Jewish World wide Conspiracy Exposed by Famous Jew

Benjamin Freedman Speaks: A Jewish Defector Warns America by Benjamin H. Freedman top of page
Introductory Note: Benjamin H. Freedman was one of the most intriguing and amazing individuals of the 20th century. Mr. Freedman, born in 1890, was a successful Jewish businessman of New York City who was at one time the principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company. He broke with organized Jewry after the Judeo-Communist victory of 1945, and spent the remainder of his life and the great preponderance of his considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the Jewish tyranny which has enveloped the United States. Mr. Freedman knew what he was talking about because he had been an insider at the highest levels of Jewish organizations and Jewish machinations to gain power over our nation. Mr. Freedman was personally acquainted with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, and John F. Kennedy, and many more movers and shakers of our times. This speech was given before a patriotic audience in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley's patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense. Though in some minor ways this wide-ranging and extemporaneous speech has become dated, Mr. Freedman's essential message to us -- his warning to the West -- is more urgent than ever before. -- K.A.S.
BENJAMIN FREEDMAN....
Here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government. For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, the Zionists and their co- religionists rule these United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country. Now you may say that is a very broad statement, but let me show you what happened while we were all asleep.
What happened? World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.
Within two years Germany had won that war: not only won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean. Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, with one week's food supply -- and after that, starvation. At that time, the French army had mutinied. They had lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting, they were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.
Not a shot had been fired on German soil. Not one enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, Germany was offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: "Let's call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started." England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that -- seriously. They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.
While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and -- I am going to be brief because it's a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make -- they said: "Look here. You can yet win this war. You don't have to give up. You don't have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally." The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They told England: "We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war." In other words, they made this deal: "We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey." Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It's absolutely absurd that Great Britain, that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war. However, they did make that promise, in October of 1916. And shortly after that -- I don't know how many here remember it - - the United States, which was almost totally pro-German, entered the war as Britain's ally.
I say that the United States was almost totally pro-German because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews; and they, the Jews, were pro-German. They were pro-German because many of them had come from Germany, and also they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar. The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to win this war. These German-Jew bankers, like Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: "As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!" But they poured money into Germany, they fought beside Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.
Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like a traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they'd been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies' hands. They were no good. Shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.
The Zionists in London had sent cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis, saying "Go to work on President Wilson. We're getting from England what we want. Now you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war." That's how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room. There was absolutely no reason for World War I to be our war. We were railroaded into -- if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into -- that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. That is something that the people of the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War I.
After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: "Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war." They didn't know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, which was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.
The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. I don't think I could make it more emphatic than that.
That is where all the trouble started. The United States got in the war. The United States crushed Germany. You know what happened. When the war ended, and the Germans went to Paris for the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened? The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations who claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, said, "How about Palestine for us?" And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, "Oh, so that was the game! That's why the United States came into the war." The Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered the terrific reparations that were slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and were determined to get it at any cost.
That brings us to another very interesting point. When the Germans realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany. You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times as important in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this country. You had Mr. Balin, who owned the two big steamship lines, the North German Lloyd's and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr. Bleichroder, who was the banker for the Hohenzollern family. You had the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers -- the biggest in the world. The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No question about that. The Germans felt: "Well, that was quite a sellout."
It was a sellout that might be compared to this hypothetical situation: Suppose the United States was at war with the Soviet Union. And we were winning. And we told the Soviet Union: "Well, let's quit. We offer you peace terms. Let's forget the whole thing." And all of a sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union. And throwing them into the war brought about our defeat. A crushing defeat, with reparations the likes of which man's imagination cannot encompass. Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the time we had thought were loyal citizens working with us, were selling us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, then, in the United States against Chinese? I don't think that one of them would dare show his face on any street. There wouldn't be enough convenient lampposts to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel.
Well, that's how the Germans felt towards these Jews. They'd been so nice to them: from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated very nicely. And here they had sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than the fact that they wanted Palestine as a so-called "Jewish commonwealth."
Now Nahum Sokolow, and all the great leaders and great names that you read about in connection with Zionism today, in 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, and 1923 wrote in all their papers -- and the press was filled with their statements -- that the feeling against the Jews in Germany is due to the fact that they realized that this great defeat was brought about by Jewish intercession in bringing the United States into the war. The Jews themselves admitted that. It wasn't that the Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or Muenschner Beer. There was no religious feeling. There was no sentiment against those people merely on account of their religious belief. It was all political. It was economic. It was anything but religious. Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went home and pulled down the shades and said "Shema' Yisroel" or "Our Father." Nobody cared in Germany any more than they do in the United States. Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was due to one thing: the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing defeat.
And World War I had been started against Germany for no reason for which Germany was responsible. They were guilty of nothing. Only of being successful. They built up a big navy. They built up world trade. You must remember that Germany at the time of the French Revolution consisted of 300 small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so forth. Three hundred separate little political entities. And between that time, between the times of Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state. And within 50 years they became one of the world's great powers. Their navy was rivaling Great Britain's, they were doing business all over the world, they could undersell anybody, they could make better products. What happened as a result of that?
There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia to slap down Germany. There isn't one historian in the world who can find a valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the map politically.
When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew whom Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners, who wrote back that he found them in very fine condition. They were in excellent shape, with everybody treated well. And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to comprise about 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time. And there were some priests there, and ministers, and labor leaders, and Masons, and others who had international affiliations.
Some background is in order: In 1918-1919 the Communists took over Bavaria for a few days. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht and a group of other Jews took over the government for three days. In fact, when the Kaiser ended the war he fled to Holland because he thought the Communists were going to take over Germany as they did Russia and that he was going to meet the same fate as the Czar. So he fled to Holland for safety, for security. After the Communist threat in Germany was quashed, the Jews were still working, trying to get back into their former status, and the Germans fought them in every way they could without hurting a single hair on anyone's head. They fought them the same way that, in this country, the Prohibitionists fought anyone who was interested in liquor. They didn't fight one another with pistols. Well, that's the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany. And at that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans, and there were only 460,000 Jews. About one half of one per cent of the population of Germany were Jews. And yet they controlled all the press, and they controlled most of the economy because they had come in with cheap money when the mark was devalued and bought up practically everything.
The Jews tried to keep a lid on this fact. They didn't want the world to really understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the Germans resented that.
The Germans took appropriate action against the Jews. They, shall I say, discriminated against them wherever they could. They shunned them. The same way that we would shun the Chinese, or the Negroes, or the Catholics, or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an enemy and brought about our defeat.
After a while, the Jews of the world called a meeting in Amsterdam. Jews from every country in the world attended this meeting in July 1933. And they said to Germany: "You fire Hitler, and you put every Jew back into his former position, whether he was a Communist or no matter what he was. You can't treat us that way. And we, the Jews of the world, are serving an ultimatum upon you." You can imagine what the Germans told them. So what did the Jews do?
In 1933, when Germany refused to surrender to the world conference of Jews in Amsterdam, the conference broke up, and Mr. Samuel Untermyer, who was the head of the American delegation and the president of the whole conference, came to the United States and went from the steamer to the studios of the Columbia Broadcasting System and made a radio broadcast throughout the United States in which he in effect said, "The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against Germany. We are now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans. And we are going to starve them into surrender. We are going to use a world-wide boycott against them. That will destroy them because they are dependent upon their export business." And it is a fact that two thirds of Germany's food supply had to be imported, and it could only be imported with the proceeds of what they exported. So if Germany could not export, two thirds of Germany's population would have to starve. There was just not enough food for more than one third of the population. Now in this declaration, which I have here, and which was printed in the New York Times on August 7, 1933, Mr. Samuel Untermyer boldly stated that "this economic boycott is our means of self-defense. President Roosevelt has advocated its use in the National Recovery Administration," which some of you may remember, where everybody was to be boycotted unless he followed the rules laid down by the New Deal, and which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of that time. Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn't find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words "made in Germany" on it. In fact, an executive of the Woolworth Company told me that they had to dump millions of dollars worth of crockery and dishes into the river; that their stores were boycotted if anyone came in and found a dish marked "made in Germany," they were picketed with signs saying "Hitler," "murderer," and so forth, something like these sit-ins that are taking place in the South. At a store belonging to the R. H. Macy chain, which was controlled by a family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews, a woman found stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked "made in Germany." Well, they were cotton stockings and they may have been there 20 years, since I've been observing women's legs for many years and it's been a long time since I've seen any cotton stockings on them. I saw Macy's boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with signs saying "murderers," "Hitlerites," and so forth. Now up to that time, not one hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany. There was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there was nothing.
Naturally, the Germans said, "Who are these people to declare a boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and make our industries come to a standstill? Who are they to do that to us?" They naturally resented it. Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by Jews. Why should a German go in and give his money to a storekeeper who was part of a boycott that was going to starve Germany into surrendering to the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate who their premier or chancellor was to be? Well, it was ridiculous.
The boycott continued for some time, but it wasn't until 1938, when a young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot a German official, that the Germans really started to get rough with the Jews in Germany. And you found them then breaking windows and having street fights and so forth.
Now I don't like to use the word "anti-Semitism" because it's meaningless, but it means something to you still, so I'll have to use it. The only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews was that they were responsible for World War I and for this world-wide boycott. Ultimately they were also responsible for World War II, because after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for the Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was going to survive. In the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew that the Germans had decided that Europe is going to be Christian or Communist: there is no in between. And the Germans decided they were going to keep it Christian if possible. And they started to re-arm. In November 1933 the United States recognized the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was becoming very powerful, and Germany realized that "Our turn was going to come soon, unless we are strong." The same as we in this country are saying today, "Our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong." Our government is spending 83 or 84 billion dollars for defense. Defense against whom? Defense against 40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their devious ways, took over control of many other countries of the world.
For this country now to be on the verge of a Third World War, from which we cannot emerge a victor, is something that staggers my imagination. I know that nuclear bombs are measured in terms of megatons. A megaton is a term used to describe one million tons of TNT. Our nuclear bombs had a capacity of 10 megatons, or 10 million tons of TNT, when they were first developed. Now, the nuclear bombs that are being developed have a capacity of 200 megatons, and God knows how many megatons the nuclear bombs of the Soviet Union have.
What do we face now? If we trigger a world war that may develop into a nuclear war, humanity is finished. Why might such a war take place? It will take place as the curtain goes up on Act 3: Act 1 was World War I, Act 2 was World War II, Act 3 is going to be World War III. The Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere, are determined that they are going to again use the United States to help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their world government. That is just as true as I am standing here. Not alone have I read it, but many here have also read it, and it is known all over the world.
What are we going to do? The life you save may be your son's. Your boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you don't know it any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe. Did you know it at that time? Not a person in the United States knew it. You weren't permitted to know it. Who knew it? President Wilson knew it. Colonel House knew it. Other insiders knew it.
Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there. I was "confidential man" to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the finance committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer. So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson's brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and I heard them indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement. Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two fingers on this hand. President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby. That is how they got us into World War I, while we all slept. They sent our boys over there to be slaughtered. For what? So the Jews can have Palestine as their "commonwealth." They've fooled you so much that you don't know whether you're coming or going.
Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, "Gentlemen, any witness who you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his testimony." I don't know what state you come from, but in New York state that is the way a judge addresses a jury. If that witness told one lie, disregard his testimony.
What are the facts about the Jews? (I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don't call them Jews myself. I refer to them as so-called Jews, because I know what they are.) The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world's population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars. They were a warlike tribe who lived deep in the heart of Asia. And they were so warlike that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe. They set up a large Khazar kingdom of 800,000 square miles. At the time, Russia did not exist, nor did many other European countries. The Khazar kingdom was the biggest country in all Europe -- so big and so powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That's how big and powerful they were.
They were phallic worshippers, which is filthy and I do not want to go into the details of that now. But that was their religion, as it was also the religion of many other pagans and barbarians elsewhere in the world. The Khazar king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith -- either Christianity, Islam, or what is known today as Judaism, which is really Talmudism. By spinning a top, and calling out "eeny, meeny, miney, moe," he picked out so-called Judaism. And that became the state religion. He sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and brought up thousands of rabbis, and opened up synagogues and schools, and his people became what we call Jews. There wasn't one of them who had an ancestor who ever put a toe in the Holy Land. Not only in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time. Not one of them! And yet they come to the Christians and ask us to support their armed insurrections in Palestine by saying, "You want to help repatriate God's Chosen People to their Promised Land, their ancestral home, don't you? It's your Christian duty. We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior. You now go to church on Sunday, and you kneel and you worship a Jew, and we're Jews." But they are pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as the Irish were converted. It is as ridiculous to call them "people of the Holy Land," as it would be to call the 54 million Chinese Moslems "Arabs." Mohammed only died in 620 A.D., and since then 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as their religious belief. Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia, from Mecca and Mohammed's birthplace. Imagine if the 54 million Chinese decided to call themselves "Arabs." You would say they were lunatics. Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs must be crazy. All they did was adopt as a religious faith a belief that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia. The same as the Irish. When the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and imported to the Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants. They hadn't become a different people. They were the same people, but they had accepted Christianity as a religious faith.
These Khazars, these pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns, were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe. Because their king took the Talmudic faith, they had no choice in the matter. Just the same as in Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody had to be a Catholic. If not, you had to get out of Spain. So the Khazars became what we call today Jews. Now imagine how silly it was for the great Christian countries of the world to say, "We're going to use our power and prestige to repatriate God's Chosen People to their ancestral homeland, their Promised Land." Could there be a bigger lie than that? Because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, the book publishing business, and because they have the ministers in the pulpit and the politicians on the soapboxes talking the same language, it is not too surprising that you believe that lie. You'd believe black is white if you heard it often enough. You wouldn't call black black anymore -- you'd start to call black white. And nobody could blame you.
That is one of the great lies of history. It is the foundation of all the misery that has befallen the world.
Do you know what Jews do on the Day of Atonement, that you think is so sacred to them? I was one of them. This is not hearsay. I'm not here to be a rabble-rouser. I'm here to give you facts. When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, you stand up for the very first prayer that you recite. It is the only prayer for which you stand. You repeat three times a short prayer called the Kol Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months shall be null and void. The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force or effect. And further, the Talmud teaches that whenever you take an oath, vow, or pledge, you are to remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and you are exempted from fulfilling them. How much can you depend on their loyalty? You can depend upon their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in 1916. We are going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and for the same reason.

Amen is really an Egyptian false god!

Chapter 8: IT’S ALL OVER, AMEN

Why does Christian orthodoxy refrain on one hand from ascribing a name to the Creator God, while on the other hand, at the end of its prayers, invoking the ancient name of AMUN, in the form of ‘Amen’? The Hebrew religion itself uses several names to express the Great Spirit, such as YAHWEH, EL and JEHOVAH. But the name AMEN (aka AMUN, AMMON) was that of the prime pagan god of the Egyptians, the enemies and oppressors of the Israelites. Are we looking at an ancient plot which was hatched with the intent to forevermore subvert the integrity of Judeo-Christian worship and prayer? If so, then for countless generations we have all been spiritually hindered by this deception...
As JESUS preached The Lord’s Prayer on the mountainside, did he also verbally invoke the word-name ‘Amen’ at the end of his prayers? If not, then this tradition was introduced later by the Amunist Romans, possibly in the pre-Catholic church days, shortly after 300 AD. Modern Hebrews have no sacred context for the word ‘amen’, they have simply assumed through all these years that the Christians invoked it simply because it sounds a little like their own word emuna or emanu , meaning ‘belief ’. If ‘Amen’ was being ritually invoked at the first time of The Christ, JESUS, then it must have become established religious practice in earlier Judaic history. Modern Christian priests have simply, and rather blindly, accepted that the word 'amen' means: “Let it be”, when clearly it means no such thing in any language whatever. But this is what they are taught, and what they in turn teach to we who know nothing. What the word-name really means, in Ancient Egyptian, is ‘The Hidden One’.
The word-name ‘Amen’ is first mentioned in The Bible by the prophet ISAIAH (circa 700 BC), who urges the Israelites to worship “the Amen...the god of truth”. ISAIAH appears to advocate the worship of a pagan god when thus mentioning ‘the Amen’ in the Old Testament, which was prohibited in the Covenant of MOSES. AMUN, whom I believe ISAIAH was referring to, was not in any objective sense a 'god of truth', he was a god of war, of dominion over other peoples, being equivalent to Aries (Greek) and Mars (Roman). The name of the pagan god of war stems from the Ancient Egyptian "imn", which is expressed variously as Amun, Amon, Ammon, Oumon, and Amen, plus, of course, the derivative Biblical name of Mammon
Today’s Hebrew scholars casually believe that the Christian usage of the word ‘amen’ derives from their own word ‘emanu / emuna’ (‘belief’), however this assumption is based purely on the similarity of sound (ie. it is a transliteration), not on any intellectual, theological, or thematic consistency. Would we not expect at least a smattering of tradition to surround the word that has for so long been taught to us as the appropriate way to end all of our prayers? And why, after all this time, have Hebrew scholars not tried to explain the praising of the Egyptian god within the pages of The Bible?...
It has long been thought that the ancient Hebrew religion was somehow meddled with in antiquity, its integrity quietly and effectively distorted from the central truth. Further changes were also made when the Hebrew, Greek and Latin texts were translated for religious bodies in the 1st Millennium BC. Could the word ‘amen’ at some time have been employed as a magical seal, set upon prayers to divert the intent of all those who sought to worship YHWH, the One God of the Hebrews? Is it, moreover, a coincidence that the holy name given to Jerusalem, the mount of Sion, should be spelled with the initial letters of the four principle gods of the Egyptians? These were SET, ISIS, OSIRIS and NEBTHET - SION. This sacred tetrad of divinities lies at the core of inherited religious, mythic, astrological and esoteric belief.
The variant names AMUN, AMEN and AMMON all refer to the deity who was called ‘The Hidden One’, or ‘The Secret One’. His hidden characteristic likens AMUN to the enigmatic ATUM, the Egyptian name reserved for the Sun-deity during the event of the evening sunset. AMUN’s name was used to revere the solar deity after sunset, during the dark hours of the night, as AMEN-RE. The Egyptians were sure that the Sun was still out there in the night sky, even though they could not see it. The priests performed rituals and chanted praises to AMUN’s golden image throughout the night hours, worshipping him in his hidden sanctuary at Karnak, to encourage the Sun to rise up again in the morning, whereupon it would then be exalted anew as RE. The golden statue of AMUN identifies him as a deity with strong solar significance, along with his representing the first Zodiac sign (Aries) of the new solar year, a fire sign...
In astrological terms, AMUN equates to the Ram of the Greek god ARIES (and the Roman MARS), the Initiator of the Spring season. ARIES is also the god of war, perhaps because Spring has always been the perfect time to launch offensives on one’s enemies, with the whole Summer season yet to follow. The god of war inspired his worshippers to conquer others and to build empires on the bloody ground of their conquests. Whether as ARIES, MARS or AMUN, the worship of the Ram-headed god inspired men to many wars. This sign is associated with fire, the transmuting element of alchemy, for all that survives the test of fire is thus hardened. It was against the Amunist priests whom MOSES struggled in Egypt, circa 1465 BC, and then again in the Exodus period, when he opposed a pharaoh whose name (I believ) was AMEN-HOTEP ('Amun is satisfied'), to whom MOSES appealed for the freedom of his people. A later proponent of monotheism, Pharaoh AKHENATEN of Egypt, also conflicted with the Amunist priesthood around 1350 BC, ultimately failing to end completely the stranglehold which AMUN held over all in the land. Much later, circa 700 BC, King MANNASSEH of Israel (whose son he named AMON) ordered his men to kill all the priests of Jerusalem, because they had resisted his introduction of pagan gods into the holy city. The Amunist Romans, circa 300 AD, re-wrote many of the New Testament texts, providing ample opportunity then to edit in any required changes. Although it remains a mystery as to who it was that introduced the tradition of this invocation, when they did so, it is surely almost beyond question that something here is out of its proper place. When you say your prayers, please do be careful who you send them to...

END OF SAMPLE

More exposure of deception regarding RFK's death

New evidence challenges official picture of Kennedy shooting

* James Randerson, Washington DC
* guardian.co.uk,
* Friday February 22 2008
* Article history

About this article
Close
This article was first published on guardian.co.uk on Friday February 22 2008. It was last updated at 12:58 on March 03 2008.

The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and clarifications column, Monday March 3 2008

In the report below (regarding new interpretations of forensic evidence relating to the assassination of Robert Kennedy) we stated that he was hit by four shots. However, only three bullets entered his body; the fourth was lodged in a shoulder pad. One of the pistols referred to was a Harrington & Richardson and not, as we had it, a Harrison & Richardson. This has been corrected.

The official record states that senator Robert F Kennedy, like his brother before him, was killed by a crazed lone gunman. But the assassination of a man who seemed to embody so much hope for a bitterly divided country embroiled in an unpopular war still troubles this nation.

Little about the official explanation of the events at the Ambassador Hotel on June 5 1968 makes sense. Now a new forensic analysis of the only audio recording of the fatal shots has given new weight to a controversial theory that there were in fact two shooters, and that the man convicted of Kennedy's killing — Sirhan Sirhan - did not fire the fatal shots.

Following his victory speech to supporters after clinching a tight democratic primary victory in California, Kennedy left the podium in the Embassy ballroom to address a press conference.

Bloody mayhem

But the shortcut he and his entourage took through the hotel's pantry quickly descended into bloody mayhem. As Kennedy turned from shaking hands with two of the kitchen staff, a gunman stepped forward and began firing. Kennedy was hit by four shots including one which lodged in the vertebrae in his neck and another which entered his brain from below his right ear. He died in hospital the following day. Five other people were injured but survived.

Sirhan - a Palestinian refugee who said he wanted to "sacrifice" Kennedy "for the cause of the poor exploited people" - was quickly apprehended. He was eventually sentenced to life imprisonment.

"Sirhan was apprehended at the scene with literally a smoking gun," said acoustic forensic expert Philip Van Praag of PVP Designs, who has carried out the new analysis. "At the beginning many people looked upon this as an open-and-shut case. It was one man, Sirhan Sirhan, who was observed by a number of people, who aimed and fired a gun in the direction of Kennedy's entourage."

Close range

But the lone gunman explanation has always looked shaky. The autopsy of Kennedy's body suggested that all four shots that hit him came from behind, and powder marks on his skin showed they must have been from close range.

But Sirhan was in front of Kennedy when he fired, and after shooting two shots was overcome by hotel staff, who pinned him to a table. Also, Sirhan fired eight shots in total, yet 14 were found lodged around the room and in the victims.

"There is no doubt in our minds that no fewer than 14 shots were fired in the pantry on that evening and that Sirhan did not in fact kill Senator Kennedy," said Robert Joling, a forensic scientist who has been involved with the Kennedy case for nearly 40 years. He and Van Praag have published a book on the killing this week entitled "An Open and Shut Case".

The inconsistencies in the case have bred numerous conspiracy theories, including the involvement of the CIA and the idea that Sirhan - who claims not to remember the shooting and pleaded insanity at his trial - was a "Manchurian Candidate" assassin who was hypnotically programmed to kill the senator.

Audio recording

Now Van Praag has added new weight to the 'two shooters' theory. He reanalysed the only audio recording of the shooting, which was made by an independent journalist, Stanislaw Pruszynski. "At the time Pruszynski was not even aware that his recorder was still on," said Van Praag.

The recording quality is poor, but it is possible to make out 13 shots over the course of just over 5 seconds, before what Van Praag describes as "blood-curdling screams" obscure the sound. That is more than the eight rounds that Sirhan's cheap Iver Johnson Cadet 55 revolver carried.

Also, there are two pairs of double shots that occurred so close together it is inconceivable that Sirhan could have fired them all. The third and fourth shots and the seventh and eighth were separated by 122 and 149 milliseconds respectively. In tests, a trained firearms expert firing under ideal conditions could only manage 366 milliseconds between shots using the same weapon. And he was not being pinned to a table at the time.

Frequency anomalies

Lastly, five of the shots - 3, 5, 8, 10 and 12 in the sequence - were found to have odd acoustic characteristics when specific frequencies were analysed separately. Van Praag thinks this is because they came from a different gun pointing away from Pruszynski's microphone.

To recreate this he recorded the sounds made by firing the Iver Johnson and another revolver, a Harrington and Richardson 922. At least one member of Kennedy's entourage was carrying this weapon when the killing happened. In the acoustic tests it produced the same frequency anomalies Van Praag had seen in the original recording but only when fired away from the microphone.

He presented his results on Thursday at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences annual meeting in Washington DC.

Paul Schrade, a close associate of Kennedy's who was director of the United Auto Workers union, was at the senator's side in the pantry and was shot in the head. He told the meeting that America lost an outstanding leader and potentially great president that day.

Lost hope

"I think we were in a position of really changing this country," he said. "What we lost was a real hope and possibility of having a better country and having better relations around the world."

He wants to see the case reopened and properly investigated. "We're going to go ahead and do our best to find out who the second gunman was and that's going to take a lot of work," he said.

Van Praag also wants the case reexamined. "We would hope that the evidence that we have uncovered ... would make a strong enough case to get serious consideration once again by the authorities," he said.

Their Bonds are their buns!

DUN & BRADSTREET: 'Rating Service' for all corporate entities'_Void for legal cause fraud _ "Brutum Fulmen"? by "S"TE ENTITIES'_Void for legal cause fraud

There are a few more things worth noting regarding the DUN & BRADSTREET listing service:

D-B is a financial rating service for both 'public' and 'private' corporations. Utilities and municipal bond ratings would come under D-B perview for certain. It just really never occurred to me years ago when doing litigation discovery, research and analysis, and 'structured settlements' that there was seemingly anything incoherent with that fact that municipal and utility bonds are integral to D-B rating services. I never ever stopped to think about or scrutinize that fact, yet alone allow my deliberation and research skills to 'wander' or 'wonder' into research that would have disclosed what we recently found. Part of the ease of discovering the complex web of inter-related inter-locking CORPORATIONS had to do with ease of electronic research over the internet. Years ago, if one wanted to search anything within any of the rating services, including "Moody's", Standard & Poors, and Dun & Bradstreet, + others, one would have to either have to be a subscriber to the service in order to manually expedite their search-rating results, or, one would have to pay a fee and cause a search to arise.

D & B 'ratings' are effected everytime a 'public hazard bond', or 'surety performance bond', or 'indemnity bond' is complained against. An 'administrative complaint' is usually all that it takes to cause a 'tag' or book entry to be made on any particular bond. Any particular bond, once complained against three or more times, causes a change in underwriting bond 'risk'.

For bonded Bar attorneys, who in many cases may also be appointed, commissioned, or elected to 'public office' as 'Judge', 'Clerk of Court', etc. when/if their bond is complained against for good and reasonable cause, their bond may be 'pulled', and due to loss of effective bond or 'suretyship', they cannot 'practice' or 'discharge' the duty of the office held, or occupied. In short, the bond maker-issuer is the bonding party for the benefit or on behald of the 'bondee', ie. the purported 'public officer', 'employee', or 'official'. This would extend as well to all other 'public employees' and 'agents'-'agencies', etc.

Every 'person' being bonded has a Dun & Bradstreet 'bond rating'. At least it is reasonable to assume such. Once three complaints are filed against any bond, assuming they are with merit and well supported by fact and 'law' of the 'breach' of fiduciary duty, the bond is most always pulled or revoked. The 'servant' at 'risk' by assuming the responsibilities of operating in any 'official capacity' or by 'employment', can no longer be underwritten as a 'no risk' or 'low risk' contract. One incident of 'breach' or operating 'ultra vires', or 'without the law', causes the 'immunity' provisions of the written 'law' to cease to be effective, because when one violates the law as a 'public servant', one's immunity blanket ceases to apply, thereby leaving the insurer or bondsman or bond issuer exposed to the liability arising from the servant's acts, which under any 'breach of law authority' causes or gives rise to an 'injury' which is a civil or criminal commercial liability.

Everything, whether civil or criminal or martial, is a matter of 'commerce', and admiralty law is the venue and jurisdiction by which disputes in/of commercial nature are resolved in truth and fact.

All writings of the United States of America and of the UNITED STATES, or any other 'government unit' are forms of making an 'offer to contract'. There is no written matter of material fact or issue of fact that is 'law' which is not bonded. There is no 'office' or function of 'civil service' or 'public' function that is not bonded. If the bond is not in existence, the bondee is 'exposed' and without 'coverage' by any 'surety'. Therefore, there is no 'guarantor' behind the agent, officer, official, or employee having 'exposure', by 'assumption of risk', of a material breach or injury in fact by the bondee [person being bonded or insured]. This leaves the person under taint or cloud of operating 'in the public interest' without the constitutionally and statutorily required bond, and therefore, in tacit violation of the constitutions and statutes under the scheme of 'law'. "Law" applies first and foremost to government, its employees, officers, and agents.

In today's rogue 'doctrine of necessity' 'de facto' environment, research has proven and documented that no person, performing as an 'officer of the court', being an alleged 'judge', being a 'Bar attorney' of the ABA or the Federal or State Bars, has a bona fide Constitutional Oath. The Bond that is supposed to be in existence sits atop the Oath. The Oath is not merely 'incidental' to the 'office' as has been ruled in some States by their corrupt court "officers". The Oath is what imparts lawful and legal authority to the man/woman coming into 'holding' a 'public office' and becoming a 'public official'.

A public servant having no proper Oath cannot have a proper Bond to encompass or include those risks associated with the 'office', 'discharge of fiduciary duty' of the office, and the various levels or elements of 'law authority' underlying the office. Hence, one may take an Oath to any office of the incorporated State, or the UNITED STATES, and not take a preceding Oath to the unincorporated de jure state or United States of America, and operate non/un constitutionally, which is all that has been going on for years, but which was not known or understood as being a material breach to the People of the State/state, causing or giving rise to material injuries in fact as a consequence of operating 'ultra vires', ie. outside the corporate charters and 'trust indentures' which create the office in the first place.

In the STATE OF NORTH CAOLINA, not one judge has taken the necessary Oaths of office, which include the organic 'state' de jure republic oath for "North Carolina", and the subsequent and inferior or 'lesser' oath for the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA. The latter 'public entity' has federal character, a Federal Employer Identification Number, a Federal Tax Identification Number, and is a federal 'instrumentality' of the CORPORATE 'UNITED STATES', and the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, under definition of 28 U.S.C. §3002(15), AND 26 U.S.C. §§7701 (a)(9) and (10). This documented fact pertains to every judge in every State court, but also applies to most every other 'public official' or 'law enforcement officer'.

I cannot address what other State public pretenders and 'District Attorneys' or "Prosecutors" do when bringing a criminal complaint against any "natural person", which includes CORPORATIONS [YES, they are both the class of 'person' under statute 'law' definition], but in the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, when it is the bringer of the action, the People of the State are never brought in as 'party to the action'. Only the CORPORATION name is found on the Criminal Complaint or Information form. Only the corporate State is present in the courtroom, trying a case before a CORPORATE JUDGE. There exists a complete breach and break from the Constitution of North Carolina, because the People of the republic North Carolina and their 'law' are not present in the action nor party to it. They are not in the courtroom, nor are they acting through any 'officer' of the People, as 'District Attorney', which Office alleges to be a 'servant of the People'. It is NOT. Event the DA does not have the mandatory and proper Constitutional Oath as condition precedent under NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUTES, which clearly state at Chapter 11, Section 11, there shall be two Constitutional Oaths taken.

Absent performance according to that bonded STATUTE regarding bonded Oaths, leaves a clear and certain risk-liability issue for the Bond maker-issuer. Some bonding agent has bonded the Statutes and other writings of the law of the State. Some bond issuer has bonded State 'employees', 'officers', and 'public officials'. Some bond issuer has, therefore, "underwritten" risk on the basis of having full knowledge that there exist no Constitutional Oaths beneath the CORPORATE OATH. One cannot but presume that the bond issuer-maker has full disclosure; afterall, 'they' have been registered within each State Department of Corporations, do business in all 'States' and DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, and are presumed to know the "LAW"….including the "law of the land", which under their "UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE" and all secondary 'Civil' or 'Criminal' Codes, would find itself to be in harmony with their legislative jurisdictional 'statutes and implementing regulations' at U.C.C. 1-308, 1-207, and 1-103, wherein All Rights are Reserved, and the U.C.C. states that it is harmonious with 'all jurisdictions', which would include the jurisdiction of the "law of the land", 'common law', and the various common law Constitutions of the underlying several de jure republic 'states' of the American union, aka, United States of America.

Why would any bond underwriter knowingly underwrite these CORPORATE STATES, UNITED STATES, all of their 'sub-corporations', agents-agencies, instrumentalities, and their 'law authority' found in their various 'writings', private 'laws' etc., to operate a 'public' or 'municipal' construct as if it were 'lawful government', but knowing that it really is not? The underwriters of bonds, therefore, could not allege any defense against a massive intake of related claims by private inhabitants of any of the States or UNITED STATES who have been "compelled" under duress, extreme duress, or risk of extreme duress and prejudice of 'seizure', 'confiscation' 'impound', 'occupation', 'detainment', or injury or termination by any means of potentially lethal force?

Everyone who has ever been inside a State of North Carolina administrative or judicial 'law' proceeding, or been before any 'clerk' or 'judge' of same, or been prosecuted by any County District Attorney within said State/STATE, has been within a "brutum fulmen":

Black's Law Dictionary, 4t Edition: "brutum fulmen": "An empty noise; an empty threat. A judgment void upon its face

which is in legal effect no judgment at all, and bywhich no rights are

are divested, and from which none can be obtained; and neither binds

nor bars anyone. Dollert v. Pratt-Hewitt Oil Corporation, Tex.Civ.Appl,

179 S.W.2d 346, 348. Also, see Corpus Juris Secundum, "Judgments"

§§ 499, 512 546, 549.

The "Office of Sheriff" is a most important link between the People of any de jure republic 'state' and the Courts, and Offices of the State. However, it has been discovered that many Sheriffs do not, as Chief Law Enforcement Officer of any local 'county' or County, have a bona fide prior or 'precedent' Constitutional Oath to their respective republic state. Or, they may have taken a bona fide Constitutional Oath, and then disclaimed or disavowed it immediately henceforth by taking a CORPORATE Constitutional Oath. "A man cannot serve two masters".

This same "axiomatic" principal applies to 'officers' of the United States as well. How can the newly 'sworn' Attorney General of the UNITED STATES, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL [a federal corporation] take a Constitutional Oath to the United States, or UNITED STATES, and be held to such an Oath as 'liable' for his/her breach of fiduciary duty to the people of the United States of America, or to the franchise corporate trust estate 'citizens of the UNITED STATES', when the office 'holder' enjoins by contract to the 'international purposes of INTERPOL', under its Constitution [charter-contract] at Article 30 shortly after taking said Oath? Article 30 is quite explicit in meaning and intent. If one understands the "international purposes of INTERPOL" and all other 'international agencies' was and is to 'establish a financial dictatorship within the United States/United States of America' for the benefit of undisclosed third parties, under jurisdiction and authority of the IMF-U.N, then all of the lower level 'breach of duty' by lack of proper Bond and Oath issues would begin to make clear sense.

In short, all alleged 'public servants' are serving 'public policy' and 'public administration' of the 'laws' and enforcing those laws to protect the CORPORATION, to the disinterest and detriment of the People, whom have been 'captured', 'searched', 'seized', 'boarded' as with a 'vessel', and which People have been placed into 'warehouse storeage' as 'human capital' and 'property' of the de facto King or "Sovereign", which/who has conquered and occupied the Office of the People, and subverted and subordinated it into an Office of Inquisition for YOU KNOW WHO!!

Lacking mandatory Oath, creates liability against the bond of the STATE, and every officer-agent-employee who has come to be 'employed' thereby. Breach of any underlying writing of the STATE, or State, or state, as an offer to contract in admiralty venue, is a certain "injury in fact" giving rise to a "material injustice" and resultant 'liability'. There is no longer any question about 'risk analysis' or 'damage assessment'. The only real issue is "HOW MUCH IS THE INJURY WORTH"? WHAT PENALTIES should be compelled above the mere "pecuniary" or monetary 'relief' to be sought? Treble damages? Punitive damages? Civil or Criminal or BOTH?

If Oaths and Bonds have not yet been ascertained for all relevant federal and State officers, agents, and employees, they should be compelled by FOIA request or subpoena duces tecum immediately so that the elements of contract and breach of duty by these 'public servants' under mandate of relevant Constitutions, statutes, regulations, etc., including the U.C.C. in Admiralty venue can be comprehensively determined; then, a resultant 'cause of action' constructed accordingly.

It is further axiomatic that: "Where a liability in equity arises due to injury by any party, and that party does not also provide a "remedy" for said liability, the injured party has the right and standing to create his own remedy"

Persons without proper Oaths do not and cannot have proper Bonds OR satisfy the necessary requirements to "hold" a bona fide "Office", by 'commission', "election", or "appointment". In short, an 'Officer' or "Office Holder" cannot but 'occupy' the office under false and misleading pretense, misrepresentation, and FRAUD, which strips the 'individual' of 'law authority' and 'immunity' under well-seasoned law of the land and sea. Brutum fulmen!! Bonds that are attached to such juristic 'persons' are subject to claim and lien, after "adequate assurance of due performance" has been found lacking pursuant to U.C.C. 2-619. A proper Oath and Bond are but two of the three primary "poles" of "Office" [Oath, Bond, Commission]. One cannot act upon being 'duly appointed' or 'duly elected' or 'duly commissioned' simply by INCORPORATION and CORPORATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.

CORPORATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS lacking bona fide Constitutional nexus is without "law authority", and therefore has no nexus to the Constitutionally protected 'Right' of "due process". Hence, any act or action taken against any one by any alleged 'official', 'officer', agent' or 'employee' lacking such nexus is subject to CLAIM and/or COUNTER-CLAIM in Admiralty venue and proceeding. The claim, once perfected after 'exhausting administrative remedy' is brought against the Bond and the DUN & BRADSTREET rating of that CORPORATE PERSON will be effected as a consequence. The idea is not to seek an illegitimate claim for merely punitive or monetary purposes, but to seek claim on the basis of protest, dispute, redress, relief, and 'remedy'!!!

S

CancerCure

Stop Cancer with Baking Soda

I just had to share this with you! I am absolutely thrilled that research is being done for this disease.

Stop Cancer with Baking Soda

Baking Soda and pH Levels (Part 1 of 2)
Most of us are going to be surprised to find out that there is an oncologist in Rome Italy, Dr. Tullio Simoncini, destroying cancer tumors with sodium bicarbonate.[i] Sodium bicarbonate is safe, extremely inexpensive and unstoppably effective when it comes to cancer tissues. It's an irresistible chemical, cyanide to cancer cells for it hits the cancer cells with a shock wave of alkalinity, which allows much more oxygen into the cancer cells than they can tolerate. Cancer cells cannot survive in the presence of high levels of oxygen. Sodium bicarbonate is, for all intent and purposes, an instant killer of tumors. Full treatment takes only days, as does another cancer treatment that heats the cancer cells with laser generated heat. (At bottom see combining ph shift with heat.)
The extracellular (interstitial) pH (pHe) of solid tumours is significantly more acidic compared to normal tissues. [ii]
Case one: A patient diagnosed with pulmonary neoplasm of the lung, underwent treatment with sodium bicarbonate, before submitting to surgery to remove part of the lung. Treatment consisted of sodium bicarbonate administered orally, by aerosol, and IV. After first treatment reduction of nodules and absorption was evident, and after 8 months was no longer visible at all. Treatments also reduced size of the liver and results were confirmed by both X-ray and CAT scan.
Studies have shown how manipulation of tumour pH with sodium bicarbonate enhances some forms of chemotherapy.[iii] Proteins can be modified both in vivo and in vitro by increases in acidity. In fact pH is the regulatory authority that controls most cellular processes. The pH balance of the human bloodstream is recognized by medical physiology texts as one of the most important biochemical balances in all of human body chemistry. pH is the acronym for "Potential Hydrogen". In definition, it is the degree of concentration of hydrogen ions in a substance or solution. It is measured on a logarithmic scale from 0 to 14. Higher numbers mean a substance is more alkaline in nature and there is a greater potential for absorbing more hydrogen ions. Lower numbers indicate more acidity with less potential for absorbing hydrogen ions.
Our body pH is very important because pH controls the speed of our body's biochemical reactions. It does this by controlling the speed of enzyme activity as well as the speed that electricity moves through our body. The higher (more alkaline) the pH of a substance or solution, the more electrical resistance that substance or solution holds. Therefore, electricity travels slower with higher pH. If we say something has an acid pH, we are saying it is hot and fast. Alkaline pH on the other hand, biochemically speaking, is slow and cool.
Cancer tissues have a much higher concentration of toxic chemicals, pesticides, etc then do healthy tissues.
In 1973, a study conducted by the Department of Occupational Health at Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical School in Jerusalem found that when cancerous breast tissue is compared with non-cancerous tissue from elsewhere in the same woman's body, the concentration of toxic chemicals such as DDT and PCBs was "much increased in the malignant tissue compared to the normal breast and adjacent adipose tissue."[iv] This should say something to the oncologists of the world about chemical etiologies that are going undiagnosed and untreated.
Part of any successful cancer treatment includes chelation and detoxification of heavy metals and a host of toxic chemicals, which are all invading our bodies' everyday. It is literally raining mercury, uranium contamination is increasing, lead we are discovering is even more toxic than anyone ever believed and is even in the bread that we eat, arsenic is in our chicken, the government still wants you to get your yearly mercury flu shot, dentists of course are still using hundreds of tons of mercury exposing patients to internalized toxic waste dumps (mercury vapors from hell), fluoride is still put in the water and chlorine is breathed in most showers. This just covers a small slice of the toxic disaster that is the hallmark of life in the 21st century. But oncologists have just not been able to understand that cancer patients are suffering from poisoning on a massive scale with all the chemicals scientists have already established cause cancer.
The IMVA (International Medical Veritas Association) recommends alkaline foods and sodium bicarbonate so that the pH of the blood remains high, which in turn means that the blood is capable of carrying more oxygen. This in turn keeps every cell in the body at peak efficiency and helps the cell eliminate waste products. Detoxification and chelation will proceed more easily and safely under slightly alkaline conditions. Increased urinary pH reduces oxidative injury in the kidney so it behooves us to work clinically with bicarbonate.
Patients receiving sodium bicarbonate achieved urine pHs of 6.5 as opposed to 5.6 with those receiving sodium chloride.This alkalinization is theorized to have a protective effect against the formation of free-radicals that may cause nephropathy.[v] Dr. Michael Metro
Body ph level changes are intense in the profundity of their biological effects. Even genes directly experience external pH. pH differentially regulates a large number of proteins. Increased oxidative stress, which correlates almost exponentially with ph changes into the acidic, is especially dangerous to the mitochondria, which suffer the greatest under oxidative duress. Epigenetics, which may now have begun eclipsing traditional genetics, commonly describes how factors such as diet and smoking, rather than inheritance influence how genes behave.
The great advantage of knowing the prime cause of a disease is that it can then be attacked logically and over a broad front. Dr. Otto Warburg
Dr. Otto Warburg, two times Nobel Prize winner, stated in his book, The Metabolism of Tumors , that the primary cause of cancer was the replacement of oxygen in the respiratory cell chemistry by the fermentation of sugar. The growth of cancer cells is initiated by a fermentation process, which can be triggered only in the absence of oxygen at the cell level. What Warburg was describing was a classic picture of acidic conditions. Just like overworked muscle cells manufacture lactic acid by-products as waste, cancerous cells spill lactic acid and other acidic compounds causing acid pH.
After we just saw how important sulfur is in human health and how useful a basic chemical like sodium thiosulfate can be, we now get a crash course in the power of sodium bicarbonate and the act of instantly turning cancer cells alkaline. Might as well shoot a guided cruise missile at them - so effective, safe, quick and precise is sodium bicarbonate, inexpensive as well. Just a few pennies a day of it will keep cancer further away, keeping it at arms length from ourselves, patients and loved ones. It is something we can use to treat our water with as well, excellent to put in distilled or reverse osmosis water or any water for that matter.
A true understanding of cancer is impossible without understanding why some tissues in the body are deficient in oxygen and therefore prone to cancer. Cancerous tissues are acidic, whereas healthy tissues are alkaline. Water (H2O) decomposes into H+ and OH-. When a solution contains more H+ than OH- then it is said to be acid. When it contains more OH- than H+ then it is said to be alkaline. When oxygen enters an acid solution it can combine with H+ ions to form water. Oxygen helps to neutralize the acid, while at the same time the acid prevents oxygen from reaching the tissues that need it. Acidic tissues are devoid of free oxygen. An alkaline solution is just the reverse. Two hydroxyl ions (OH-) can combine to produce one water molecule and one oxygen atom. In other words, an alkaline solution can provide oxygen to the tissues.
The pH scale goes from 0 to 14, with 7 being neutral. Below 7 is acid and above 7 is alkaline. The blood, lymph and cerebral spinal fluid in the human body are designed to be slightly alkaline at a pH of 7.4.
At a pH slightly above 7.4 cancer cells become dormant and at pH 8.5 cancer cells will die while healthy cells will live. This has given rise to a variety of treatments based on increasing the alkalinity of the tissues such as vegetarian diet, the drinking of fresh fruit and vegetable juices, and dietary supplementation with alkaline minerals such as calcium, potassium, magnesium, cesium and rubidium. But nothing can compare to the instant alkalinizing power of sodium bicarbonate for safe and effective treatment of cancer.
Like magnesium chloride or sulfates are excellent emergency medicines, basic chemicals, nutritional in nature, sodium bicarbonate is a nutritional medicine meaning it cannot and will not end up controlled by CODEX. To control bicarbonate they would have to demand mothers stop making cake with it. We might thus identify sodium bicarbonate as an emergency medicine for cancer with the above supporting approaches working on broader levels to help overall physiology change to a degree where body chemistry is unfavorable for new cancer growth.
Cancer seems to grow slowly in a highly acid environment (because the acids cause it to partially destroy itself) and may actually grow more quickly as your body becomes more alkaline prior to reaching the healthy pH slightly above 7.4 where the cancer becomes dormant. Therefore it is important to get pH above 7.4 quickly. Once one has achieved a pH above 7.4, it is useful to monitor saliva pH regularly to ensure that the body remains sufficiently alkaline.
Earlier and more frequent use of sodium bicarbonate was associated with higher early resuscitability rates and with better long-term neurological outcome. Sodium bicarbonate is beneficial during CPR.[vi]
"The therapeutic treatment of bicarbonate salts can be administered orally, through aerosol, intravenously and through catheter for direct targeting of tumors." All of Dr. Tullio Simoncini's treatments with sodium bicarbonate are directed as specifically as possible to the organs involved, for example, vaginally as well as abdominally into the peritoneal space for cervical cancer, through the hepatic artery for liver cancer in order to get the solution as close to the affected area as possible. Sodium bicarbonate administered orally, via aerosol or intravenously can achieve positive results in most tumors, including the brain, while others, such as the serious ones of the bones can remain unaffected. Dr. Simoncini, with the help of interventionist radiologists was able to reach those areas of the body that had previously been inaccessible. This was achieved through positioning appropriate catheters either in cavities for peritoneum and pleura, or in arteries to reach other organs.[vii]
The most effective measure to treat RT-induced mucositis in patients with head and neck cancer is frequent oral rinsing with a sodium bicarbonate rinse, to reduce the amount of oral microbial flora.[viii]
Case two: A nine-year-old child is hospitalized and diagnosed with Ewing's Sarcoma on the right humerus. Despite several chemotherapy cycles surgery removed the humeral bone. Growth of three tumor masses continued despite continued efforts to stop progression. Sodium bicarbonate salts treatments were then started administered by catheter into the right sub-clavian artery in order to administer the salts (phleboclysis of 500 cc at five per cent) directly on the tumoral masses.
Of the 3 masses shown by the scographic scan of May 7, 2001, whose size is respectively:a. 6,5 cm . . . b. 4,4 cm . . . c. 2,4 cm
After the sodium bicarbonate salts treatment only one tumor was left, with a size of only 1.5 cm, which is most likely residual scarring, as shown by the echography of September 10, 2001.
Sodium bicarbonate injection is also indicated in the treatment of metabolic acidosis which may occur in severe renal disease, uncontrolled diabetes, and circulatory insufficiency due to shock or severe dehydration, extracorporeal circulation of blood, cardiac arrest and severe primary lactic acidosis. Sodium bicarbonate is further indicated in the treatment of drug intoxications, including barbiturates. Sodium carbonate has been found effective in treating poisoning or overdose from many chemicals and pharmaceutical drugs by negating the cardiotoxic and neurotoxic effects. [ix] Sodium bicarbonate is useful in treating neurological disorders in children.
Knowledge of sodium bicarbonate is important for parents because the rate of childhood cancer is growing exponentially. But parents who resist the radiation burning, cutting and the lethal chemicals are regularly hauled before the courts only to have their children taken away from them. Oncologists are increasingly resorting to the justice system to have children made wards of the courts, which then turn them over to medically-irresponsible practitioners. It is inexcusable separating a child from his mother and father in the middle of a medical crisis. Adding to the stress by tormenting patients' hearts and souls has nothing to do with safe or effective medicine. The naked truth is doctors and medical institutions have not earned the necessary trust for this level of intervention in people's lives. With patient safety slipping year by year,[x] children are not safe in hospitals, much less so if forced at gunpoint from their parents embrace.
An extremely simple therapy used by physicians who treat autism is to supply a mild antidote that neutralizes the excess acids. The most convenient product is a nonprescription drug called AlkaSeltzer Gold. Do not use any other kind of AlkaSeltzer. AlkaSeltzer Gold is simply a very safe product (sodium and potassium bicarbonate) that helps to neutralize excess acids of any kind. Dr. William Shaw on Biological Treatments for Autism and PDD.
One mother wrote, "It worked so well for both of my children that the die-off was an uneventful experience, even though they both had very high levels of yeast." The restoring of acid/alkaline balance also relieves many allergies. "These children also had grave disturbances in electrolyte chemistry, and tended to be acidotic (low CO). The data that unfolded was fascinating and clearly earmarked the acidosis and hypoxic state (low serum bicarbonate = low O2 levels). Potassium bicarbonate, sodium bicarbonate, magnesium carbonate and the like were used. Now we began to understand why so many children responded to Buffered C (potassium bicarbonate, calcium carbonate, magnesium carbonate), and others needed a more specific buffer (in some children for example niacin was grossly depleted and they required niacin bicarbonate)," wrote Patricia Kane.
The acid/alkaline balance is one of the most overlooked aspects of health, though many have written much about it. In general, the American public is heavily acid, excepting vegetarians.
Case three: A 62-year-old patient undergoes surgery in December 1998 for endometrial adenocarcinoma, followed by successive cycles of radiotherapy and anti-hormone therapy. Following the thickening of the peritoneum and the growth of several lymph nodes due to carcinosis; from the clinical point of view, the patient's condition decayed with the presence of exhaustion, general swelling, intestinal meteorism, irregularity of evacuation, steady feeling of heaviness and blood pressure instability. Treatment with a 5% sodium bicarbonate solution administered alternately thru an endoperitoneal catheter and via IV showed rapid improvement to a normal condition of health. A final CAT scan confirms the regression of the peritoneal carcinosis and a stabilization of the size of the lymph nodes when compared to the preceding year.
The kidneys are usually the first organs to show chemical damage upon uranium exposure, military manuals suggest doses or infusions of sodium bicarbonate to help alkalinize the urine if this happens. This makes the uranyl ion less kidney-toxic and promotes excretion of the nontoxic uranium-carbonate complex. The oral administration of sodium bicarbonate diminishes the severity of the changes produced by uranium in the kidneys.[xi]
Case four: A 40-year-old patient underwent surgical intervention (left radical mastectomy) for mammarian carcinoma seven months earlier. After three months of chemotherapy, the patient is affected by: "diffused pulmonary and hepatic metastasis; bone metastasis particularly to the fifth and sixth lumbar vertebrae, with invasion and compression of the medullar channel, which is causing extreme pain which makes the patient unresponsive to any treatment." All pain suppressant drugs - morphine included - are totally ineffective and the patient is totally prostrate even unable to sleep. Believing that fungal colonies amassed in the medullar channel will respond to administration of sodium bicarbonate salts, lumbar injections are begun.
Dr Tullio Simoncini recounts: "As I administer it by slowly injecting 50 cc of sodium bicarbonate solution at 8.4 %, the patient tosses and with a thread of a voice confesses to me that she has slept only two hours in the last week. Exhausted, she whispers to me: "If only I could sleep half an hour tonight." But the day after, she calls me on the phone and says: "I have slept all night". After two more lumbar injections of the bicarbonate salts in the next month, the pain disappeared completely. Magnetic Resonance imaging reports performed before and after treatment were defined by hospital head of the radiology department as "shocking."
Sodium bicarbonate is the chemical compound with the formula NaHCO3. Sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) is commonly used as an antacid for short-term relief of stomach upset, to correct acidosis in kidney disorders, to make the urine alkaline during bladder infections and to minimize uric acid crystallization during gout treatment. Prescription sodium bicarbonate products are given by injection to treat metabolic acidosis and some drug intoxications. Sodium bicarbonate is available as a nonprescription medical as well as a general house hold item. It is also used with other non-prescription drugs for short-term treatment of various conditions to treat anything from fever to moderate pain.
Sodium bicarbonate possesses the property of absorbing heavy metals, dioxins and furans. Comparison of cancer tissue with healthy tissue from the same person shows that the cancer tissue has a much higher concentration of toxic chemicals, pesticides, etc.
Sodium bicarbonate neutralizes acids present in gases (in particular hydrochloric acid, suphur dioxide, hydrofluoric acid) to form sodium salts (sodium chloride, sodium sulphate, sodium fluoride, sodium carbonate), which are all known as Residual Sodium Chemicals. Sodium bicarbonate can be made into a paste salve with vinegar; it relieves burning from bug stings (particularly bee stings), poison ivy, nettles, and sunburn. It is used as an antacid to treat acid indigestion and heartburn. Mixed with water in a 10% solution can soften earwax for removal.

Stop Cancer continued

Substituting a sodium bicarbonate solution for saline infusion prior to administration of radiocontrast material seems to reduce the incidence of nephropathy.[xii] Dr. Thomas P. Kennedy American Medical Association
Because sodium bicarbonate has long been known and is widely used, it has many other names including sodium hydrogen carbonate, sodium bicarb, baking soda, bread soda, cooking soda, bicarb soda, saleratus or bicarbonate of soda. It is soluble in water. This white solid is crystalline but often appears as a fine powder. It has a slight alkaline taste resembling that of sodium carbonate. It is a component of the mineral natron and is found dissolved in many mineral springs. It is also produced artificially. World wide production is on the scale of 100,000 ton/year. Sodium bicarbonate is primarily used in cooking (baking) where it reacts with other components to release carbon dioxide, whichhelps dough "rise."
It is commonly used to increase the pH and total alkalinity of the water for pools and spas. Sodium bicarbonate can be added as a simple solution for restoring the pH balance of water that has a high level of chlorine. It is sometimes used in septic tanks to control pH and bacteria.
Sodium bicarbonate-rich mineral water in conjunction with a low-salt diet may have a beneficial effect on calcium homeostasis.[xiii]
Distilled water is not safe, it lacks bicarbonates and minerals and yes, it is acid forming to the body. Yet it is an excellent aid in detoxification and chelation for its purity pulls on toxicities in the body. Part of the reason why our body is acid is that it lacks enough bicarbonate necessary to neutralize the acid. Whenever the water lacks the proper bicarbonates to neutralize the water in distilled water your body basically becomes a little more acid. But we can easily treat distilled or reverse osmosis water by adding bicarbonate and magnesium and perhaps even some sodium thiosulfate. (The art and science of water treatment will be covered in The Waters of Life, another IMVA publication due out later this year. The conscious use of water favorably increases medical outcomes; often it even determines the prognosis. You cannot separate out hydration from pH. Dehydration would certainly push the body toward acidity.)
pH of the blood is the most important factor to determine the state of the microorganisms in the blood.
The native chemical and physical properties of sodium bicarbonate account for its wide range of applications, including cleaning, deodorizing, buffering, and fire extinguishing. Sodium bicarbonate neutralizes odors chemically, rather than masking or absorbing them. Consequently, it is used in bath salts and deodorant body powders. Sodium bicarbonate tends to maintain a pH of 8.1 (7 is neutral) even when acids, which lower pH, or bases, which raise pH, are added to the solution. Its ability to tabletize makes it a good effervescent ingredient in antacids and denture cleaning products. Sodium bicarbonate is also found in some anti-plaque mouthwash products and toothpaste.
Sodium bicarbonate also is indicated in severe diarrhea which is often accompanied by a significant loss of bicarbonate. Vigorous bicarbonate therapy is required in any form of metabolic acidosis where a rapid increase in plasma total CO2 content is crucial e.g., cardiac arrest, circulatory insufficiency due to shock or severe dehydration , and in severe primary lactic acidosis or severe diabetic acidosis.
Sodium Bicarbonate Injection, USP is administered by the intravenous route. In cardiac arrest, a rapid intravenous dose of one to two 50 mL vials (44.6 to 100 mEq) may be given initially and continued at a rate of 50 mL (44.6 to 50 mEq) every 5 to 10 minutes if necessary (as indicated by arterial pH and blood gas monitoring) to reverse the acidosis. Caution should be observed in emergencies where very rapid infusion of large quantities of bicarbonate is indicated. Bicarbonate solutions are hypertonic and may produce an undesirable rise in plasma sodium concentration in the process of correcting the metabolic acidosis. In cardiac arrest, however, the risks from acidosis exceed those of hypernatremia.
In the current system, if a promising compound can't be patented, it is highly unlikely ever to make it to market, no matter how well it performs in the laboratory or in emergency room situations. The hormone melatonin,[xiv] sold as an inexpensive food supplement in the United States, has repeatedly been shown to slow the growth of various cancers when used in conjunction with conventional treatments. Dr. Paolo Lissoni, another Italian oncologist has written many articles about this hormone and conducted clinical trials. But he has despaired over the pharmaceutical industry's total lack of interest in his treatment approach.
We need a new approach to fight cancer, one that will work safely and effectively since the majority of us are now destined to have to suffer through cancer at one point or another in our lives. The situation in the field of oncology is horrendous and in the area of childhood oncology they have earned their place in the book The Terror of Pediatric Medicine, (which one can download as a free e-book.)
Most people today cringe at the idea of finding a cancer then slashing, burning and poisoning it to smithereens. Most would agree that the mainstream cancer approach offers only marginal benefits at best, and providers push screening and aggressive treatment in part because they have nothing else to give, and also because it's very profitable.
If the body's cellular metabolism and pH is balanced it is susceptible to little illness or disease.
Since 1971, when President Nixon declared war on cancer, the budget of the National Cancer Institute has increased to $4.8 billion from half a billion and cancer rates are still going up. For most of the past half-century, medical treatment of invasive tumors like those of the breast and colon has relied mainly on drugs, radiation or both, in effect carpet-bombing the DNA of cancer cells. These highly -oxic treatments do not address the root causes of cancer and are extremely dangerous, medical approaches involving the highest risks.
The great variety of cancers must reflect a fundamental mechanism by which the disease arises, one that has not been so clearly apparent until now.
Though allopathic medicine already uses sodium bicarbonate it will not any day soon turn to its own arsenal of already available safe and inexpensive medications like sodium bicarbonate or magnesium chloride. The medical industrial complex seems unwilling to change its views on cancer so patients will need to quietly ask their doctors for intravenous bicarbonate without specifying it as a substance they want to use to cure their cancer. It will be easier to find someone if one approaches with a need to treat acidic conditions than the actual cancer. Few doctors are willing to risk their licenses so it is better not to put them in an uncomfortable situation that they cannot control.
The closer the pH is to 7.35 - 7.45, the higher our level of health and well being and our ability to resist states of disease.
Sadly this does not address the need for the use of catheters which target tumors more directly thus pushing us toward a more complete protocol that will target cancer in a more general and comprehensive way. This needs to be done anyway because killing the tumor with a rush of alkalinity that provokes an oxygen rush into the cells will not prevent the condition from reoccurring. Though we can think that acidity is a basic cause of cancer a more basic cause is addressed when we look at what leads to the acidic conditions that are so prevalent in our bodies today.
Sodium bicarbonate is an anti-fungin substance that is very diffusible and thus very effective.
Dr Tullio Simoncini says, "It is useful to consider the extreme sensitivity of fungi to saline and electrolytic solutions. These solutions, because of their extreme capacity for diffusion, are able to reach all the myceliar biological expressions, including the most infinitesimal ones. Salts and bicarbonates, by making the terrain completely inorganic, eliminates the slightest organic fonts that fungi could use for nourishment. In this context, sodium bicarbonate, which is currently used in children's oral candidoses, appears to be a simple and handy weapon capable of uprooting, inhibiting, or attenuating any neoplastic formation wherever it is possible to easily apply it."
Cancer is actually a four-letter word ACID, especially lactic acid as a waste product due to the low oxygen level and waste products of yeast and fungus.
For centuries, medicated baths have been one of the first lines of treatment for psoriasis. Even today, with sophisticated immunosuppressive treatments available, Dead Sea salts and spa waters are recognized to be beneficial in the management of psoriatic patients.
To assess statistically the efficacy of sodium bicarbonate baths in psoriasis patients, thirty-one patients with mild-moderate psoriasis were studied. Almost all patients who used NaHCO3- reported a statistically valuable improvement. NaHCO3- baths reduced itchiness and irritation; in general, the patients themselves recognized a beneficial impact on their psoriasis, so much so that they have continued to bathe in NaHCO3- even after the end of the study. [xv]
Sodium bicarbonate therapy is harmless, fast and effective because it is extremely diffusible. A therapy with bicarbonate for cancer should be set up with strong dosage, continuously, and with pauseless cycles in a destruction work which should proceed from the beginning to the end without interruption for at least 7-8 days. In general a mass of 2-3-4 centimetres will begin to consistently regress from the third to the fourth day, and collapses from the fourth to the fifth. Generally speaking, the maximum limit of the dosage that can be administered in a session gravitates around 500 cc of sodium bicarbonate at five per cent solution, with the possibility of increasing or decreasing the dosage by 20 per cent in function of the body mass of the individual to be treated and in the presence of multiple localisations upon which to apportion a greater quantity of salts, instructs Dr Simoncini.
April 5th 2007 IMVA - Sodium Bicarbonate
Lessons in Cancer and General pH Management
Bicarbonate Lessons in Cancer and General pH Management
International Medical Veritas Association

Source: health.benabraham.com/html/stop_can...

YourChildrenManchurianCandidates

http://www.deliberatedumbingdowbn.com
http://www.americandeception.com

Little Manchurian Candidates



By Matt James


"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them,

One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
--Tolkien

Our six-year-old daughter was so excited to start school. At our first parent-teacher conference, Barb and I expected to hear the usual compliments and heartwarming anecdotes about our bright little angel. From our experiences with activities like T-ball and soccer, or dance and music recitals, we had learned that parents always say nice things about the children of others. If the compliments are sometimes unrealistic or excessive, well, parenting is tough work. We can all use the encouragement.
I guess we had been spoiled. Jenny's teacher got right to the point. She had some negatives to address. For one thing, Jenny was struggling with her reading. The teacher confessed that one of the most difficult parts of her job was deflating parents with the news that their children were simply not exceptional. Jenny was, at best, an average reader. She was not an Eagle; she was a Pony. Our job was to learn to enjoy her as a 40-watt bulb rather than a bright light. Was it my imagination, or did this middle-aged matron's sweet smile contain a trace of malice as she related these tidings?
I was confused by this assessment of Jenny's reading abilities because it simply didn't fit in with her prior history. She had a love affair with books for her entire childhood. We have a photograph of her at 11 months of age staring earnestly at the contents of an open book. I remember reading to her when she was three. I stopped for some reason, but she continued the narration. She knew her stories by heart. Like many other children, Jenny had learned to read at home. She was a bookworm, and she was an experienced and passionate reader before she ever started first grade.
The teacher went on to explain that Jenny cried too much at school and that we needed to correct this problem with the appropriate discipline. Barb and I exchanged glances but didn't argue. We were in shock.
I was curious about the crying. Jenny was such a happy child. I asked her that night what made her sad at school. Expecting to hear about something on the playground, I was surprised by her answer. The listening-hour stories made her sad:
Once upon a time there was a daddy duck with seven ducklings. They ranged in age down to the youngest (who reminded Jenny of a first grader). The daddy was mean. One day he demanded that all his children learn three tasks, such as running, swimming, and diving. If a duckling was unable to master all of the tasks, he would be banished from the family to live with the chickens. The youngsters struggled under the cruel eye of their father. When it came to diving, the first grader floundered and was sent away to live with the chickens.
This was the story Jenny related, in her own words, as an example. I heard it told a second time several years later, by my cousin Nancy, as a sample of objectionable curriculum. We were impressed with the coincidence, since our families resided in different states.
Jenny told me she also cried over stories in her readers. They made her sad and frustrated in some way. What a mess! In one evening we had found out that Jenny was unhappy at school, that her teacher thought she was a poor reader and a dim bulb, and that she heard mean tales during listening-hour that I wouldn't repeat to hardened convicts. What in the name of heaven was going on at this school?
I was determined to get to the bottom of things. Since they didn't send books home with students in the younger grades, I went to the school the following day and spent a couple of hours reviewing the elementary readers. As I read, my eyes opened wider and wider. I had assumed the purpose of the reading curriculum was to stimulate the juvenile imagination and teach reading skills. Instead, I saw material saturated with, to borrow another parent's language, "an unadvertised agenda promoting parental alienation, loss of identity and self-confidence, group-dependence, passivity, and anti-intellectualism."
I once daydreamed through a basic psychology class in medical school which described the work of Pavlov and B.F Skinner in the twentieth century. Their conclusions were that animal (and human) behaviors can be encouraged or discouraged by associating them with pleasure or pain. This is such an obvious fact of nature. It is amazing that anyone would bother to prove it with experimentation, as if the carrot and the stick haven't been used since time began.
In behaviorist experiments various stimuli, such as food or electrical shocks, were used as rewards or deterrents. Over time, due to animal memory, a pattern of behavior could be established without food or shocks coming into play. This educational or training process is called "conditioning." With enough conditioning, the dog will stop chasing cars.
As I read the stories and poems in Jenny's readers, I was astonished to discover that they were alive, in their own way, with the theories and practices of these dead scientists. But the animals to be trained weren't dogs or rats. They were our young students. Pleasure and pain signals were embedded into the reading material in a consistent way. Given the vicarious nature of the reading experience, and by identifying with the protagonists in the stories, it was our first graders who were "learning" certain attitudes and behaviors.
When a child-figure in the stories split away from his group, for example, he would get rained on, his toes would get cold in the snow, or he would experience some other form of discomfort or torment. Similar material was repeated ad infinitum. Through their reading, our students would feel the stinging rain and the pain of freezing toes. They would learn the lesson like one of Pavlov's dogs: avoid the pain, stay with the group.
The stories in the readers consistently associated individual initiative with emotional or physical pain. Consider the example of the little squirrel whose wheel falls off his wagon. When he tries to replace it, the wagon rides with an awkward and embarrassing bump, noticeable to his friends, who then tease him about it. Another attempt to repair the wheel results in an accident, with bruising and bleeding and more humiliation. The cumulative effect of this and similar story lines, given the vicarious nature of the reading experience, would be to discourage initiative and reduce self-confidence in the first grader.
Animal dads, moms, and grandparents were portrayed over and over in various combinations as mean, stupid, unreliable, bungling, impotent or incompetent. Relationships with their children were almost always dysfunctional; communication and reciprocal trust were non-existent. A toxic mom or dad, for instance, might have stepped in to help our youthful squirrel repair his wagon, only to make matters worse and wreak emotional havoc in the process. Jenny's heart would be lacerated by stories which constantly portrayed parent/child relationships as strained, cruel, or distant. I could see her crying with hurt or frustration.
It occurred to me that over the long run, at some level of consciousness, our daughter would have to hold us accountable for permitting her to be tortured in school. Logically, Barb and I had to be stupid, unreliable, uncaring, or impotent, just like the parents in the books. By sending her to school, we were validating the message in her readers, contributing significantly to the parental alienation curriculum. Continuing in her school-based reading series, Jenny's relationship with us would have become tarnished or eroded, and an element of bitterness or cynicism might have crept into her personality.
I borrow the term "anti-intellectualism" to describe another dominant theme in the readers. Many of the compositions were, essentially, word salad. They lacked intrinsic interest, coherence, or continuity, and they often demonstrated a sort of anti-rationality. The stories and the corresponding questions seemed to require the student to suspend the natural operations of his intellect, such as the desire to make sense out of things or the impulse to be curious. Under this yoke, a student could learn to hate reading or even thought itself.
The following "story" and "comprehension" questions are representative of the anti-intellectualism that I found in the readers:
Once upon a time there was a little green mouse who hopped after a tiger onto a yellow airplane. The plane turned into a big red bird in flight, and the mouse turned into a blue pumpkin. The pumpkin fell to the ground and its seeds grew into pots and pans. Blah, blah, blah
1) "What color was the mouse?"
2) "Why do mice turn into pumpkins?"
3) "How do seeds grow?"
I can see children getting frustrated over material like this. It is debatable as to which facet of the exercise is more onerous, the reading or the "comprehension." I almost incline to the latter. Among other concerns, I wonder if it is a good thing to pressure children to respond to stupid or unanswerable questions. Such a process would lead to passivity and a loss of confidence, to a little engine that couldn't.
According to Pavlov and B.F. Skinner, repetition of unpleasant reading experiences would turn a student off to the reading activity. Predictable consequences would be a child who hates reading and loses out on vast intellectual benefits and development. In addition, his reading failure would tax his self-confidence, and he could be branded with one of society's popular labels such as dyslexia.
I considered Jenny's reading struggles in the context of performance expectations as well as grading and comparisons with other children. It seemed as if she faced a nasty dilemma: force herself to read alienating material, or disengage and then disappoint parents, teachers and self. What an impossible predicament for a young child. Once sunny and blue, the skies had turned dark and stormy for our happy little girl whose only offense had been to attend her friendly neighborhood school at the innocent age of six.
It has occurred to me that the cause of America's illiteracy crisis has been discovered. It is the reading curriculum in our schools. Unfortunately, the damage to children appears to extend way beyond reading failure. One wonders if the hidden agenda in the readers has created our victim culture, a generation of withdrawn and resentful children, alienated from themselves, their parents, society, books and ideas.
I was reminded of the plight of our neighbors. The father and mother were loving, dedicated parents. He was an accountant and she was a homemaker and community leader. They were nice people, and so were their children. The two teenagers were bright but got poor grades and hated school. They hung out with the crowd and participated in the kind of self-destructive behaviors that are commonplace today. I asked these young people why they would behave in ways which would cause pain for themselves or their loved ones. They smiled quizzically and professed not to know. Maybe the ideas that moved them truly were subconscious.
We are all familiar with kids like this (Our own kids are kids like this, or they come too close for comfort). They spend a lot of time "doing nothing" with like-minded friends. Passive-aggressive with suppressed individuality, they all seem cut from the same mold. Self mutilation with tattoos and body armor is almost universal. Some of their groups are virtually masochistic cults. Sadism is the other side of the masochism coin.
That so many of these dysfunctional teenagers come from loving homes and neat families is inexplicable and shocking, until you realize that they have all been tortured together in school since the first grade. They are a batch of little Manchurian Candidates with attitude, victims of the obscure behaviorism that I found, and that others have found before and since, in school readers.
Barb and I had seen some perplexing changes in Jenny's reading since she started in first grade. For one thing, she had stopped reading her favorite books and stories at home. Before starting school, she had feasted on Grimm's Fairy Tales. Although she still begged us to read these to her, she now explained that she was not supposed to read them herself, according to her understanding from her teacher, because they contained big words and content in advance of her abilities. Barb and I, holding our tongues, exchanged tortured grimaces and cross-eyed glances.
When reviewing the school readers, I had noticed an impoverished vocabulary, composed mostly of three and four letter words. I brought this up with the teacher. She explained that the readers were integrated into a district policy that no more than five hundred new words be introduced to students during any grade level. The idea was to protect children from the dizzying and confusing effects of an overabundance of words and ideas. I nodded as if I understood, but I didn't really get it.
Barb and I had clearly used the wrong approach with Jenny. We had allowed her to read anything she wanted and had provided her with a flourishing home library. Furthermore, we had encouraged her to run around in the grassy meadows and on the sandy beaches. She must have collided with great numbers of unfamiliar words and ideas, as well as a perilous diversity of flowers and sea shells. It's a wonder she survived at all.
We considered the various elements of Jenny's brief experience in first grade. She had a clueless teacher. She was regressing in her reading skills, vocabulary, and enthusiasm. She was being indoctrinated with character destroying qualities like passivity and group dependence. Her intellectual development was being stunted and she was being bombarded with a curriculum of parental alienation.
Judging by her crying in the classroom, she was part of a captive audience being repeatedly exposed to painful stimuli. To put it plainly, she was the victim of ongoing torture and cruelty. Along with her classmates, she was becoming, as one of her school poems pointed out, "Small, small, small, just a tiny, tiny, tiny piece of it all."
_____
In our state at that time, compulsory education began at the age of eight. Jenny was not obliged by law to attend school. With our various concerns, we pulled her out of school while we tried to figure out what to do.