资深阴谋论作家Ralph Epperson写的书New World Order里面有提到关于旧世界旧社会怎么被拆解

把书里面其中一章搬了上来

所谓的新世界就是现代社会，旧世界就是“古代”

古代的小孩由母亲抚养，新世界的小孩由政府抚养/洗脑

新世界就是要把古代时期的家庭瓦解，让羊们无依无靠，包括女权运动也是，洛克菲勒资助过的都不是什么好事，让女生出去工作从而变成没时间照顾自己的小孩，这样小孩就会去上公立学校，在学校里面可以大肆宣传捐器官打疫苗这种事，这样小孩长大以后也会成为利益集团的奴隶

包括有提到欧美国家对于已婚夫妻要缴纳更多的税这件事是因为，政府不想羊们结婚，所以变相给要结婚的羊们设计了惩罚，以至于现在欧美很多人就算生了小孩为了少交税会选择同居不注册结婚

原文和机器翻译的译文都发上来

Chapter 29
The Attack on the Family

The family unit has been called the cornerstone of
civilization. The concept that the parents are responsible for
the upbringing of the children produced during the marriage
is the cornerstone of American life. Yet, there are efforts in
America today to undermine, if not to destroy, the family unit
altogether.
The desire to destroy the family unit is, as has been
briefly alluded to in previous sections of this study, one of the
goals of the New Age-Humanist-Communist movement.
Marilyn Ferguson, the New Age writer, has written this
about the family unit in her book entitled THE AQUARIAN
CONSPIRACY:

"Many sociologists anticipate the 'evolution' of
monogamy. Marriage, they say, must be transformed
as an institution if it is to survive at all.

If monogamy is tied inextricably with the restriction
of all sexual expression to the spouse, they
said, it will ultimately be monogamy that suffers." 560
The word "monogamy" has two meanings, both of which
are applicable to this study. The word is defined as:
1. The practice or state of being married to only
one person at a time.
2. The practice of marrying only once during
life.
The dictionary added an appendage to the second
definition: it said that that definition was "rare."

And indeed it is.
The tradition in America that the husband takes himself
a wife, and then remains faithful to that spouse for the remainder
of their life together is a Judeo-Christian one. In
other words, it comes from the beliefs and teachings of two
religious faiths.
Since this is not something that is written instinctively
into the hearts of all men, and since man is given free choice,
man is free to accept or reject the created institution of the
family. The married man does not have to have but one wife
and to remain faithful to her. It is only religion that has
taught him that the monogamous marriage is the preferable
lifestyle.
Marilyn Ferguson, a New Age writer, writes further:
"Traditional monogamy contravenes the growing
sense that the greatest good of human existence is
deep interpersonal relationships, as many of these as
is compatible with depth.
... younger people are trying to devise and invent
a form of marriage appropriate to a new era." 561

As has been previously illustrated, the New Age
Movement and the Communist Movement want to destroy the
family. Here, one of the major New Age writers says that it
is the young people who are attempting to devise a new
marriage institution. The children are being taught to change
the marriage contract by those in the New Age Movement

who have written the textbooks, or encouraged a dialogue
with the intent of changing their attitudes.
Even the definition of a family, meaning a male husband,
a female wife, a child or children, has to be redefined for the
New Age. Marilyn Ferguson has told us that this has already
taken place:
"The American Home Economics Association redefined
the family in 1979 as 'two or more persons
[meaning two men, or two women as well as one man
and one woman] who share resources, share responsibility
to one another over time.
The family is that climate that 'one comes home
to;' and it is this network of sharing and commitments
that most accurately describes the family unit, regardless
of blood, legal ties, adoption, or marriage.'"

The American concept of marriage is that of a male husband,
and a female wife. Homosexual or lesbian marriages
are not legal. But that can change anytime those who make
the laws decide to change it. The New Agers apparently want
to change the laws to allow the marriage of two men or two
women.
A major step in changing the traditional definition of the
family just occurred in the state of New York. The headline
of the July 6, 1989 article that discussed the change, reads:
"Court rules gay couple a 'family.'"
The article reported:
"New York's highest court ruled today that a
partner in a long-term homosexual relationship may
take over the couple's rent-controlled apartment when
the lover who signed the lease dies.
... the Court of Appeals ordered a lower court to
reconsider its decision to evict a New York City man
from a rent-controlled apartment he shared ... with his
now-dead lover.
... the court expanded the definition of a
'family'....
231

The word is crucial because state law says only
'family members' may take over rent-controlled
apartments when the tenant of record dies.
The court said that the definition should include
adults who show long-term financial and emotional
commitment to each other, even if they don't fit the
traditional meaning of a 'family.'" 562
So, even the definition of a family is under attack. It will
have to be changed if the family is to be destroyed.
As discussed, there are some who want the family unit to
be destroyed altogether. The destruction of the family unit
has been the goal of the Communists and Socialists for over
140 years. Karl Marx, the so-called father of Communism,
wrote that that was the goal of the Party:

家庭单位被称为基石
文明。 父母负责的概念
婚姻期间所生子女的抚养
是美国生活的基石。 然而，有努力在
今天的美国破坏，如果不是摧毁，家庭单位
共。
破坏家庭单位的愿望一如既往
在本研究的前几节中简要提到，其中一个
新时代-人道主义-共产主义运动的目标。
新时代作家玛丽莲·弗格森 (Marilyn Ferguson) 曾这样写过
在她名为 THE AQUARIAN 的书中关于家庭单位
阴谋：

“许多社会学家预测‘进化’
一夫一妻制。 他们说，婚姻必须改变
作为一个机构，如果它要生存的话。

如果一夫一妻制与限制密不可分
在对配偶的所有性表达中，他们
说，最终受苦的将是一夫一妻制。”560
“一夫一妻制”这个词有两个意思
适用于本研究。 该词定义为：
1. 只结婚的做法或状态
一次一个人。
2.期间只结婚一次的做法
生活。
字典在第二个上加了一个附录
定义：它说该定义是“罕见的”。

确实如此。
丈夫自食其果的美国传统
一个妻子，然后在剩下的时间里忠于那个配偶
他们在一起的生活是犹太基督教的。 在
换句话说，它来自两个人的信仰和教义
宗教信仰。
因为这不是本能地写的东西
进入所有人的心中，既然人被赋予了自由选择，
人可以自由地接受或拒绝被创造的制度
家庭。 已婚男人不必只有一个妻子
并对她保持忠诚。 只有宗教有
教他一夫一妻制的婚姻更可取
生活方式。
新时代作家玛丽莲·弗格森 (Marilyn Ferguson) 进一步写道：
“传统的一夫一妻制违背了日益增长的
感觉人类存在的最大利益是
深厚的人际关系，其中许多
与深度兼容。
...年轻人正在努力设计和发明
一种适合新时代的婚姻形式。”561

如前所述，新时代
运动和共产主义运动想要摧毁
家庭。 在这里，一位主要的新时代作家说，它
是那些试图设计一个新的年轻人
婚姻机构。 孩子们被教导要改变
新时代运动者的婚约

谁写了教科书，或鼓励对话
目的是改变他们的态度。
就连家庭的定义，男老公的意思，
一个女性妻子，一个或多个孩子，必须重新定义为
新时代。 玛丽莲弗格森告诉我们，这已经
发生在：
》美国家政协会重新定义
1979 年的家庭为“两个或更多人”
[意思是两个男人，或两个女人和一个男人
和一个女人]共享资源，分担责任
随着时间的推移彼此。
家庭是“一个人回家”的气候
到;' 正是这种共享和承诺的网络
最准确地描述了家庭单位，无论
血缘、法律关系、收养或婚姻。”

美国人的婚姻观是男夫，
和一个女性妻子。 同性恋或女同性恋婚姻
是不合法的。 但这可以随时改变
法律决定改变它。 新时代显然想要
修改法律允许两个男人或两个男人结婚
女性。
改变传统定义的重要一步
家庭刚刚发生在纽约州。 标题
1989 年 7 月 6 日讨论这一变化的文章中写道：
“法院裁定同性恋夫妇为‘家庭’。”
文章报道：
“纽约最高法院今天裁定，
长期同性恋关系中的伴侣可能
接管这对夫妇的租金控制公寓
签署租约的情人去世。
...上诉法院命令下级法院
重新考虑驱逐一名纽约市男子的决定
从他与他合住的租金管制公寓
现在死去的情人。
...法院扩大了a的定义
'家庭'....
231

这个词很重要，因为州法律只说
“家庭成员”可能会接管租金控制
记录在案的租户去世时的公寓。
法院表示，该定义应包括
表现出长期财务和情感的成年人
对彼此的承诺，即使他们不适合
“家庭”的传统意义。”562
因此，即使是家庭的定义也受到了攻击。 它会
如果要破坏家庭，就必须改变。
如前所述，有些人希望家庭单位
被彻底摧毁。 家庭单位的破坏
多年来一直是共产党人和社会主义者的目标
140 年。 卡尔·马克思，所谓的共产主义之父，
写道这是党的目标：

"Abolition of the family!
Even the most radical flare up at this infamous
proposal of the Communists." 563
And Robert Owen, the so-called father of Socialism, wrote:
"In the new moral world, the irrational names of
husband and wife, parent and child, will be heard no
more. All connection will the result of affection; the
child will undoubtedly be the property of the whole
community." 564
And the process of the change from the idea that the
raising of the child should be the responsibility of the family
to that where the child will be raised by the state has
already started in some of the Communist countries.
One of those countries is Cuba.
The Cuban people were once basically a religious people,
with the overwhelming majority belonging to the Catholic
Church. But much of that has changed since Fidel Castro,
the Communist, converted that nation into a Communist
country. These comments are from a 1988 article in the New
American magazine:

"Heterosexual relations in Cuba are characterized
by rampant promiscuity and widespread prostitution.
232
CHAPTER 29 THE ATTACK ON THE FAMILY
The abject poverty to which Castro has reduced the
island encourages prostitution.
The institution of marriage has almost lost its
meaning in Cuba. Many persons marry and divorce
frequently.
... the Castro regime has worked to destroy family
ties and to break the control of parents over their
children. The Communists in Cuba have baited
children with the offer by setting up live-in schools in
the countryside. At these schools students study half a
day and then must work in the fields for the other
half.
While attendance at these 'escuelas en el campo'
[meaning camp schools] is not mandatory, students of
junior high and high school levels are encouraged to
attend. Even students who do not attend the live-in
school must participate yearly in a six-week work
period deep in the rural areas of Cuba.
The Castro regime relies heavily upon the use of
hundreds of thousands of unpaid school children to
work in the fields each year. Under the cover of
educational programs, the Castro regime exploits child
labor and disrupts parental authority." 565

It is interesting that the leader of Cuba, Fidel Castro,
sets the example for infidelity and promiscuity in the marriage
union. He has five known children born out of wedlock
to different mothers. 566
Other Communist nations have shown their commitment
to the destruction of the family. The Communists in China
have also been at least partially successful in their drive to
destroy the family unit. Those who have studied that nation's
past know that the family unit had been the cornerstone of
their civilization for centuries.
One Chinese citizen who was able to flee his country after
the Communists took control in 1949 was Reverend Shih-ping
Wang, the East Asia director of the Baptist Evangelization
Society. He testified before the House Committee on Un-
American Activities about what happened to the family when
Communism seized control of China:

"The family unit is broken up. Husbands and
wives are separated in different barracks. The children

are taken away from the parents and placed in
government-run nurseries.
Husbands and wives meet only once a week for
two hours ~ they have no other contact ....
The parents may see their children once a week
and when they see them they can show no affection
toward their children. Names are taken away from
children and they are given numbers.
There is no individual identity." 567
Some of the measures to control the family unit in China
are rather subtle, while others are not. For instance, any
couple wishing to get married must have permission of the
Communist Party. Political dissidents, for one, are not
permitted to marry. Once any couple is granted that permission,
even the decision as to how many children the couple
can have in these so called "marriages" is a decision of
others.
One who testified to that fact was another Chinese
refugee, Dr. Han Suyin, a native of Peking, who reported in
an address to the Swiss Society of Surgeons in 1975 that the:

"residents of each neighborhood in the People's
Republic of China meet annually to decide how many
babies will be born during the next year and to which
families.
Priority is given to newly married women without
children. As a guarantee against chance or mistakes,
contraceptive pills are distributed on each street every
morning." 568
This policy of allowing the "people" to decide just how
many children each couple can have in China has led to the
practice of infanticide, meaning the intentional killing of
babies. The government does not allow any couple to have
more than one child, and this edict has caused the following
problem:
"a leading newspaper of Southern China [has]
reported that during 1980, eight female infants were
found dead, abandoned in front of the local party
headquarters ....
Most had been suffocated."

“废除家族！
即使是最激进的人也会在这个臭名昭著的地方爆发
共产党人的提议。”563
所谓的社会主义之父罗伯特欧文写道：
“在新的道德世界里，不合理的名字
丈夫和妻子，父母和孩子，将听到没有
更多的。 所有的联系都是感情的结果； 这
孩子无疑是整体的财产
社区。”564
以及从观念转变的过程
抚养孩子应该是家庭的责任
到那个孩子将由国家抚养的地方
已经在一些共产主义国家开始了。
其中一个国家是古巴。
古巴人民曾经基本上是一个宗教民族，
绝大多数属于天主教徒
教会。 但自从菲德尔·卡斯特罗以来，这其中的大部分都发生了变化，
共产主义，把那个国家变成共产主义
国家。 这些评论来自 New 1988 年的一篇文章
美国杂志：

“古巴的异性恋关系的特点是
通过猖獗的滥交和广泛的卖淫。
232
第29章对家庭的攻击
卡斯特罗将赤贫减少到
岛上鼓励卖淫。
婚姻制度几乎失去了它的地位
在古巴的意思。 许多人结婚和离婚
频繁地。
...卡斯特罗政权一直致力于摧毁家庭
关系和打破父母对他们的控制
孩子们。 古巴的共产党人上钩了
通过在
农村。 在这些学校，学生学习半年
一天，然后必须为另一天在田里工作
一半。
在参加这些“escuelas en el campo”时
【意营学校】非强制性，学生
鼓励初中和高中水平
参加。 即使没有参加住所的学生
学校必须每年参加为期六周的工作
深入古巴农村地区的时期。
卡斯特罗政权在很大程度上依赖于使用
数十万无偿学童
每年下地干活。 在的掩护下
教育计划，卡斯特罗政权剥削儿童
劳动和破坏父母的权威。”565

有趣的是，古巴领导人菲德尔卡斯特罗，
为婚姻中的不忠和滥交树立榜样
联盟。 他有五个非婚生子女
送给不同的妈妈。 566
其他共产主义国家已经表明了他们的承诺
到家庭的毁灭。 中国共产党人
他们也至少部分成功地推动了
摧毁家庭单位。 那些研究过那个国家的人
过去知道家庭单位是基石
他们的文明延续了几个世纪。
一名中国公民在事发后逃离了他的国家
1949年共产党掌权的是石平牧师
浸信会布道会东亚区主任王
社会。 他在众议院委员会就 Un-
关于家庭发生的事情的美国活动
共产主义控制了中国：

“家庭单位破裂了。丈夫和
妻子被分开在不同的军营。 这些孩子

被从父母身边带走并安置在
政府经营的托儿所。
丈夫和妻子每周只见一次面
两个小时~他们没有其他联系....
父母可以每周见一次孩子
当他们看到他们时，他们不会表现出任何感情
对他们的孩子。 名字被拿走了
孩子们，他们被赋予了数字。
没有个人身份。”567
中国控制家庭单位的一些措施
相当微妙，而其他则不是。 例如，任何
希望结婚的夫妇必须得到
共产党。 一方面，持不同政见者不是
允许结婚。 一旦任何一对夫妇获得许可，
甚至决定这对夫妇要生几个孩子
能有这些所谓的“婚姻”是一个决定
其他。
证明这一事实的是另一名中国人
难民，北京人韩素音博士，他在
1975 年在瑞士外科医师协会的演讲中指出：

“人民广场每个街区的居民
中华民国每年开会决定多少
婴儿将在明年出生
家庭。
优先考虑新婚妇女没有
孩子们。 作为对机会或错误的保证，
每条街道都发避孕药
早上好。”568
这种让“人民”决定如何做的政策
在中国每对夫妇可以生育多少孩子导致了
杀婴的做法，意味着故意杀害
婴儿。 政府不允许任何夫妇拥有
不止一个孩子，这个法令造成了以下
问题：
“华南地区的一家主要报纸 [已]
据报道，在 1980 年期间，有 8 名女婴被
被发现死了，被遗弃在当地政党面前
总部....
大多数人都被窒息了。”

The article continued by explaining why only female
children were being killed by distraught parents:
"Should a couple's first [and only] child be a girl,
many parents fear that they will be left without an
heir or source of support in their declining years.
Thus, in certain areas some parents have begun
murdering their first-born female offspring."
Other options are available for those parents who do not
have the courage to murder their children. A recent report, in
March of 1989, reported that some parents have developed
another method of allowing their children a way to survive:
"An estimated 25 million 'illegals' are living in
Red China. They are unregistered children who are
not immigrants or aliens, but native-born Chinese
whose parents hide them and keep them unregistered
by the government because of its official 'one familychild'
policy.
The unregistered children cannot attend government
schools, receive government aid of any kind, or
work for the government in any capacity." 570

This decision to allow only one child to a couple in China
is enforced by other practices:
"If a couple persists in having a second child, one
of the parents is forced to buy all grain rations at
twice the regulation prices for the next seven years.
The third child does not get the identity card that
entitles him to food rations." 571
But if the Communist Party discovers that a Chinese
woman got pregnant without their permission, they force her
to have an abortion. Jonathan Mirsky, in an article for The
Nation, wrote that women who got pregnant without permission
had been kidnapped on Communist Party orders and
forced to have an abortion, even if she was in the third
trimester of her pregnancy.
This "one-child per family" concept poses another problem:
what does the Communist Party do if the woman gives birth

to twins? That question was answered by an American who
visited Red China.
Stephen Mosher was a graduate student at Stanford
University working on his doctorate when he was asked to do
research for his thesis in China. He consented, and went to
live in a small village in the southern part. His discoveries of
life in that nation astounded him. These are his comments
about what happens when a Chinese woman gave birth to
twins:
"... an official ... demanded that she specify which
of the two she wished to raise. The mother could not
answer him, so the official made the decision for her,
disposing of one of the newborn babies." 572
The practice of abortion has become so widespread that
the United States government has estimated that more than
78 million were performed in Red China between the years
1971 and 1982.

But the Chinese Communists place other obstacles in the
way of a Chinese couple. These obstacles hinder the ability of
the couple to enjoy married life.
"It is now mandatory for women to work in the
fields. They do, and they still do all the housework."
Obviously, a Chinese woman forced to work in a field does
not have time to be involved in the full-time raising of I
family.
The utter despair of some of the women in China because
of these Communist imposed conditions has led to a new
problem:
"Peasant girls in the remote southern region of
China are taking their lives in unprecedented
numbers." 573
Girls are committing suicide in record numbers in Red
China because of the pressure on the marriage, the abortion
problem, and the requirement that they can give birth to only
one child.
But the problem in China is not too many Chinese.

It is simply to much Communism.

The Communists have imposed Communism, also called
the New World Order, on the Chinese people, and it has
failed, just as could have been predicted by anyone who had
studied the history of Communism.
The Communist system does not work; it has never
worked; and it is not working in China.
And there is an easy way to prove that that statement is
correct.
Off the shore of Communist China lies the islands known
as Formosa or Taiwan. This separate Chinese nation has not
bought the fraud known as Communism. It is basically
allowing its citizens to enjoy the right to private property.
The Taiwanese government is supporting the economic system
known as the Free Enterprise System.
Former Congressman Eldon Rudd of Arizona illustrated
the difference between Communism and Freedom:
"With 270 times the land area and 58 times the
population, the Gross National Product [the G.N.P.] of
Mainland China [Communist China] is only 10 times
the G.N.P. of Taiwan.
The figures I I have cited illustrate beyond contradiction
the material abundance created by freedom's
climate.
In my view, this is the smallest and least important
of the remarkable differences between the
People's Republic of China [meaning Communist China]
and the free government of Taiwan. The true difference
is spirit — the human condition, the absence of
compulsion and regimentation, the presence of individual
opportunity." 574
So the problem in China is not too much population.
It is too much Communism.

文章接着解释了为什么只有女性
孩子们被心烦意乱的父母杀害：
“如果一对夫妇的第一个（也是唯一的）孩子是女孩，
许多父母担心他们会失去
在他们衰落的岁月中的继承人或支持来源。
因此，在某些地区，一些家长已经开始
谋杀他们的头胎女性后代。”
其他选择适用于那些不这样做的父母
有勇气谋杀他们的孩子。 最近的一份报告，在
1989 年 3 月，报道说一些父母已经发展
另一种让他们的孩子有生存方式的方法：
“估计有 2500 万‘非法移民’生活在
红色中国。 他们是未登记的儿童
不是移民或外国人，而是土生土长的中国人
谁的父母把他们藏起来不让他们注册
由政府因为其官方的“一个家庭孩子”
政策。
未注册的孩子不能参加政府
学校，接受任何形式的政府援助，或
以任何身份为政府工作。”570

中国一对夫妇只允许一个孩子的决定
由其他实践强制执行：
“如果一对夫妇坚持生第二个孩子，一个
的父母被迫购买所有口粮
未来七年监管价格的两倍。
第三个孩子没有拿到身份证
使他有权获得口粮。”571
但是如果共产党发现一个中国人
女子未经允许怀孕，他们强迫她
堕胎。 乔纳森·米尔斯基 (Jonathan Mirsky) 在 The 的一篇文章中
国家，写道，未经许可怀孕的妇女
在共产党的命令下被绑架，
被迫堕胎，即使她已经是第三胎
她怀孕的三个月。
这种“一个孩子一个家庭”的概念带来了另一个问题：
女人生了共产党怎么办

双胞胎？ 一位美国人回答了这个问题
参观红色中国。
Stephen Mosher 是斯坦福大学的研究生
大学攻读博士学位时被要求做
在中国为他的论文做研究。 他同意了，然后去了
住在南部的一个小村庄。 他的发现
那个国家的生活令他震惊。 这些是他的评论
关于中国女人生孩子时会发生什么
双胞胎：
“......一位官员......要求她具体说明
她希望提出的两个。 母亲不能
回答他，所以官方替她做了决定，
处理其中一名新生婴儿。”572
堕胎的习俗如此普遍，以至于
美国政府估计超过
这些年在红色中国演出了7800万场
1971 年和 1982 年。

但是中国共产党在这方面设置了其他障碍
一对中国夫妇的方式。 这些障碍阻碍了
夫妻享受婚姻生活。
“现在女性必须在公司工作
领域。 他们会做，而且他们仍然会做所有的家务。”
显然，一个被迫在田间工作的中国妇女确实
没有时间参与我的全职抚养
家庭。
中国一些女性的极度绝望，因为
这些共产主义强加的条件导致了一个新的
问题：
“南方偏远地区的农家姑娘
中国正以前所未有的方式夺走他们的生命
数字。”573
女孩自杀人数创历史新高
中国因为婚姻压力，堕胎
问题，以及他们只能生育的要求
一个小孩。
但中国的问题不是中国人太多。

这简直就是共产主义。

共产党人强加了共产主义，也称为
新世界秩序，对中国人民，它有
失败了，正如任何曾经有过的人所预料的那样
研究了共产主义的历史。
共产主义制度行不通； 它从来没有
工作过； 它在中国不起作用。
有一种简单的方法可以证明该陈述是
正确的。
在共产主义中国的海岸外有已知的岛屿
作为福尔摩沙或台湾。 这个单独的中华民族没有
买了被称为共产主义的骗局。 基本上是
允许其公民享有私有财产权。
台湾政府支持经济体制
被称为自由企业系统。
亚利桑那州前国会议员 Eldon Rudd 图解
共产主义与自由的区别：
“拥有270倍的土地面积和58倍的
人口，国民生产总值 [the G.N.P.] of
中国大陆【共产中国】只有10倍
国民生产总值 台湾。
我引用的数字说明了矛盾
自由所创造的物质丰富
气候。
在我看来，这是最小和最不重要的
之间的显着差异
中华人民共和国[指共产主义中国]
和台湾的自由政府。 真正的区别
是精神——人类的状况，没有
强迫和管制，个人的存在
机会。”574
所以中国的问题不是人口太多。
共产主义太多了。

It is too much "New World Order."
So the family unit in China, the cornerstone of their civilization
for centuries, has essentially been destroyed by the
Communist Party.
And it was not destroyed by mistake. It was planned that
way.
And the Bolshevik Communists in the Soviet Union have
nearly duplicated the "success" of the Chinese Communists.

The September, 1988 Reader's Digest magazine carried an
article called Should We Bail Out Gorbachev? in which they
discussed life in the Soviet Union. This is one of the comments
made in that article:
"At least 13 million urban families still must live
in communal apartments or dormitories, sharing bath,
kitchen and even bedrooms with other families. In
Moscow, newly constructed apartment complexes are
crumbling." 575
So a great percentage of the Russian families do not have
a place to live separate from other people. Married life does
not seem exceptionally attractive to a young couple contemplating
marriage. So, if the Communists are trying to destroy
the family in Russia, one of the ways to do it would be to not
construct enough government owned apartments or houses.
And that is exactly what they have done.
Also, the Soviet Union is utilizing the same infanticide
that is occurring in Red China.

"Topping the world in legal abortions is the Soviet
Union ~ where there are an estimated eight million
annually of the 30 million worldwide.
According to the Moscow News, an astounding
nine of 10 of the first pregnancies in the U.S.S.R. end
in the legal killing of the unborn child.
The corresponding figures in the United States,
reports the Alan Guttmacher Institute in New York
City, is one of three of the first pregnancies terminating
in abortion and 1.6 million abortions annually." 576
Those who support the concept of legal abortions often
claim that those who charge that life begins at conception are
wrong.
Their position is that life begins at birth. But there are
others who are claiming that even that date is not adequate,
and that life should start at some later date.
One of these is Sir Francis Crick, a British medical
doctor, a socialist and, by the way, a signer of the HU-MANIST MANIFEST II. He has been quoted as saying that
he foresees the day when:
"no newborn infant will be declared human unless
it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic
endowment. If it fails these tests, it forfeits its right to
live." 577
Picture the anguish of the parents who have given life to
a newborn child, deemed to be "defective" by Dr. Crick, when
they discover that the good doctor has decided to "take its
right to life." Imagine what this concept does to those
planning a family.
And now the reader can understand what some of the
Humanists think of the value of human life. Once an individual
denies the existence of God, he becomes god himself,
and he can decide all of those things that other people feel
God used to decide. Such things as: the right to life, the right
to property, etc.

But the attacks on the family in America are a little more
subtle. But they are real, none the less.
In 1988, the Supreme Court decided that a husband has
no right to stop his wife from having an abortion. The
appeals court, which passed the decision onto the Supreme
Court, had stated that the husband "has no right to veto [his
wife's] decision [to have the abortion] as such [a] decision
concerns only her." 578
This decision certainly had a long-lasting effect upon the
marriage where both parties to the marriage contract are
supposed to have a say in any decision that affects both
parties.
But the latest attack on the family is a new phenomenon
called "child abuse." The National Committee for the
Prevention of Child Abuse advises there were 1.2 million
reports of child abuse in 1984. Those who have paid attention
to this or more current figures are suitably outraged, having
been conditioned to believe that this abuse is rampant inside
the American society.
However, the reason that the response to these statistics
can be called hysteria, is this comment from Douglas
Besharov, the first director of the National Center on Child
Abuse and Neglect, who has charged that over 60 percent of
these complaints are totally unfounded. And others have said
that that figure might be as high as 80 percent.
And in most of the remaining cases, the injury actually
involved neglect ~ failure to provide what some social worker
deemed to be adequate food, clothing or shelter — a far cry
from the sordid crimes widely publicized in the press.
One foreign nation which responded to the hysteria was
Sweden, which passed a law in 1979 punishing parents who
spank their children. The Parade magazine article that reported
on the law mentioned the case where a father told his
son not to take his younger brother out on a bicycle ride. The
son disobeyed his father, and the father gave him a spanking
on the buttocks.
The son marched down to the local police station and reported
his dad for spanking him. 

这是太多的“新世界秩序”。
所以中国的家庭单位是他们文明的基石
几个世纪以来，基本上已经被
共产党。
而且没有被误毁。 计划是
方法。
苏联的布尔什维克共产党人有
几乎复制了中共的“成功”。

1988 年 9 月的《读者文摘》杂志刊登了一篇
一篇名为“我们应该救助戈尔巴乔夫吗？”的文章 他们在其中
讨论了在苏联的生活。 这是评论之一
在那篇文章中提出：
“至少有 1300 万城市家庭仍需生活
在公共公寓或宿舍，共用浴室，
厨房甚至与其他家庭的卧室。 在
莫斯科，新建的公寓楼是
摇摇欲坠。”575
所以很大一部分俄罗斯家庭没有
一个与其他人分开居住的地方。 婚后生活确实
对于正在考虑的年轻夫妇来说似乎没有特别的吸引力
婚姻。 所以，如果共产党人试图摧毁
俄罗斯的家庭，其中一种方法是不
建造足够的政府拥有的公寓或房屋。
而这正是他们所做的。
此外，苏联也在使用同样的杀婴手段
那就是发生在红色中国。

“在合法堕胎方面居世界首位的是苏联
联盟~估计有八百万
全世界每年有 3000 万。
据莫斯科新闻报道，一个惊人的
苏联第一次怀孕的 10 人中有 9 人结束了
合法杀害未出生的孩子。
美国相应的数字，
据纽约艾伦·古特马赫研究所报道
城市，是最早终止妊娠的三个之一
堕胎和每年 160 万例堕胎。”576
那些支持合法堕胎概念的人经常
声称那些指责生命始于受孕的人是
错误的。
他们的立场是生命从出生开始。 但是这里有
其他声称即使那个日期也不合适的人，
生活应该在晚些时候开始。
其中之一是英国医学博士弗朗西斯·克里克爵士
医生，社会主义者，顺便说一句，HU-MANIST MANIFEST II 的签名者。 他被引述说
他预见到有一天：
“没有新生儿将被宣布为人类，除非
它已经通过了有关其基因的某些测试
禀赋。 如果它没有通过这些测试，它就丧失了使用该产品的权利
住。”577
想象一下为生命付出生命的父母的痛苦
一个新生儿，被克里克博士认为是“有缺陷的”，当
他们发现好医生已经决定“采取它的
生命权。”想象一下这个概念对那些
计划一个家庭。
现在读者可以理解其中的一些内容
人文主义者思考人的生命的价值。 曾经一个人
否认上帝的存在，他自己成为上帝，
他可以决定其他人的所有感受
上帝曾经决定。 例如：生命权、权利
财产等

但是在美国对家庭的攻击要多一些
微妙的。 但它们是真实的，尽管如此。
1988 年，最高法院裁定丈夫有
无权阻止妻子堕胎。 这
上诉法院将决定提交给最高法院
法院曾表示，丈夫“无权否决 [his
妻子的]决定[堕胎]本身[a]决定
只关心她。”578
这一决定无疑对
婚约双方的婚姻
应该在影响双方的任何决定中有发言权
派对。
但最近对家庭的攻击是一种新现象
称为“虐待儿童”。 全国委员会
防止虐待儿童建议有 120 万
1984年虐待儿童的报道。关注过的人
对此或更多当前数字感到愤怒，有
习惯于相信这种虐待在内部猖獗
美国社会。
然而，对这些统计数据的反应的原因
可以称为歇斯底里，这是道格拉斯的评论吗
国家儿童中心首任主任别沙罗夫
虐待和忽视，谁指控超过 60% 的
这些抱怨完全没有根据。 还有人说
这个数字可能高达 80%。
在剩下的大多数情况下，伤害实际上
涉及忽视〜未能提供一些社会工作者
被认为是足够的食物、衣服或住所——相差甚远
媒体广泛报道的肮脏罪行。
一个对歇斯底里做出反应的外国是
瑞典于 1979 年通过了一项法律，惩罚不当父母
打他们的孩子。 报道的游行杂志文章
法律上提到一个父亲告诉他的案例
儿子不要带弟弟出去骑自行车。 这
儿子不听父亲的话，父亲打了他一巴掌
在臀部。
儿子跑到当地派出所报案
他爸爸打他屁股。

A jury later found the father
guilty and fined him.
In America, this hysteria has led to a horrendous intrusion
of the government into private family matters, much
of which appears to be unwarranted and some of which is demonstrably
harmful to the children involved.
The definitions of "child abuse" have basically made criminals
out of nearly every parent in America. A federally
funded study, sponsored by the National Institute of Mental
Health, and released in November of 1985, defines the victims
of "violence against children" as being those who have
"slapped or spanked," or "pushed, grabbed, or shoved" their
children. It would be difficult to find any parent in America
that wouldn't be included in those categories.
The broad definition of "child abuse," which makes every
parent in America into a criminal, makes sense if the observer
remembers that there are people in America today who
want to destroy the family. The way for them to achieve their
goal is to convince the world that families abuse their children,
and that "social workers" do not. Then, when the authorities
come to take the children away from the parents of
America, the overwhelming majority of the remainder of the
citizens will accept the action as being required by the conditions.
And the traditional family, as was known in America for
centuries, will exist no longer.
And some will be pleased.
Textbooks are beginning to teach that the family unit is a
relic of the past. Arthur W. Calhoun wrote a book entitled A
SOCIAL HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN FAMILY. It was a
social service textbook utilized as a vehicle to educate students
that the society must assume traditional responsibilities
assumed by the family. Mr. Calhoun wrote:
"The view is that the higher and more obligatory
relation is to society rather than to the family; the
family goes back to the age of savagery while the state
belongs to the age of civilization. The modern individual
is a world citizen served by the world, and
home interests can no longer be supreme.
But as soon as the new family consisting only of
the parents and the children stood forth, society saw
how many were unfit for parenthood and began to realize
the need for community care.
As familism of the wider sort ... weakens, society
has to assume a larger parenthood.

In general, society is coming more and more to
accept as a duty the task of guaranteeing wholesome
upbringing of the young ... the child passes more and
more into the custody of community experts [called
teachers or social workers] who are qualified to perform
the complexer functions of parenthood ... and
which the parents have neither the time nor knowledge
to perform." 579
The family unit in America is decaying, and the thinking
is that society must hire "experts" who are capable of the
raising the children instead of the parents. So, suddenly
"child abuse" articles started showing up in the newspapers of
America. When the "experts" say that it is time to take the
children away from all of the parents, the society will accept
the decision because it appears to be the proper solution.
An organization known as Friends of Earth decided that
the solution is to "license" parents:
"If the less stringent curbs on procreation fail,
someday perhaps childbearing will be deemed a punishable
crime against society unless the parents hold a
government license.
Or perhaps In general, society is coming more and more to
accept as a duty the task of guaranteeing wholesome
upbringing of the young ... the child passes more and
more into the custody of community experts [called
teachers or social workers] who are qualified to perform
the complexer functions of parenthood ... and
which the parents have neither the time nor knowledge
to perform." 579
The family unit in America is decaying, and the thinking
is that society must hire "experts" who are capable of the
raising the children instead of the parents. So, suddenly
"child abuse" articles started showing up in the newspapers of
America. When the "experts" say that it is time to take the
children away from all of the parents, the society will accept
the decision because it appears to be the proper solution.
An organization known as Friends of Earth decided that
the solution is to "license" parents:
"If the less stringent curbs on procreation fail,
someday perhaps childbearing will be deemed a punishable
crime against society unless the parents hold a
government license.
Or perhaps all potential parents will be required
to use contraceptive chemicals, the governments issuing
antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." 580

In addition to the family causing all of this harm to children,
parents are also producing too many offspring. The contention
is that the world is simply over-populated. Fortunately,
for the planners, the same Friends of Earth has become
aware of this problem and they are offering their solution:

陪审团后来找到了父亲
认罪并处以罚款。
在美国，这种歇斯底里导致了可怕的入侵
政府介入私人家庭事务，很多
其中一些似乎是没有根据的，其中一些是明显的
对相关儿童有害。
“虐待儿童”的定义基本上让犯罪分子
几乎每一个美国父母。 一个联邦
资助的研究，由国家心理研究所赞助
健康，并于 1985 年 11 月发布，定义了受害者
“对儿童的暴力行为”是那些有
“打耳光或打屁股”或“推、抓或推”他们的
孩子们。 在美国很难找到父母
那不会被包含在那些类别中。
“虐待儿童”的宽泛定义，使得每一个
父母在美国变成罪犯，如果观察者
记得今天在美国有些人
想破坏家庭。 他们实现目标的方式
目标是让世界相信家庭虐待他们的孩子，
而“社会工作者”则没有。 然后，当当局
来把孩子从父母身边带走
美国，其余的绝大多数
公民将接受条件所要求的行动。
而传统的家庭，正如美国所熟知的那样
世纪，将不复存在。
有些人会很高兴。
教科书开始教导家庭单位是
过去的遗迹。 亚瑟·W·卡尔霍恩 (Arthur W. Calhoun) 写了一本书，名为 A
美国家庭的社会历史。 那是个
用作教育学生的工具的社会服务教科书
社会必须承担传统责任
由家庭承担。 卡尔霍恩先生写道：
“观点是，更高和更强制性的
关系是与社会而非家庭的关系； 这
家庭回到野蛮时代，而国家
属于文明时代。 现代个体
是受世界服务的世界公民，并且
家庭利益不再是至高无上的。
但是一旦新的家庭只包括
父母和孩子站出来，社会看到了
有多少人不适合为人父母并开始意识到
需要社区照顾。
随着更广泛的家庭主义......削弱，社会
必须承担更大的父母身份。

总的来说，社会越来越
接受保证健康的任务为职责
养育年轻人......孩子越过越多
更多进入社区专家的监管[称为
教师或社会工作者]有资格执行
为人父母的复杂功能……以及
父母既没有时间也没有知识
执行。” 579
美国的家庭单位正在腐烂，思想
是社会必须聘请有能力的“专家”
抚养孩子而不是父母。 于是，突然
“虐待儿童”的文章开始出现在报纸上
美国。 当“专家”说是时候采取
孩子远离所有的父母，社会会接受
的决定，因为它似乎是正确的解决方案。
一个名为地球之友的组织决定
解决方案是“许可”父母：
“如果不那么严格的生育限制失败，
也许有一天生育将被视为应受惩罚的
除非父母持有
政府许可。
或者也许总的来说，社会越来越倾向于
接受保证健康的任务为职责
养育年轻人......孩子越过越多
更多进入社区专家的监管[称为
教师或社会工作者]有资格执行
为人父母的复杂功能……以及
父母既没有时间也没有知识
执行。” 579
美国的家庭单位正在腐烂，思想
是社会必须聘请有能力的“专家”
抚养孩子而不是父母。 于是，突然
“虐待儿童”的文章开始出现在报纸上
美国。 当“专家”说是时候采取
孩子远离所有的父母，社会会接受
的决定，因为它似乎是正确的解决方案。
一个名为地球之友的组织决定
解决方案是“许可”父母：
“如果不那么严格的生育限制失败，
也许有一天生育将被视为应受惩罚的
除非父母持有
政府许可。
或者可能需要所有潜在的父母
使用避孕化学品，政府颁发
被选中生育的公民的解毒剂。”580

除了对孩子造成所有这些伤害的家庭之外，
父母也产生了太多的后代。 争论
是世界人口过多。 幸运的是，
对于规划者来说，同样的地球之友已经成为
意识到这个问题，他们正在提供他们的解决方案：

"... we should set a goal of reducing population to
a level that the planet's resources can sustain indefinitely
at a decent standard of living ~ probably less
than two billion." 581
When one considers that the world has approximately five
billion people on it now, one can only wonder how the
Friends of Earth are going to eliminate 3 billion people. So
far, the solutions do not include plans to simply poison or
shoot billions of people, but one can only wonder what the
Friends of Earth will offer the world if the people do not voluntarily
solve this purported problem.
The organization does not rule out the use of force to stop
the "population explosion," however. They continued:
"Ultimately, those policies may have to embrace
coercion by governments to curb breeding." 582
It doesn't take much imagination to envision the size of a
government that would have the ability to prevent every couple
in the world from producing unwanted pregnancies.

Nor does it take superior intelligence to see what the next
step would be should all of these "voluntary" methods fail. If
the world population will not voluntarily stop producing too
many children, then coercive measures must be employed.
But, it can be assumed that the Friends of the Earth be
lieve that those 3 billion people will understand when they
come to exterminate them. Don't forget, it is for the good of
humanity!
But in the future, the parent who believes that he or she
is capable of raising children will become a criminal. One
organization that sees that situation occurring in the future
is the World Future Society, which wrote this:

"The adult criminal of the twenty-first century
may be less common than his twentieth century coun-
242
CHAPTER 29 THE ATTACK ON THE FAMILY
terpart, in part because of the way society treats
children from the moment they are born.
Parental care in the year 2000 may be different.
from today's, and better, since by then the movement
to license or certify parents may well be under way."

In most cases, certified couples would be allowed to have
their own natural children. In some instances, however,
genetic scanning may find that some women and men can
produce "super" babies but are not well suited to rear them.
These couples would be licensed to breed, but will give up
their children to other people licensed to rear them.
Child breeding and rearing may be considered too important
to be left to chance.
"... wanted children will have fewer environmental
reasons to turn to crime, and controlled breeding will
result in fewer biological reasons for crime." 583
The attack on the family in America has taken several
clever and unique twists. The family destroyers have resorted
to cleverness to disguise their original intent: they do not
want the parents to know that the destruction of the family
is their goal. So they conceal their purposes by quietly
causing problems that create intense pressures on the family.
One of the methods utilized is that of inflation.

Inflation is simply defined by a dictionary as an increase
in the money supply, causing prices to go up. That means
that whoever controls the money supply controls the price
level. Increase the money supply, and prices rise. Decrease
the money supply and prices go down (called Deflation.) Once
Inflation or Deflation has been documented, the government
economists point with pride at the supposed perpetrators: the
public. They never direct their attention at the real culprit in
America: the privately owned Federal Reserve system.
This private banking establishment has complete control
over the quantity of money in circulation. Therefore, they
have the ability to create Inflation or Deflation whenever
they choose to do so.
The rising price level without a corresponding increase in
a family's income causes the wife in a family unit who has
chosen to care for her own child at home to leave the nurturing
of the children to others in order to seek gainful employment

so that she can increase the family's earnings. The
parents are forced to place their children in a government
run school. This enables the planners to teach the children
what they want taught at an earlier age. And it places the
mother in a position where she sees less and less of her
children, and the children see more and more of the government
trained substitute "parents."
The planners have been extremely successful, as the
number of working mothers has been steadily increasing.
According to a report issued in 1987, more than 44 percent of
women work outside the home, compared to only 32 percent
in 1960. Of women with children under one year of age, close
to 50 percent are currently employed, a figure that has
doubled since 1970. 584

“......我们应该设定一个目标，将人口减少到
地球资源可以无限期维持的水平
体面的生活水平~可能更少
超过 20 亿。”581
当一个人认为世界上大约有五个
现在有十亿人，人们只能想知道
地球之友将消灭 30 亿人。 所以
到目前为止，解决方案不包括简单地毒化或
射击数十亿人，但人们只能想知道
如果人们不自愿，地球之友将提供世界
解决这个所谓的问题。
组织不排除武力制止
然而，“人口爆炸”。 他们继续说：
“最终，这些政策可能不得不接受
政府强制遏制繁殖。”582
想象一个的大小并不需要太多的想象力
政府将有能力阻止每一对夫妇
在世界上避免意外怀孕。

也不需要高超的智慧就能看到下一个
如果所有这些“自愿”方法都失败了，这将是一个步骤。 如果
世界人口也不会自愿停止生产
孩子多，就必须采取强制措施。
但是，可以假设地球之友是
相信那 30 亿人会明白，当他们
前来消灭他们。 别忘了，这是为了
人性！
但在未来，相信他或她的父母
有能力养育孩子的人会成为罪犯。 一
看到这种情况在未来发生的组织
是世界未来协会，它是这样写的：

“二十一世纪的成年罪犯
可能不如他在二十世纪的国家那么普遍
242
第29章对家庭的攻击
三部分，部分原因是社会对待
孩子从出生那一刻起。
2000年的父母照顾可能有所不同。
从今天开始，更好，因为那时运动
许可或证明父母很可能正在进行中。”

在大多数情况下，经过认证的夫妇将被允许拥有
他们自己的亲生孩子。 然而，在某些情况下，
基因扫描可能会发现一些女性和男性可以
生产“超级”婴儿，但不适合抚养他们。
这些夫妇将获得繁殖许可，但会放弃
他们的孩子交给获得许可抚养他们的其他人。
育儿和抚养可能被认为太重要
留给机会。
“......想要的孩子将有更少的环境
转向犯罪的理由和控制繁殖的意愿
从而减少犯罪的生物学原因。”583
对美国家庭的袭击已经发生了好几年
巧妙而独特的曲折。 家庭破坏者已经使出
为了聪明掩饰他们的初衷：他们不
想让父母知道家庭的毁灭
是他们的目标。 所以他们悄悄地隐藏他们的目的
造成问题，给家庭带来巨大压力。
使用的方法之一是通货膨胀。

通货膨胀被字典简单地定义为增加
货币供应，导致价格上涨。 这意味着
谁控制了货币供应量，谁就控制了价格
等级。 货币供应量增加，物价上涨。 减少
货币供应量和价格下降（称为通货紧缩）。一旦
通货膨胀或通货紧缩已被记录在案，政府
经济学家自豪地指出所谓的肇事者：
民众。 他们从不把注意力放在真正的罪魁祸首
美国：私有的联邦储备系统。
这家私人银行机构拥有完全控制权
超过流通中的货币数量。 因此，他们
有能力在任何时候创造通货膨胀或通货紧缩
他们选择这样做。
物价水平上涨而没有相应增加
一个家庭的收入导致一个家庭单位的妻子有
选择在家照顾自己的孩子离开养育
将孩子交给他人以寻求有报酬的工作

这样她就可以增加家庭的收入。 这
父母被迫将他们的孩子安置在政府机构中
办学。 这使计划者能够教孩子们
他们想在更早的时候教什么。 它把
母亲处在一个她越来越少看到她的位置
孩子们，孩子们越来越多地看到政府
训练有素的替代“父母”。
策划者非常成功，因为
职业母亲的数量一直在稳步增加。
根据 1987 年发布的一份报告，超过 44% 的
女性外出工作，相比之下只有 32%
1960 年。在有 1 岁以下孩子的妇女中，接近
目前有 50% 的人在工作，这个数字已经
自 1970 年以来翻了一番。 584

But, what happens to the child when they are placed into
day care centers? Are they better off? One group of individuals
who feel that they are not are the doctors inside the
American Academy of Pediatrics who have reported that the
children placed in these centers are subject to all sorts of
diseases caused by bacteria, viruses and parasites. They are
more than 12 times as likely to catch flu viruses and 15 to
20 times more likely to catch other diseases than children
under maternal care.
So the day care center has a negative impact on the
health of a child placed there by a working mother. When the
child gets sick, the mother must take time off from her job to
care for the child, or to place the child in the hands of the
medical fraternity. If the mother gets paid by the hour, and
only gets paid when she is on the job, this frequent sickness
costs the family additional revenue. And the only time that
the mother sees her child, other than evenings or weekends,
is when the child is sick and not feeling well. This does not
tend to support warm mother-child feelings.

But there is another lesser known problem when the
mother is not directly involved in the care of the child. Until
fairly recently, the assumption that care by the mother was
the best kind of child care went unchallenged. John Bowlby's
widely acclaimed book entitled MATERNAL CARE AND
MENTAL HEALTH, published in 1951, concluded that the
"warm, intimate, and continuous" care of the mother or
permanent mother substitute was essential to the "development
of character and mental health." He called the absence
of this mother-child relationship "maternal deprivation" and said that it was likely to result in "maladjustment of the
child."
This was the consensus view of the vast majority of psychologists,
psychiatrists, pediatricians, and the general public
until the medical and professional organizations capitulated to
the demands of the feminist movement in the 1970s.
The continuing debate over Dr. Jay Belsky's recent "heresy"
is testimony to the power of the feminist/day care lobby
in academic and professional circles. Belsky, a professor of
child psychology at Pennsylvania State University, was, a
decade ago, one of the influential voices that saw no harm in
institutional child care. Now, he says, convincing research
shows that non-maternal care for more than 20 hours per
week for children under a year old is a "risk factor." Day care
at that young age can impede secure parent/child relationships
and lead to rebellious and aggressive behavior, or shy
and withdrawn behavior in the preschool and early years. His
views have caused him much grief, as colleagues and feminists
have come down hard on him for his views. They have
impugned his research, his credentials, and his motives.

Even Dr. Benjamin Spock, certainly no "conservative" in
other matters, has also resisted the push for group child care,
especially before the age of three. He has taken a position
that appears to be out of character for him. He has written:
"It is stressful for children to have to cope with
groups, with strangers, with people outside the family."
586
And another "certified Harvard liberal," Professor Burton
White, warns parents:
"Unless you have a very good reason, I urge you
not to delegate the primary child-rearing task to anyone
else during your child's first three years of life." 587
But the debate is certain to continue. Those who want to
destroy the family will continue to urge mothers to leave the
home and "become fulfilled in the workplace." When the
mother goes into the workplace to "become fulfilled," or to
increase the family's income, she leaves the care of the children
to others.

Those who warn against such practices will continue to be
scorned by the feminists and others who have a hidden
agenda: they want to destroy the family.
Another subtle pressure against marriage was concealed
inside a headline in a local newspaper that read: "New tax
laws to increase 'marriage tax' for many." The article defined
the term "marriage tax" as a term used to:
"describe the extra tax burden paid by a married
couple when compared with the tax paid by two single
people with the same total income." 588
So, those individuals smart enough to know how the tax
laws work against them decide not to get married.
And in some cases, the destruction of the family has not
gone unnoticed. Newsweek magazine of January 12, 1981,
carried an article by Dr. Jonathan Kellerman, a psychologist,
and author. He wrote this:

"However, when one examines the role
government has played in its relationship to the
family, it is clear that not only has there been no
support, on the contrary there has been a systematic
erosion of the family, perpetuated by executive,
legislative and judicial branches of government.
The trend of the last two decades toward more
government intervention and control has carried with
it a clear message to families: you are not competent
to decide how to live your life — we know better

但是，当他们被安置在孩子身上时会发生什么？
日托中心？ 他们过得更好吗？ 一组个人
谁觉得他们不是里面的医生
美国儿科学会报告说
安置在这些中心的儿童会受到各种
由细菌、病毒和寄生虫引起的疾病。 他们是
感染流感病毒的可能性是普通人的 12 倍，是普通人的 15 至
患其他疾病的可能性是儿童的 20 倍
在母亲的呵护下。
所以日托中心对
工作母亲安置在那里的孩子的健康。 当。。。的时候
孩子生病了，妈妈必须请假
照顾孩子，或将孩子交到
医学界。 如果妈妈按小时领工资，并且
只有在工作时才能得到报酬，这种频繁的疾病
花费家庭额外的收入。 而唯一一次
母亲看她的孩子，除了晚上或周末，
是当孩子生病并且感觉不舒服时。 这不
倾向于支持温暖的母子感情。

但是还有一个鲜为人知的问题
母亲不直接参与照顾孩子。 直到
最近，假设母亲的照顾是
最好的儿童保育方式没有受到挑战。 约翰鲍尔比的
广受好评的题为“母性护理和”的书
1951 年出版的《心理健康》得出的结论是
母亲的“温暖、亲密和持续”的照顾或
永久的母亲替代品对于“发展”至关重要
的性格和心理健康。”他称缺席
对于这种母子关系的“母性剥夺”，并表示很可能导致“母性失调”。
孩子。”
这是绝大多数心理学家的共识，
精神科医生、儿科医生和公众
直到医疗和专业组织屈服于
70年代女权运动的要求。
关于 Jay Belsky 博士最近的“异端”的持续争论
证明了女权主义者/日托游说团体的力量
在学术界和专业界。 贝尔斯基教授
宾夕法尼亚州立大学儿童心理学
十年前，有影响力的声音之一认为没有伤害
机构儿童保育。 现在，他说，令人信服的研究
表明每人非孕产期护理时间超过 20 小时
一周对于一岁以下的孩子来说是一个“危险因素”。 日托
在那个年纪可能会阻碍安全的父母/孩子关系
并导致叛逆和攻击行为，或害羞
学龄前和早年的退缩行为。 他的
作为同事和女权主义者，这些观点给他带来了很多悲痛
因为他的观点而严厉批评他。 他们有
质疑他的研究、资历和动机。

即使是本杰明斯波克博士，也肯定不是“保守派”
其他事项，也抵制了集体托儿的推动，
尤其是三岁之前。 他已就职
这似乎不符合他的性格。 他写道：
“孩子们不得不应付压力
团体、陌生人、家庭以外的人。”
586
和另一位“经过认证的哈佛自由主义者”，伯顿教授
怀特警告父母：
“除非你有充分的理由，否则我劝你
不把主要的育儿任务委托给任何人
否则在您孩子出生后的前三年。”587
但争论肯定会继续下去。 那些想要
破坏家庭将继续敦促母亲离开
家并“在工作场所得到满足”。 当。。。的时候
母亲进入工作场所是为了“变得充实”，或者
增加了家庭的收入，她离开了孩子们的照顾
给别人。

那些警告这种做法的人将继续
被女权主义者和其他有隐情的人蔑视
议程：他们想摧毁家庭。
另一种潜移默化的婚姻压力被隐藏
在当地报纸的标题中写着：“新税
为许多人增加‘婚姻税’的法律。”文章定义
“婚姻税”一词用于：
“描述已婚夫妇支付的额外税负
与两个单身人士缴纳的税款相比，夫妻
总收入相同的人。”588
所以，那些足够聪明的人知道如何征税
法律不利于他们决定不结婚。
在某些情况下，家庭的毁灭并没有
被忽视了。 1981 年 1 月 12 日的新闻周刊杂志，
刊登了心理学家乔纳森凯勒曼博士的一篇文章，
和作者。 他写道：

“然而，当一个人审视这个角色时
政府在与
家庭，很明显，不仅没有
支持，相反有一个系统的
家庭的侵蚀，由行政延续，
政府的立法和司法部门。
过去二十年的趋势是更
政府的干预和控制伴随着
它向家庭发出明确的信息：你不称职
决定如何过你的生活——我们更清楚

And the government is once again using the tax laws to
discriminate against families with full time mothers. The
246
CHAPTER 29 THE ATTACK ON THE FAMILY
present tax code favors families whose mothers enter the
work force over families with full-time mothers. Those parents
who do not send the mother out into the work force
must subsidize those who do.
Secondly, the tax laws are weighted heavily against
parental choice in child care. Most surveys indicate that
working parents generally prefer leaving their child with
relatives, neighbors or friends. Current tax laws do not
recognize these forms of child care as legitimate; thus, parents
who choose to use them do not receive an income-tax
credit for the costs of child care. So many parents choose to
have the government assist them in the costs of their child
care by providing a tax credit and give their children over to
the government to raise them.

And lastly, current or proposed legislation concerning
child care tax credits discriminate against the many churchrelated
day care facilities. These laws prohibit funding for
any child care facility "unless all religious symbols and artifacts
are covered or have been removed."
A classic example of the unrestrained use of government
force against a child care facility occurred in 1984, when the
State of Texas attempted to completely shut down three children's
homes run by Pastor Lester Roloff. He, like Pastor
Silevin before him, refused to allow the state to license his
homes for the children who had been voluntarily placed there
by their parents. The state of Texas went to court, but in
1981 a state district judge denied its request for an injunction
against the Pastor's homes, concluding that the licensing
procedure as applied to the church running them would violate
the constitutions of both the United States and Texas.
The federal Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision.
However, the state Supreme Court rejected the church's
contention that licensing would interfere with religious freedom.
The Chief Justice did not object to the quality of the
care provided by the Roloff homes; his concern was the simple
fact that they would not submit to licensing. He noted
that the homes have "a good record of high quality service,"
and that they could "easily satisfy licensing requirements, but
had chosen not to do so."

So the state wanted certain restrictions on the care provided
children in Pastor Roloffs homes. Several of those restrictions
were so incredible that they show that the major reason
247
CHAPTER 29 THE ATTACK ON THE FAMILY
the state went after the child care facilities was simply that
they were too successful.
The first of these restrictions was (not a complete list):

1. "You should not threaten a child with the
displeasure of Deity."
In other words, you couldn't tell a child that he was a
sinner. Remember that these children had been placed in
these homes because they had become disciplinary problems
to their parents. The parents, who had seen their children
become involved in prostitution, drugs and criminal activity,
had turned to the Pastor for help in turning their child
around. They turned to him because he was a Christian Pastor,
and because he had demonstrated success in hundreds of
similar cases before. These parents loved their children and
wanted them to stop their criminal and anti-social behavior.
They cared for them enough to voluntarily place them in a
program that had proven successful. Only a very small percentage
of these children had been placed in these homes by
the court system.
One of the reasons the Pastor was successful was because
he turned the children to religion. But the state told him he
could not use that as a method of correcting the child.
The second restriction was:

"The institution shall see that each child is
supplied with personal clothing suitable to
the child's age and size. It shall be
comparable to the clothing of other children
in the community."
The Pastor and his staff felt that much of the clothing the
children were wearing was too suggestive and improper. So
they attempted to provide the children with modest clothing
less stimulating and provocative. They felt that this restriction
would place the children back into the clothing that in
many cases had caused them to have problems before their
arrival at the Roloff homes.
The third restriction was:
3. "Children should be encouraged to form
friendships with persons outside the institution."
It would be fair to observe that such friendships were frequently
what brought the children to the homes in the first
place.
The fourth restriction was:
4. "The opinions and recommendations of the
children in care shall be considered in the
development and evaluation of the program
and activities. The procedure for this shall be
documented."
Letting the inmates run the prison sounds like an excellent
idea until the prisoners suggest that the restraining bars
should be removed.

政府再次使用税法来
歧视有全职妈妈的家庭。 这
246
第29章对家庭的攻击
目前的税法有利于母亲进入美国的家庭
劳动力超过有全职母亲的家庭。 那些父母
谁不把母亲送出去工作
必须补贴那些这样做的人。
其次，税法严重反对
父母在育儿方面的选择。 大多数调查表明
工作的父母通常更愿意把孩子留给
亲戚、邻居或朋友。 现行税法不
承认这些形式的儿童保育是合法的； 因此，父母
选择使用它们的人不会收到所得税
儿童保育费用的信贷。 很多家长选择
让政府帮助他们支付孩子的费用
通过提供税收抵免来照顾他们的孩子
政府来抚养他们。

最后，当前或拟议的立法涉及
托儿税收抵免歧视许多与教会有关的人
日托设施。 这些法律禁止资助
任何儿童保育设施“除非所有宗教符号和手工艺品
被覆盖或已被删除。”
滥用政府权力的典型例子
1984 年发生了针对儿童保育设施的暴力事件，当时
得克萨斯州试图完全关闭三个儿童
由莱斯特罗洛夫牧师经营的家园。 他和牧师一样
在他之前的 Silevin 拒绝允许国家许可他的
自愿安置在那里的儿童之家
由他们的父母。 德克萨斯州告上法庭，但在
1981 年州地方法官拒绝了其禁令请求
反对牧师的家园，得出的结论是许可
适用于运行它们的教会的程序会违反
美国和德克萨斯州的宪法。
联邦上诉法院确认了初审法院的决定。
然而，州最高法院驳回了教会的
认为许可会干扰宗教自由。
首席大法官没有反对的质量
Roloff 之家提供的护理； 他关心的是简单的
他们不会提交许可的事实。 他指出
这些家庭拥有“优质服务的良好记录”，
并且他们可以“轻松满足许可要求，但是
已经选择不这样做了。”

所以国家希望对所提供的护理进行一定的限制
罗洛夫牧师家里的孩子们。 其中一些限制
太不可思议了，以至于他们证明了主要原因
247
第29章对家庭的攻击
国家追求的托儿设施只是
他们太成功了。
这些限制中的第一个是（不是完整列表）：

1. “你不应该用
神的不悦。”
换句话说，你不能告诉孩子他是
罪人。 请记住，这些孩子被安置在
这些家庭因为它们已经成为纪律问题
给他们的父母。 见过自己孩子的父母
卷入卖淫、毒品和犯罪活动，
已经求助于牧师帮助他们的孩子
大约。 他们转向他是因为他是一位基督教牧师，
并且因为他已经证明了数百次的成功
以前的类似案例。 这些父母爱他们的孩子，
希望他们停止犯罪和反社会行为。
他们非常关心他们，自愿将他们安置在
已证明成功的计划。 只有很小一部分
这些孩子被安置在这些家庭中
法院系统。
牧师成功的原因之一是因为
他让孩子们皈依宗教。 但是国家告诉他，他
不能以此作为纠正孩子的方法。
第二个限制是：

“该机构应确保每个孩子都
提供适合的个人服装
孩子的年龄和体型。 应该是
与其他孩子的衣服相媲美
在社区里。”
牧师和他的同工觉得很多衣服
孩子们的穿着过于挑逗和不合适。 所以
他们试图为孩子们提供适度的衣服
不那么刺激和挑衅。 他们认为这种限制
会把孩子们放回衣服里
许多案例导致他们在他们之前遇到问题
到达罗洛夫家。
第三个限制是：
3.“应该鼓励孩子形成
与机构外的人建立友谊。”
公平地说，这种友谊经常发生
是什么把孩子们带到家里的
地方。
第四个限制是：
4.《意见和建议》
照顾儿童应考虑在
方案的制定和评估
和活动。 程序应为
记录在案。”
让囚犯管理监狱听起来不错
想法，直到囚犯建议限制杆
应该被删除。

Many of these children had become discipline
problems mainly because they had decided that they
could best run their own lives. When this determination had
failed, the parents placed them into Pastor Roloff s homes so
that they would learn some discipline. But the state wanted
them to learn how to run their own lives again.
The purpose of all of this incredible pressure on the Roloff
homes appeared to be the desire of the state to weaken the
ability of the Roloff homes to be successful with these troubled
children. A secondary purpose appeared to be the desire
to weaken the family, and encourage the state to devise
methods that would remove the control of the children from
the parents and to give them over to the state.
Perhaps the role model that the family destroyers want to
emulate is the Soviet Union, where enormous pressures are
intentionally placed upon the Russian family.

Parade magazine carried an article about an American
family which had returned to Russia in 1987 after having
lived there in the late 1960's. The wife in the marriage has
written a book about modern life in that nation, and these
are some of her observations.
"... the average young married woman in the Soviet
Union ... is a prisoner of the Soviet custom and
doctrine, which calls for a wife, without her husband's
help, to perform the tough, rough, rugged household

chores — the laundry, the cleaning, the cooking, the
moving, the shopping, the child-caring — all of these in
addition to holding down her own job outside the
home eight hours a day." 591
In Russia, work is a duty of its citizens. That obligation
has been written into their Constitution.
Article 12 reads as follows:
"Work in the U.S.S.R. is a duty and a matter of
honour for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance
with the principle: 'He who does not work, neither
shall he eat.'
The principle applied in the U.S.S.R. is that of
socialism: 'From each according to his ability, to each
according to his work.'"

It would appear from a cursory examination of these sentences
that work in Russia is for men only. The first paragraph
refers to work being a male occupation: "HE who does
not work ...," and the second says: "... according to HIS
ability." However, the first paragraph says that "Work is a
duty ... for every able-bodied citizen." Women are "able bodied
citizens" just like men. Therefore, the Constitution makes it
clear that this work requirement is for both sexes. Women
must toil for the Russian economy as well as men.
This means that married women are obligated to work as
well as single women. The fact that the married woman must
work for the state obviously leaves the children free to be
raised by the government. And that is the desired result of
that provision in the Constitution.
And the fact that the married woman must work for the
society means that she has less time to spend with her family.
The article continued with some of the obstacles that the
Russian economy puts on the wife during the typical day:

"... the Soviet woman ... rises early, not much
past 6, prepares breakfast for the family, gets the
children off to school, goes to her own work. During
lunch, it's hurry up and wait. Instead of enjoying her
breather, she bolts down her food and races to the
nearest store, where she waits and waits and waits to
250
CHAPTER 29 THE ATTACK ON THE FAMILY
buy whatever approximates the needs of her family.
Almost always there's a shortage of meat, fruit,
vegetables, soap and quality products of anything."

The Soviet economic system, called Communism, has been
proven to be a failure by 6000 years of experience. The Communist
system destroys the incentive to produce and the
population suffers from the lack of consumption goods. No
Communist would be bold enough to admit that it is the system
that has failed. So contrived explanations are offered to
explain the shortages.
There is no food because a "drought" reduced farm yields.
"Military equipment spending priorities" have replaced production
quotas for consumption goods.
It is certainly conceivable that those in charge want the
married family to suffer these pressures, so that few in the
married population will be happy. The entire system is intentionally
designed to be a failure, and no one would dare correct
it.
It is clear that pressure on the family is the desired
product of Communism.
The article confirmed this with this comment:

"No wonder so many Soviet men drink, sulk and
accuse their wives of frigidity and indifference. No
wonder the Soviet Union is so rife with divorce."
The married woman in Russia is obviously too tired to
care for her husband, and the result becomes predictable: a
rising divorce rate.
And no one blames those who have intentionally created
an economic system that was certain to put those pressures
on the family. The planners have experienced their desired
result: marriage has become the least desired relationship in
Russia.

这些孩子中的许多人已经成为纪律
问题主要是因为他们决定他们
可以最好地经营自己的生活。 当这个决心有了
失败了，父母把他们安置在罗洛夫牧师的家里，所以
他们会学习一些纪律。 但是国家想要
他们重新学习如何经营自己的生活。
对 Roloff 施加所有这些令人难以置信的压力的目的
家庭似乎是国家削弱的愿望
Roloff 家庭成功解决这些问题的能力
孩子们。 次要目的似乎是愿望
削弱家庭，鼓励国家制定
可以解除孩子控制权的方法
父母并将他们交给国家。
也许家庭破坏者想要的榜样
效仿苏联，压力巨大
故意放在俄罗斯家庭身上。

游行杂志刊登了一篇关于一个美国人的文章
1987 年返回俄罗斯的家庭
1960 年代后期住在那里。 婚姻中的妻子有
写了一本关于那个国家现代生活的书，而这些
是她的一些观察。
“......苏联的普通年轻已婚妇女
联盟......是苏联习俗的囚徒并且
教义，要求妻子，没有丈夫的
帮助，执行艰难、粗暴、崎岖的家庭

家务——洗衣、清洁、做饭、
搬家、购物、照顾孩子——所有这些都在
除了保住自己的工作外
每天八小时在家。”591
在俄罗斯，工作是公民的义务。 那个义务
已经写入他们的宪法。
第十二条内容如下：
“在苏联工作是一种责任
尊重每一个身体健全的公民，按照
原则是：'不工作的人，也不
他应该吃吗？
在苏联适用的原则是
社会主义：“各尽所能，各尽所能
根据他的工作。'”

从对这些句子的粗略检查看来
在俄罗斯工作只限男性。 第一段
指工作是男性职业：“HE who does
不工作......”，第二个说：“......根据他的
能力。”然而，第一段说“工作是
责任……对每一个健全的公民。”妇女是“健全的
公民”就像男人一样。因此，宪法规定
明确这项工作要求适用于男女。 女性
必须为俄罗斯经济和男人辛勤劳作。
这意味着已婚妇女有义务作为
以及单身女性。 已婚妇女必须的事实
为国家工作显然会让孩子们自由自在
由政府提出。 这是期望的结果
宪法中的那条规定。
事实是已婚妇女必须为
社会意味着她与家人相处的时间越来越少。
这篇文章继续讨论了一些障碍
俄罗斯经济在典型的日子里穿上妻子：

“......苏联女人......早起，不多
6点多，为家人准备早餐，拿到
孩子放学，自己上班。 期间
午饭了，就快点等吧。 而不是享受她
喘口气，她吃下她的食物，然后跑到
最近的商店，她在那里等啊等啊等
250
第29章对家庭的攻击
买任何接近她家人需要的东西。
几乎总是缺少肉类、水果、
蔬菜、肥皂和任何优质产品。”

苏联的经济制度，称为共产主义，已经
6000年的经验证明是失败的。 共产主义者
制度破坏了生产的动力和
人口缺乏消费品。 不
共产主义者会大胆地承认这是制度
那失败了。 所以人为的解释被提供给
解释短缺。
没有食物是因为一场“干旱”降低了农场的产量。
“军事装备支出优先”已取代生产
消费品配额。
当然可以想象，那些负责人想要
已婚家庭承受这些压力，以至于很少有人在
已婚人口会幸福。 整个系统是故意的
设计成失败，没有人敢纠正
它。
很明显，对家庭的压力是所希望的
共产主义的产物。
该文章通过以下评论证实了这一点：

“难怪那么多苏联人喝酒、生闷气和
指责他们的妻子性冷淡和冷漠。 不
难怪苏联离婚如此猖獗。”
俄罗斯的已婚女人明显累到不行
照顾她的丈夫，结果是可以预见的：
离婚率上升。
没有人会责怪那些有意创造的人
一个肯定会施加这些压力的经济体系
在家庭上。 规划者经历了他们想要的
结果：婚姻已成为人们最不想要的关系
俄罗斯。

"My book is an effort to demonstrate how things
go bad when you make a fetish out of individual
freedom and dignity.
If you insist that individual rights are the
'summum bonum,' [meaning the highest good,] then
the whole structure of society falls down." 592
So, those who want to destroy the family want the world
to turn the society over to them.
And those running the society continue to destroy it.
The strategy is not new. In fact, it has been the strategy
of this conspiracy for centuries.
They cause the problem.
Then they solve the problem with more government.
And the people are convinced that their solution is desirable,
generally because that is the only solution offered.
And the end result is less freedom for the people.
And it works nearly every time.

“我的书试图证明事物是如何
当你迷恋个人时变坏
自由和尊严。
如果你坚持个人权利是
'summum bonum' [意为至善] 然后
整个社会结构都垮了。”592
所以，欲灭家者欲天下
把社会交给他们。
而那些管理社会的人继续摧毁它。
该策略并不新鲜。 其实一直是攻略
这个阴谋延续了几个世纪。
他们造成了问题。
然后他们与更多的政府一起解决问题。
人们相信他们的解决方案是可取的，
通常是因为这是唯一提供的解决方案。
最终的结果是人们的自由减少了。
而且它几乎每次都有效。