I do NOT agree with Lloyd's claim that modern western societies have reductions in child abuse. The Forbidden Truth is that child abuse is more rampant, and more societaly sponsered than ever before. It is often the case that current societies cannot be critisized by experts, and it may well be that Llyod has refrained from revealing the Truth on western cultures.

Child abuse sustains society, it runs society. At the same time, society is desperately trying to create an illusion of decency.
It does this via various child-protection "stunts" where a tiny percentage of children are "saved" (i.e. deliberately abused, then have a break in said abuse) and that is broadcast all over the media, as a morbidly false "proof" of the societal claim of benelovence towards children.

1. You need a licence to drive a car, fly a plane and so on.
2. One of the most important and difficult task is raising a whole new human being.
3. Children should not be subject to mass child abuse.

A. Society, if it was legitimate, would order that all parents undergo a rigerous parental-suitability test, where it would have to be proven that they can properly raise a child.

Any parent failing to meet the needs of the child, would result in the child being removed by society, and being placed in specially built benelovent child-raising centres.

Currently, all foster-home and boys-home type systems are deliberatly designed to be unreliable and unstable. They are made to be as bad or worse (on average) than the family unit abuse prisons that alternatively house children. This is to falsely lend legitimacy to the family unit structure, which is one of the primary core building blocks of society.

This structure is designed to give legal adults a child-slave, to abuse and mould into their own graven image.

sterilise stupid people or those whose religion follows a paedophile

Aussie Skinhead wrote on Oct 12^th, 2009 at 7:42pm:


No, I am not. Skinhead, breeding/having children would still be permitted by a Truth-based society. It is not eugenics. I never mentioned the things you said.

What would be different is that all prospective parents would have to pass a mandatory and exuastive Truth-based parental license test.

All citizen-slaves would still be able to have children even if they have no license, failed the license and so on. They would just NOT be allowed to be the primary care-takers of those children.

Seer Travis Truman wrote on Oct 12^th, 2009 at 9:09pm:


It's not a bad idea in theory. There is so much child abuse around and it's not getting better as the decades progress.  I'm sure some of us have thought at times there are too many people who are useless, yet very damaging to society, and raise their kids the same way. Would children taken at birth know any better? In NSW recently a woman was having her fifth baby, born with acohol fetal syndrome, returned to her in a drug clinic, her 4 other babies had been removed from her custody.

Fortunately there was a public outcry and this decision is being rethought. Do some children deserve their parents? A primary care giver, although possibly far from perfect, would at least be monitored and provide the child with an education, good health and hopefully a little love and discipline - more than their biological parents are often capable of.

mantra wrote on Oct 13^th, 2009 at 12:05pm:


There are millions of children worldwide that are enduring horrific child abuse because of society. In you above mentioned case, that could NEVER happen in a Truth-based society.

This is no mere theory, however. It is a Truth that society currently has the power to eridicate nearly all child abuse, and all serious cases of chilf abuse, and REFUSES to do so.

Seer Travis Truman wrote on Oct 13^th, 2009 at 9:34pm:

A false concern for children... How... psychopathic of you.

I've seen the stuff you've posted elsewhere... Didn't your shrink suggest less disturbing images by which to identify your... "philosophy"?

Have you picked the date to commit your ultimate existential act?

Aussie Skinhead wrote on Oct 12^th, 2009 at 7:42pm:


Thank you for explaining Eugenics, but they seem to have left one out. Do you think that Eugenics proponents should consider that the  other typical neo-nazi attribute of testicular atrophy ought to be included in that list for the sake of completeness?

Seer Travis Truman wrote on Oct 15^th, 2009 at 12:40pm:


You should actually thank me for that post. I must confess that my post had nothing to do with the thread topic. I am very proud of having made an off-topic post on this particular thread, the topic of which was bordering on the hyper-anal, and there was a grave danger that you could have disappeared up your own self-induced black hole, had I not intervened.  

You could say that I had a moral obligation to respond in such a way.

Did you fill in the required application form to make an anal American style post on an Australian forum? It has to be submitted in triplicate to the Federal minister for bullshit.