Against Adoption: David French and the Bizarre and Evangelical Cult of International Child Trafficking

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
November 27, 2018

As a follow-up to my piece on my opposition to stranger adoption, I thought it worthwhile to look at the defense of this practice by the evangelical cult member David French.

David French is a neoconservative writer for the National Review, who was attacked during the run-up to the 2016 election for taking a very Jewish position against Donald Trump, claiming that he was “not a true conservative” because of his opposition to globalism. French is a virulent supporter of mass nonwhite immigration, endless “intervention” wars in the Middle East and international “free trade” schemes, among other Jewish globalist plots.

I should say off the bat that I have no idea if David French is simply a psychotic lunatic hellbent on the destruction of Western civilization, or a low-IQ, low-testosterone moron who has somehow tricked himself into believing a litany of nonsensical Jewish gibberish. It may be interesting to analyze him and see if we find him to be a disingenuous fiend or a genuine cult member, but I will not do that here.

In August of this year, French wrote an article entitled “America Soured on My Multiracial Family” for the progressive Jewish publication The Atlantic to defend his neoconservative Jew beliefs about the moral goodness of kidnapping and trafficking children from the third world.

It tells the story of French and his wife traveling to Ethiopia to purchase a female child who he swears was not trafficked and simply the victim of unfortunate circumstances.

He gives his reasoning for doing so as a Bible verse:

[A verse from the] Book of Galatians, declares an eternal truth: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” As a result, my wife and I not only felt called to adopt, but we believed that race was no barrier to unity for a family of genuine faith.

Of course, any Bible verse can mean anything you want it to mean if you separate it from the historical authority of the Church, which Evangelicals have aggressively done. If that particular verse is intended to signal God’s support of interracialism, one could also suppose it supports homosexuality transgenderism – if races can switch back and forth, then why not genders? It says “nor is there male and female,” right?

In fact, this very verse is now being used by churches to justify homosexual and transgender behavior, although it wasn’t in 2010 when French was using it to justify international human trafficking.

Indeed, throughout the article, French bizarrely refers to the child he bought as his “daughter,” something that is no different than a homosexual talking about his “husband” or a man in a dress calling himself “she.”

His crybaby tragedy of rejection begins with talking about how liberals began opposing the adoption racket in the 2010s, after it was revealed that disgusting depths to which these churches were sinking to profit off of this new form of legalized child trafficking and how they were manipulating governments around the world to engage in the capturing of children to be sold on the American market.

He cites the book “The Child Catchers: Rescue, Trafficking, and the New Gospel of Adoption” by Kathryn Joyce as the source of this liberal conspiracy against his “multiracial family.”

The book is merely a documentation of the practices of human trafficking engaged in by these churches:

When Jessie Hawkins’ adopted daughter told her she had another mom back in Ethiopia, Jessie didn’t, at first, know what to think. She’d wanted her adoption to be great story about a child who needed a home and got one, and a family led by God to adopt. Instead, she felt like she’d done something wrong.

Adoption has long been enmeshed in the politics of reproductive rights, pitched as a “win-win” compromise in the never-ending abortion debate. But as Kathryn Joyce makes clear in The Child Catchers, adoption has lately become even more entangled in the conservative Christian agenda.

To tens of millions of evangelicals, adoption is a new front in the culture wars: a test of “pro-life” bona fides, a way for born again Christians to reinvent compassionate conservatism on the global stage, and a means to fulfill the “Great Commission” mandate to evangelize the nations. Influential leaders fervently promote a new “orphan theology,” urging followers to adopt en masse, with little thought for the families these “orphans” may already have.

Conservative evangelicals control much of that industry through an infrastructure of adoption agencies, ministries, political lobbying groups, and publicly-supported “crisis pregnancy centers,” which convince women not just to “choose life,” but to choose adoption. Overseas, conservative Christians preside over a spiraling boom-bust adoption market in countries where people are poor and regulations weak, and where hefty adoption fees provide lots of incentive to increase the “supply” of adoptable children, recruiting “orphans” from intact but vulnerable families.

The Child Catchers is a shocking exposé of what the adoption industry has become and how it got there, told through deep investigative reporting and the heartbreaking stories of individuals who became collateral damage in a market driven by profit and, now, pulpit command.

Anyone who seeks to adopt—of whatever faith or no faith, and however well-meaning—is affected by the evangelical adoption movement, whether they know it or not. The movement has shaped the way we think about adoption, the language we use to discuss it, the places we seek to adopt from, and the policies and laws that govern the process. In The Child Catchers, Kathryn Joyce reveals with great sensitivity and empathy why, if we truly care for children, we need to see more clearly.

Here’s an interview she did with NPR.

French does not discuss the fact that his own story of flying to Ethiopia to purchase a child whose mother he never met (but who was alive, he was told) was so similar to the stories that Joyce recounted about governments pressuring families to give up their children to be sold to American Christian groups:

In the summer of 2010, we journeyed to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, to pick up our youngest child, Naomi Konjit French. As with every adoption story, hers begins with profound loss. Her unwed mother surrendered Naomi to her grandmother and grandfather and then disappeared from her life. Her grandparents were subsistence farmers, barely able to eke out a living. Then her grandfather died, and Naomi and her grandmother began to starve. By the time Naomi was 2 years old, she weighed barely more than 14 pounds. That was her condition when she was abandoned again—this time lovingly turned over to an adoption agency. Her grandmother simply couldn’t keep her alive.

Instead of wondering why the very unlikely story told to him about his own “daughter’s” journey to being sold to him is a hoax, French simply asserts that maybe some bad things have happened in certain rare cases within the adoption industry, but that the anti-adoption movement was an attack on Christianity.

Of course, that makes zero sense as the liberals currently support the agenda of massive nonwhite immigration, and work hand in hand with the same evangelical churches that supported population transfer through child trafficking. Based on the fact that the liberal and Jewish groups now work directly with the evangelical groups to move massive numbers of people into America, it is more likely that when the evangelicals said “we just need to get as many Africans trafficked here as possible, and make as much money as possible in the process,” liberals generally agreed but felt child kidnapping went too far.

Evangelical Christians are social justice activists pushed to the extreme by the belief that they have God on their side in their quest to forward the globalist agenda (evangelicals are so stupid that they believe that Jewish globalism will lead to a Christian dominion; basically, this theory is designed to justify the fact that brown people are the only ones dumb enough to show up at their churches anymore, and again, all the money they make trafficking them).

The liberals, he notes, also have the idea that white parents are incapable of raising a black child:

Before we adopted, we of course knew that there has long been political opposition to transracial adoption. In 1972 the National Association of Black Social Workers famously declared white adoption of black children to be a form of “cultural genocide.” But that was decades ago. By the 21st century, American churches were fully engaged in an adoption movement.

But then came a backlash. Claims of cultural imperialismwounded national pride, and rare, sad horror stories of exploitation or abuse soured foreign nations against American families.

This again points to the fact that the whole “liberals are the real racists” meme is actually true, as liberals at least accept that differences exist between races, while conservative cucks believe in a more pure version of the Marxist ideal of universal equality.

French then goes on to whine about Trump supporters wanting to stuff his kidnapped African child into a gas chamber:

Then, sometime around the summer of 2015, we began to notice a shift. The attacks on our family came less and less from the left, and increasingly from the so-called alt-right—a vicious movement of Trump-supporting white nationalists who loathe multiracial families. They despise international adoption. They call it “race-cucking your family” or “raising the enemy.” Heaven help you if they find you online, and find us they did. In part because I criticized their movement directly—and in part because I refused to support Donald Trump in 2016—they came after us with a vengeance.

They lifted pictures of my then-7-year-old daughter from social media and Photoshopped her into a gas chamber, with Donald Trump pressing the button to kill her. They put her image in slave fields. They found my wife’s blog and filled the comments section with gruesome pictures of dead or dying African Americans. They made me wish for the days when the left came after us; at least progressive critics didn’t want my daughter to die.

Yes, it seems that everyone is very uncomfortable with this situation of David’s.

It is simply naturally repulsive, to all people, to see a black child with a white family. Both blacks and whites would feel the same about a black family with a white child, I’m sure.

French closes with the theory that the backlash against his decision to purchase an African child proves that this is not the Kingdom of Heaven:

We love our daughter more than we love our own lives. But the idealism of 2010 is gone. Then, we thought our family reflected the future. Now we know that was naive. Now we know that while the promise of Galatians—the promise that we are “all one”—is true in the Kingdom of Heaven, in America it does not yet apply.

Weird paragraph.

So that’s David French’s tragic tale.

But What About White Children?

Whereas African children are almost universally bought by smug do-gooders like David French, who wish to show the world how morally righteous they are – a criticism that French mentioned in his piece but did not attempt to refute, simply talking about how much he loves this random black kid he bought – white children are much more precious, and generally sought out by people who cannot produce their own children.

I doubt that many regular readers of this site needed much convincing that “adopting” African children is bad, but presumably, some of you think that the situation is different for white children.

In actual fact, it is not different. It is the same child-trafficking infrastructure setup by these evangelical groups, and the same system of buying children from their mothers in poorer countries. I remember in the late 90s and early 00s when this adoption thing was going nuts, people would talk about how it was some tens of thousands of dollars to adopt a white child, while a black child was much cheaper. The word “adopt” was clearly a euphemism for “purchase,” but it seemed that no one recognized this fact.

As ABC News reported earlier this year, it presently costs an average of $35,000 to adopt a white baby, while it costs only $4,000 to adopt a black baby.

Most of the white children trafficked by the evangelical adoption movement were from Russia and other former East bloc countries. These countries had legal abortion, due to rampant poverty, prostitution and general social chaos following the collapse of communism. So, the churches moved in and started telling women that instead of aborting their children, they could sell them. You can never know, but I very much doubt this stopped very many abortions – it did, however, give women the ability to legally sell their children, something which white Western society has generally not allowed for some hundreds or thousands of years.

Putin outlawed international adoption when Western countries began allowing homosexuals to adopt boys as child sex slaves. It appears that that particular issue triggered an investigation of the “adoption” industry, after which it was shut down. For the record, Ethiopia, where David French bought his trafficked child, has also banned this practice.

My original mention of the adoption issue was in regards to John Roberts trafficking children he’d purchased under questionable circumstances from Ireland through South America (some extreme “adoption” child purchases are routed through third countries in a type of “child laundering” to obfuscate fraudulent paperwork). Ireland was the last white country to keep abortion illegal, and it has also traditionally had some issues with poverty, so it was a great place for evangelical child trafficking operations to setup shop, and they made some good money buying white babies there and selling them at a huge premium in the West.

Ireland and Eastern Europe both have strong families, and these babies, even if they were from poor families or from single mothers, could have had good lives with their own natural relatives, but due to the Crusade of “saving children from abortion and making a good profit,” they were sold on the international market.

Domestic “adoption” is not that much different, with the evangelical movement not simply pushing girls to not have abortions – which is fine, okay, I get that – but aggressively pushing adoption as the alternative, in part because they think this is a tricky way to undermine their own massive political failure in stopping the legalization of abortion, and in part because there is a very serious financial incentive to mediate the adoption process.

Furthermore, although I am opposed to abortion, it is clear to me that adoption is much worse.

Just a Really Bad Idea

Ultimately, whatever the race, the problems are going to be the same: with any issue that the child has, the parent is going to ask: why is this my problem? This leads to regret and often to abuse.

It is a biological imperative to care for your own family – including your extended family. But raising someone else’s child removes the bond that is necessary for parent and child to truly have a meaningful relationship.

Just as race is real, other genetic relationships are real, and though the genetic gap is bigger with a person of another race, anyone who is not a member of your family is genetically much different from you. The child appears to have a difficult time learning to operate its own biological machinery. If you look at yourself, you will notice that you have the same mannerisms, movements, ways of speaking, etc. as your father and/or brother, uncle, grandfather (hopefully not too many from your mother). This is because you learn how to operate your own biological machinery by looking at your relatives do it, and adopted children are effectively downloading the wrong software for their systems.

The list of problems goes on and on. As I said in my previous piece, most famous serial killers were adopted, and adopted children are 15 times more likely to commit murder, and probably hundreds or thousands of times more likely to kill the people raising them.

As Dr. David Kirshner, a clinical psychologist who has been hired to consult on cases of adopted children murdering one or more of their adopted “family members” writes:

Since 1987, I have been a consultant or expert witness in 20 homicide cases in which the accused was adopted, usually as an infant, or in early childhood. In every case of these adoptees who killed, we have found a remarkably similar pattern, including a history of sealed original birth records, a childhood of secrets and lies (re: birth parents and genetic history), frustrated, blocked searches for birth parents, and untreated, festering adoption issues of loss, rejection, abandonment, identity, and dissociated (split-off) rage.

Interestingly, this sub-group of adopted killers whom I’ve seen consistently had a strikingly similar fantasy of the birth mother: That she was an all-giving, all-loving, nurturing, wonderful, perfect being. I had expected to find conscious anger/rage directed at a malevolent, rejecting bad mother – but instead there was this paradox of an idyllic birth-mother-fantasy image. The anger and rage toward birth parents was there – but deeply repressed, often dissociated and cut off from consciousness, and ultimately acted-out with violence toward the adoptive parents or others. In these extreme cases, the split, false, secret self described by many adoption experts, had evolved into a more malignant, clinical Dissociative Identity Disorder (aka Multiple Personality Disorder).

The opposite also appears to be true, with adoptive parents being orders of magnitude more likely to kill children they’ve adopted than parents are to kill their natural children.

The website Pup Pound Legacy, devoted to “exposing the dark side of adoption,” has compiled many of these types of horror stories.

No one benefits from this practice, most certainly not the children. Though David French’s story is bizarre, it is in fact standard that any parents who choose to purchase someone else’s child and raise it as their own have some form of horror story to tell.

Right now, whatever remains of the evangelical adoption racket is only promoting child trafficking. They are incentivizing women selling their children internationally, or morally blackmailing them domestically. There were not all of these children to “adopt” before an industry was built around it. In fact, orphanages had cleaned out after the industrial revolution, when most everyone was doing well enough or at least had a relative that could care for a child if they had one accidentally.

Furthermore, advances in medical science over the last 20 years have made it so virtually any infertile couple – assuming that the source of the infertility is something other than the woman’s age – can produce a child themselves that is related to both of the parents – or at least one of them – for significantly less money than it costs to buy a white child from the evangelical child-trafficking cartel.

“Adoption” should be outlawed.

Orphanages can still exist in case there are any remaining street children in America, as this environment is much healthier for children with no families than living in the case of single family. In an orphanage, the children with no families are able to form bonds with each other, based on their shared circumstances.