PJ#042, UNHOLY ALLIANCE

[wave]

PJ 42

CHAPTER 15

REC #3 HATONN

THU., JANUARY 9, 1992 4:32 P.M. YEAR 5, DAY 146

THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1992

CONTINUATION: PROFITS FROM CANCER

As we move on with this gross dissertation on "Cancer", I ask that you at America West please make sure our old hard-ball denouncer and debunker in Florida (who has a talk-radio show in which he asked me to guest and then twice was so insulting as to embarrass his own listeners and claimed to be head of "World Headquarters for Information" or something as silly--I believe Jack Cole was his name, if not please Edit to correctness) GETS A COPY OF THIS WHOLE PAPER. He said: "If you are real, Hatonn, then why don't you cure cancer and then we could believe you!" Do you ones actually still sit with the opinion that that would be true? Do you think anyone or thing will be allowed to give YOU the cure for anything? This bunch also accused us of anti-Semitism--well, these are the guilty parties, what do YOU say? If you wish to label these bastard killers "Semites", I guess you must know that I am anti-Semitic. They are most certainly self-proclaimed Zionists and brothers, ZIONISM IS RACISM! Further, the attempt is to wipe out all other races--AND THESE ARE NOT JUDEANS! It is time that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU CONFRONT THESE FACTS! "Jews" will be just as dead as fast, or faster, than any other group of people on the face of the earth--"Jews", if that is what you wish to label selves (although you are NOT), had better take note that you are the primary target because you ARE THE ENEMY OF THE ELITE ZIONISTS!

In 1978, the American Cancer Society had $140 million income of which less than 30% was spent on cancer research, with 56% going to cover administrative costs. The Society had $200 million in investments. Before the Bobst-Lasker takeover in 1944, its income had never gone past $600,000 a year; the following year, it raised $5 million. In 1982, Allan Sonnenshein published a warning, "Watchout; the American Cancer Society May Be Hazardous to Your Health!" In 1955, in a power move, ACS took over all re­search from the National Research Council, executing a brilliant coup by creating a new Science Advisory Council to represent American hospitals and universities. Dr. Samuel Epstein, in his book, THE POLITICS OF CANCER, noted that "apart from being uninvolved in cancer prevention, other than, to a limited extent, to­bacco, senior (ACS) officials have developed for the society a repu­tation of being indifferent, if not actively hostile, to regulatory needs for the prevention of exposure to carcinogenic chemicals in the gen­eral environment and in the workplace." Epstein reported that the ACS opposed regulation of such potential carcinogens as Red Dye #2, TRIS, and DES. ACS refused to support the Clean Water Act, and blamed victims for cancer. EPA had reported that indoor pol­lutants cause six thousand cancer deaths a year and that 38 million Americans drink water with unsafe levels of lead and other toxic matter, [H: Just today it is making headlines that thousands of babies have been given lead in their formulas producing lead poi­soning and retardation--due to using tap water to mix baby for­mulas. Does this strike you as being particularly horrendous that you are lied to about your very life-resources?] including chlorine by-products. DES, diethylstilbestrol, was widely used from the 1940's to the early 1970's as a synthetic female hormone which was routinely prescribed by doctors to prevent miscarriage; it was not tested for possible side effects, nor did anyone know what they were. Finally, a student at the University of Chicago Medical Cen­ter showed that not only was it ineffective in preventing miscarriage, but it might have side effects. This finding failed to halt its use. In 1972, its longterm effects began to appear, cancer of the breast, with vaginal cancer in daughters of those patients treated with DES, as well as other genital malformations and abnormalities. It was also linked to liver damage.

Lee Edson, in THE CANCER RIPOFF notes that 74 private companies near the National Institute of Health in Bethesda were charging the government 144% overhead plus 9% profit to perform virus research. Nixon had placed his protege, Dr. Frank Rauscher, in charge of NCI; he was a virologist who began to promote chemotherapy as the answer to cancer. Dr. Rauscher claimed that the NCI chemotherapy program "has provided effective treatment for cancer patients all over this country, and the world". This claim was promptly challenged by Dean Burk, head of the cyclochemical section of the NCI, pointing out that "virtually all of the chemothera­peutic agents now approved by the FDA for use or testing in human cancer patients are highly toxic to markedly immuno-suppressive and highly carcinogenic in rats and mice, themselves producing cancers in a wide variety of body organs." Despite this criticism, Rauscher was then named head of the President's National Cancer Adyisory Board.

The side effects of chemotherapy have been graphically described by many of its victims, the terrible nausea, loss of hair, sudden weight loss and many other adverse factors. A book by M. Morra, CHOICES; REALISTIC ALTERNATIVES IN CANCER TREAT­MENT, Avon, 1980, reports favorably on all of the Establishment's "cut, slash and burn techniques". Morra mentions diet only in its relation to nausea from chemotherapy; he soberly advises that you "let someone else do the cooking so that the smell of the food won't nauseate you." Morra gave no advice on how to serve food without smell.

Since Memorial Sloan Kettering's first benefactor, James Ewing, dosed himself to death with radium in 1913, it has remained the treatment of choice at this Cancer Center. The New York Times noted July 4, 1979 that 70% of all cancer patients at Memorial re­ceive radiation treatments, at a charge of $500,000 a year. It now performs 11,000 surgical procedures and 65,000 radium treatments a year. In 1980, Memorial bought all new equipment for its radium treatment, an expenditure of $4.5 million. However, radium treat­ment continues to be a horrifying treatment in its effects.

In 1937, Dr. Percy Furnivall, a prominent surgeon at London Hospital, diagnosed his own tumor as cancer. On February 26, 1938, he published in the British Medical Journal an impassioned plea as a result of his experience, "Tragedies from radium treatment are of frequent occurrence, and the publicity given to radium treat­ment of cancer is a disgrace to the Minister of Health and the vested interests which charge fantastic prices for this body-destroying sub­stance. I do not wish my worst enemy the prolonged hell I have been through with radium neutitis and myalgic over six months.... This account of my own case is a plea for a very careful considera­tion of all the factors before deciding which is the most suitable form of treatment." He died shortly thereafter, yet his plea had no effect on the continued use of radium treatments for cancer.

The late Senator Hubert Humphrey, who died of cancer, is often cited as an advertisement for radium treatment. Jane Brody in her New York limes book, YOU CAN FIGHT CANCER AND WIN, coauthored with American Cancer Society vice-president Holleb in 1977, cites Hubert Humphrey as "a famous beneficiary of modern radiotherapy". She glosses over the fact that "this famous benefi­ciary" was totally disillusioned with radium therapy before his death. In 1973 he was found to have cancer of the bladder; he was treated by X ray, and in 1976, his physician, Dr. Dabney Jarman, tri­umphantly reported that "As far as we are concerned, the Senator is cured." (New York Times, October 6, 1976). Humphrey continued to wither away, undergoing more chemotherapy, until he flatly re­fused to go back to Memorial Cancer Center for more treatment. Quoted in the Daily News, January 14, 1978, he called chemother­apy "bottled death".

The Washington Post in February 1988 ran a story "Cancer Treatment Toxic". "We are spared very little as we see healthy looking people turned before our eyes into shaking, shivering, nau­seated bundles of misery . . . The successes, although few, have been dramatic."

One factor which has been consistently ignored in the devel­opment of cancer is the role of unusual stress. We all face daily stresses in our lives, with which we cope as best we can. However, unusual and prolonged stress places a greater strain on our system than we may be able to cope with. This is particularly true today, when sinister hidden forces poison all our communications with their shadowy propaganda, while assuring us that they stand only for "compassion and caring". A writer named Morley Roberts ad­vanced a startling theory of cancer in 1926. An English scientist, Roberts belonged to no known school of thought, and because of his independence, his works have been largely ignored. His theory of Organic Materialism advances the following points:

"Malignancy and Evolution: Malignancy is the diversion of en­ergy from high differentiation into the proliferation of low-grade ep­ithelia which can endure irritation but only differentiate with diffi­culty." Epithelioma, a common form of cancer, is the multiplication of cells of the simplest type in the body, which, like those of the outer skin, the epidermis, are comparably short-lived and unable to differentiate. An organism afflicted with cancer is unable to dif­ferentiate to meet the conditions of its existence, because its energy has been diverted into multiplying low-grade cells. Cancer is the proliferation of low grade cell colonies in the organism. They mi­grate through the body seeking a place for themselves, although they have no function. Wherever they gather, they rob the higher grade cells of nourishment, where they are gathered into cell colonies as the organs of the body. These organs are choked off and starve, eventually causing the death of the organism. The modern State is a malignant organism dedicated to the proliferation of lower grade units at the expense of higher, more differentiated types. The more productive organisms are heavily taxed to support large numbers of non-productive and poorly differentiated growths. The steadily in­creasing strain on the productive members of the State causes their premature death, just as the proliferation of the lower grade cells in the cancerous organism kills the higher differentiated cells. Roberts posits the question, "May we go further and even say that the com­mon tendency to malignancy is the result of sociology refinements which ask for a higher role for epithelia?"

Morley Roberts posited a theory of the development of the or­ganism, in which other cells began to gather around the excretory cell colonies of primitive organisms, and subsequently these cell colonies began to give off secretions which were poisonous to the organism. In self-defense, the organism threw up fortifications, or other cell colonies, around the vicious presence, which, in time, be­came part of the organism, and whose secretions became useful to it. Roberts calls this a theory of the development of the organs of the body.

The role of nutrition in cancer has yet to be seriously researched by the billion dollar boondoggles of the National Cancer Institute. Yet in 1887, an Albany, New York physician, Ephraim Cutter, M.D. wrote a book called DIET IN CANCER, in which he stated, "Cancer is a disease of nutrition."

Hippocrates coined the word diaitia, meaning "a way of life" which is what a diet is. In the classical world, "meat" meant the daily fare, and referred to oats, barley, rye, wheat, fruit and nuts. The confusion as to the meaning of the word meat occurs in transla­tions of the Bible. In Genesis, it is stated, "Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." Hippocrates' advice to physicians was that they should first find out what food is given to a patient, and who gives it.

The ongoing controversy over laetrile revolves around the fact that it is a substance called a nitriloside. In 1952, Dr. Ernest A. Krebs, Jr., a biochemist, discovered that cancer is caused by a defi­ciency of nitrilosides, which occur naturally in over twelve hundred foods and plants. Animals usually instinctively seek out grasses and other plants which contain nitrilosides, yet when humans do the same thing they are attacked by federal agents. Some researchers believe that the adverse effects of carcinogens, radiation and sunburn on humans is caused by the fact that they are suffering from poor nutrition. These nutrition experts argue that coal tar does not cause cancer and that the sun does not cause skin cancer. Rather, these conditions arise from the sun's effect upon the skin of a person who is consuming too many sugars, fats and dairy products. The sun's rays create an acidic condition which causes these substances to rise to the surface of the skin, causing an irritation which can then be­come a catalyst. It is noted that people in tropical countries, who are exposed to strong sunlight, rarely get skin cancer because they eat little meat and fats. It was also discovered after the atomic bombing of Japanese civilians that those who were still eating their traditional diet of brown rice, sea salt and miso vegetables, were little damaged by the same amount of atomic radiation which killed those who were eating a more modern diet of fats and meats.

Some experts note that they can detect cancer by the peculiar smell of a person in its early stages, the smell of decomposition. Others note that cancer can be detected by a greenish cast to the skin. The epidemic of prostate cancer among American men seems to be the result of a diet of rich foods, with frequent ingestion of eggs, meat and dairy products, and baked goods made with refined flour. A suggested remedy is a diet of fruit and rice, the same diet which is recommended to lower blood pressure and which has been featured at Duke University for many years. Beef is said to be par­ticularly dangerous for prostate and colon cancer. Nutritionists be­lieve that cancer represents a reverse evolutionary process, in which cells decompose or change back to a more primordial vegetable type of life. This corresponds in some ways with the theories of Morley Roberts.

It is notable that only four percent of the nation's medical schools offer a course in nutrition. This reflects the Rockefeller Medical Monopoly's obsession with drugs and its commitment to the allo­pathic school of medicine, as opposed to homeophathic or holistic medicine.

Nobel Prize winner James Watson declared at a cancer sym­posium at MIT that "the American public has been sold a nasty bill of goods about cancer . . . a soporific orgy", as reported in the New York Times March 9, 1975. In January of 1975, Dr. Charles C. Edwards, a researcher, wrote to the Secretary of HEW that the war on cancer was politically motivated and was based on spending money. The prominent French oncologist, Dr. Lucien Israel, said, "Radium is an unproven method in many cases . . . indeed, there have been no conclusive trials" on radiation therapy. Israel terms it "a palliative for relief of pain, etc., temporary in nature". He also points out that "The medical community has been thrown into confu­sion by recent studies which have shown that metastases may be more frequent in cases that have received radiation." In short, the radiation increases the spread of cancer. It has long been known that cutting into a tumor causes it to spread throughout the body. The exploratory operation to see if you have cancer usually guarantees that it will be fatal.

Nevertheless, the American Cancer Society continues to back all of the losing methods of treating cancer. For twenty years, it has patently repeated its famous Cancer's Seven Warning Signals, which ignore chemicals in the environment and discounts FDA warnings about coal tar and hair dyes. In 1976, the ACS released a press communication, "Urgent Message; Mammography; Benefits and Risks". Dr. John Bailar of the Harvard School of Public Health, and editor of the prestigious NCI Cancer Journal, was horrified. He wrote a letter to the acting director of the NCI, Dr. Guy Newell, "I have just become aware of a problem that has the seeds of a major disaster.... The Urgent Message itself is plain hogwash, the state­ment is seriously faulty, and hence represents a grave danger to that bulk of women who should avoid mammography." Nevertheless, the ACS flyer went to every hospital in New York, and to 15,000 physicians. Despite the known risks of exposing women to repeated X rays, the ACS still emphasizes annual mammographies as one of its most vaunted techniques for "controlling" cancer. Jane Brody's book, YOU CAN FIGHT CANCER AND WIN, recommends this and many other ACS goals.

[H: I ask you to pause right here and harken back to the news YESTERDAY. There is potential severe threat to some women undergoing mammograms. This was headline news and still, again, they discounted the numbers of at risk patients to be so slight as to not be worthy of serious note. If you don't see the confirmations flowing all about you, then how are we to ever reach the masses of civilization? If you are so asleep that you allow your own murder without speaking out--then how can God, through his Hosts, do your job FOR you? You see, I CAN give you the cure for cancer--pure and simple, does it make you believe me? I thought not! You want magic with no responsibility and, moreover, without changing any of your unGodly behaviors for you want to continue with the "if it feels good--go for it". Chelas, it is those irresponsible actions of the physical being now trained in false expectations which has brought you to this stage and you will not heal anything without changing the status of your mental-set. You, for instance, cannot stamp out venereal diseases or stop promiscuity by passing out condoms or teaching "safe sex" in grade schools or kindergarten. Until, further, the adults take responsibility, how in the world do you expect the children to do other than worse than the example? So be it.]

The American Cancer Society also stands firmly behind radical mastectomy, the total removal of the breast in cases of women's breast cancer [H: and then restructuring with silicone implants, etc. Which came first, the poison chicken or the infected egg?]. This technique is frowned upon as unusually brutal and ineffective; it has long been abandoned in most European countries, including England, France and the Scandinavian countries and neighboring Canada. In 1975, when Rose Kuttner published her definitive work, BREAST CANCER which was critical of radical mastectomy, the ACS refused to list or recommend it.

It was Elmer Bobst's goal to make the National Cancer Institute "autonomous", much as the Federal Reserve System is "autonomous". He was able to achieve this goal because of his long­standing personal connection with President Richard Nixon. As the mastermind of the American Cancer Society, he really intended it to become "autonomous" from Washington influence, while making it completely subservient to the American Cancer Society from New York. Rep. David Obey, Democrat, Wisconsin, noted that "The American Cancer Society wants to keep the National Cancer Institute strong in bank-roll and weak in staff so that it can direct its spending without too much interference." A very astute observation. One of its directors, Mary Lasker, who, thirty-six years after Albert Lasker's death, is still described by Washington observers as the most powerful woman in American medicine. The National Institute of Health bought the Visitation Convent in Bethesda from the Catholic Church for $4.4 million; it now houses the Mary Lasker Center. Through her access to funding, the ACS maintains fulltime lobbyists in Washington, headed by Col. Luke Quinn, and aided by Mike Gorman. The Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, with Washington lobbyist Lloyd Cutler, also works with Mary Lasker.

Whatever else may be said of the American Cancer Society, there can be no doubt that it remains well insulated against reality. A leading Washington reporter, Daniel S. Greenberg, wrote in the Columbia Journalism Review in 1975 that cancer rates for most types of cancer had been static since the 1950's; some rates actually declined, probably because the use of toxic chemotherapy increased the death rate. One researcher told Greenberg there had been little improvement since 1945. Dr. Frank Rauscher challenged Greenberg at the 1975 ACS Science Writers Seminar, claiming that these fig­ures were out of date; however, when the new figures were released, they upheld Greenberg's findings. This rings hollowly against the annual promises of "breakthroughs" when the two and a half million "volunteers" swarm across America shaking their tin cans and beg­ging for the rich. They have been making these same promises and raising the same amounts of money, or more, for almost fifty years. Laurance Rockefeller noted in Reader's Digest, February 1957 an exultant comment, "There is, for the first time, a scent of ultimate victory in the air," as he described "progress against cancer". Sloan Kettering director C.P. Dusty Rhodes was quoted in the Denver Post, October 3, 1953, "I am convinced that in the next decade, or maybe more, we will have a chemical as effective against cancer as sulfanilolomides and penicillin are against bacterial infection." Well, maybe more. In 1956, Dr. Wendell F. Stanley, a Nobel Prize Winner, reported in an address to the annual AMA convention, "viruses are the prime cause of most types of cancer". Nothing more has been heard on this subject in thirty years.

One physician, Dr. Cecil Pitard, was informed that he had termi­nal cancer and that he had only a few weeks to live. The Knoxville, Tennessee physician was diagnosed at the Mayo Clinic as having lymphoma. Lumphatic cancer results because the body is no longer able to detoxify or cleanse itself. Tonsillectomies often initiate a deterioration of the lymphatic system, resulting in lymph gland in­flammation, and eventually, lymphatic cancer. With nothing to lose, Dr. Pitard experimented on himself with the anti-flu bacterial anti­gen, staphage lysate and sodium butyrate, a fatty acid food found in milk and butter. He soon found that he had been completely cured. Nevertheless, the Cancer Establishment ignored his report, and be­came even more vociferous in its campaign against "unproven reme­dies". In most cases like Dr. Pitard's the cancer profiteers sneer that it probably was misdiagnosed and he never had cancer, or that he had a "spontaneous remission", which is their most oft repeated response. It would seem that they would show some interest in how to obtain a "spontaneous remission" because they have now been talking about it for half a century, yet we have heard nothing from the $70 million a year research program at Sloan Kettering about spontaneous remission.

After Dr. Ralph Moss had been fired from Sloan Kettering for revealing the positive results of laetrile experiments, he made public the fact that the Institute was sitting on many other results of suc­cessful treatment of cancer, including more than one thousand posi­tive cases of response to the Coley treatment since 1906. Moss re­ported that Dr. James Ewing, "Coley's nemesis and arch rival, turned Memorial Hospital into a medical branch of the radium trust." Dr. William E. Koch, professor of physiology at Detroit Medical College and the University of Michigan, presaged freeradical pathology treatment with the development of Glyoxylide, which stimulated the body to oxidate toxins. Although his treatment was never scientifically refuted, Koch, who began oxidation studies in 1915 and used this treatment since 1918, was persecuted for sixteen years by the Medical Monopoly. He was finally driven out of the country, and died in Brazil in 1967. The FDA had started to harass him in 1920; the Wayne County Medical Society formed a "Cancer Committee" of doctors in 1923 who condemned Koch's treatment. His stimulation of cell oxidation treatment is by carefully planned diet which cleansed the system, yet this proven treatment is still de­nounced today by the cancer profiteers as "quackery". Koch tried to continue his work in Mexico and Brazil, but the FDA refused to abandon their pursuit. He was prosecuted in 1942 and 1946; the FDA finally obtained a permanent injunction against the Koch treat­ment in 1950. Several physicians who had successfully treated can­cer with the Koch treatment were expelled from the medical society. It was still allowable to kill a patient but it was unforgivable to cure him.

Another independent physician, Dr. Max Gerson, discovered that a vegetarian diet, with raw fruits and vegetables, and no salt, cured migraine and lupus. He continued his studies until he found that detoxification of the body could cure cancer. In 1958, he published his findings in his book, A CANCER THERAPY, emphasizing a low fat diet, no salt and a minimum of protein. In 1964, he was in­vited to testify before a Senate Subcommittee, which produced a 227 page report, document number 89471. The copies of this report were never distributed by the Senate; it received no coverage in medical journals, and Dr. Gerson never received one cent from any charitable organization such as the American Cancer Society to ei­ther prove or disprove his findings, even though these groups claimed they were "researching" a cure of cancer.

Another famous case was that of Harry Hoxsey, who used a herbal treatment, based upon Indian remedies, for cancer for thirty-five years. In a well-publicized court battle, Hoxsey won a libel suit against Morris Fishbein; the good doctor was forced to admit under cross-examination that he, the most famous doctor in the United States, had never practiced medicine one day in his life.

Dr. Robert E. Lincoln discovered the bacteriophage method of conquering cancer, in which viruses parasitically attach and destroy specific bacteria. He received national attention when he cured the son of Senator Charles Tobey with this method. Tobey was as­tounded to learn that Dr. Lincoln has been expelled from the Massachusetts Medical Society because he was curing people of cancer. He conducted a Congressional investigation, in which his special counsel from the Department of Justice, Benedict Fitzgerald, wrote, April 28, 1953, "The alleged machinations of Dr. J. J. Moore (for the past ten years the treasurer of American Medical Association) could involve the AMA and others in a conspiracy of alarming proportions....behind and over all this is the weirdest conglomera­tion of corrupt motives, intrigues, selfishness, jealousy, obstruction and conspiracy I have ever seen. My investigation to date should convince this Committee that a conspiracy does exist to stop the free flow and use of drugs in interstate commerce which allegedly (have) solid therapeutic value. Public and private funds have been thrown around like confetti at a country fair to close up and destroy clinics, hospitals and science research laboratories which do not conform to the viewpoint of medical associations. How long will the American people take this?"

Thirty-five years, they are still taking it. The outcome of the Tobey hearings is instructive. Senator Tobey died suddenly of a heart attack, as happens in Washington when a politician treads on dan­gerous ground. He was succeeded on the Committee by Senator John Bricker of Ohio. Bricker, for many years, was considered to be a dedicated conservative by millions of Americans. In reality, he was the lawyer for a number of large drug manufacturers and bankers, the ultimate establishment figure. He promptly fired Spe­cial Counsel Benedict Fitzgerald; the Hearings were then closed down.

Dr. Robert Lincoln was bold enough to sue the Massachusetts Medical Society for libel; he also died before the case could come to trial.

Dr. Andrew C. Ivy, vice president of the University of Illinois, began to use a preparation which he called Krebiozen. He suc­ceeded in curing cancer with it; the AMA promptly published a re­port on Krebiozen which ruled that it was "of no benefit". A 289 day trial resulted, in which Dr. Ivy was cleared of all counts against him. Dr. Peter de Marco, a graduate of Hahnemann Medical School, successfully treated over 800 patients with PVY, procaine polyvinyl pyrrlidone; his license to practice medicine in New Jersey was revoked.

A favorite recommendation of the American Cancer Society is the "Pap" test for cancer, despite its many drawbacks. Insight maga­zine, January 11, 1988, criticized many diagnostic laboratories for doing sloppy work, quoting the Wall Street Journal of November 1987 that "Pap smears have a false negative rate of from 20-40%; a false negative means death by cancer." Stung by this exposure of a method which the ACS had frenetically promoted for many years, Dr. Harmon J. Eyre, president of the American Cancer Society, called a joint press conference of the ACS, the AMA, and the NCI, to renew their joint recommendation that all women from 20 to 60 have an annual Pap smear. At this press conference reported by AP, January 20, 1988, Eyre was quoted, "A main reason for calling the press conference was an attempt to counter confusion about the value of the Pap test in light of recent publicity about the percentage of false negative results from some labs." Although he went on record with unqualified endorsements of the Pap tests, Eyre offered no an­swer to the problem of false negative reports or the terrible threat which it posed to many women.

Some women's groups are becoming alerted to the fact that the Medical Monopoly is needlessly condemning many women to death. The Washington Post noted, February 16, 1988, a report of a Women's Health Trial, in which 300 women demanded low fat tests in which fat in the diet would be reduced from 40% to 20%, the purpose being to diminish breast cancer. They asked for funding from the NCI, but the Board of Scientific counselors of NCI refused to advance any funding for the project. The women's spokesman pointed out that "NCI is committed to breast cancer control rather than prevention."

What would the most powerful woman in American medicine have said about this? Mary Lasker has been content to play the part of the gracious Lady Bountiful with the money her husband earned as the nation's most famous huckster. At the American Cancer So­ciety's Science Writers Seminars, which are held each year in some exotic hotel during the harsh winter months, Science noted May 18, 1973, that these spring seminars, held annually since 1949, always are held in warm climates, free junkets for science editors at big cir­culation newspapers and magazines. Science pointed out that these seminars, which cost ACS about $25,000, generate about 300 favor­able news stories and result in ACS raising about $85 million in ex­tra donations. This is probably one of the best investments around. In 1957, novelist Han Suyin, wearing an exquisite fur coat, delivered an enthusiastic report to the Science writers about how much good the chemical manufacturers have done for the health of our citizens. In all fairness to Han, Love Canal had not been discovered in 1957. The seminar met recently (1973) at the fabulous Rio Rico Inn near Tucson, Arizona. Not only are all expenses paid for the complaisant writers, but an extra treat, a Happy Hour at the bar at the end of each "work day", makes certain that the journalists float in to dinner in a very jovial mood. The Happy Hour is paid for by the gracious Mary Lasker. Saturday Review noted April 10, 1965, the ACS had an unusually effective public relations department. The secret of public relations is to obtain free space in major publications, instead of buying advertising. The Lasker connection also ensures that ma­jor New York agencies such as McCann Erickson, prepare adver­tising campaigns for ACS at no charge.

It is ironic that Albert Lasker, the co-creator of the American Cancer Society as we know it, and its subsidiary creature, the Na­tional Cancer Institute, should have built much of his fortune on his promotion of cigarette smoking. After his death from cancer, the American Cancer Society reluctantly came to the conclusion that "smoking is bad for your health". The mounting death toll from lung cancer forced the cigarette companies to consider alternatives; one of these was filters. On January 1, 1954, Kent cigarettes re­leased an ad to 80 newspapers that AMA tests had proved the Kent filters were the most efficient in removing cigarette tar. Because this "proof" was on a par with most other AMA claims, the AMA was compelled to protest to Lorillard, the manufacturer. Time mag­azine commented, April 12, 1954, "The usually soporific AMA barred advertisements for Kent cigarettes."

When the Surgeon General released his 1964 report on the harm­ful effects of cigarette smoking, it panicked the industry, even though it had long been heralded by previous studies. In June, 1954, Dr. Daniel Horn and Edward Cuyler Hammond presented a report to the AMA convention, linking smoking and lung cancer. Horn and Hammond headed the statistical department at the ACS. American Tobacco, one of Lasker's principal holdings, dropped five points in one day after this presentation. Hammond was a well known epi­demiologist who had served as a consultant to NIH, the U.S. Navy, USAF and the Brookhaven Lab. He was a vice president of ACS and director of its research. Although he had conducted extensive research on the effects of smoking, he steadfastly refused to share this material with other organizations. In 1971, he received an in­vitation to join a panel of scientists to discuss smoking; he refused, stating that it had been the policy of ACS since 1952 not to share data with other researchers. Current Biography reported in 1957 that Hammond smoked four packs of cigarettes a day; his wife smoked three packs a day. They both died of lung cancer.

Despite the ACS revelations, the tobacco interests, which were closely linked to the Rockefeller Medical Monopoly, fought a deter­mined rear guard action against the lung cancer campaign. One of Washington's best connected lobbyists, Patricia Firestone Chatham, widow of Representative R. T. Chatham, the chairman of Chatham Mills textile firm, stalled the placement of the warning on cigarette packages, "Smoking May Be Dangerous To Your Health", for five years, from 1964 to 1969. She lives in a two million dollar mansion in Georgetown, the former James Forrestal home.

The furor over lung cancer and smoking ignores a pertinent fact, that primitive tribes have been smoking tobacco for thousands of years, with no disagreeable after effects. In Virginia, Indians were smoking tobacco when Captain John Smith landed at Jamestown. Dr. Richard Passey, a researcher at London's Chester Beattie Re­search Institute, conducted twenty years of research on the tobacco problem. He found no significant link between the traditionally air dried tobacco and lung cancer. However, the American and English tobacco industries, which are dominated by the Rothschilds, use sugar in their tobacco, for a sweetened, sugar dried effect. England uses 17% sugar, the United States 10%. England has the highest lung cancer rate in the world. Dr. Passey concluded that the addi­tion of sugar to tobacco creates a carcinogenic substance in the nico­tine tar; in air dried tobacco, this carcinogen is not activated. He found no resulting lung cancer in the Soviet Union, China or Tai­wan, all of which produce air-dried tobacco. [H: I suggest you all read and reread Dr. Coleman's factual writing regarding cigarettes and remember that opium is utilized in the process and infiltrated into the paper and filters--thus addicting any smoker to the product.]

Esquire magazine featured a lengthy article on the work of the Janker Clinic in Bonn, Germany, finding that this clinic has treated 76,000 cancer cases since 1936, with full or partial remission in 70% of their patients. The Esquire reporter was astounded to learn that "the National Cancer Institute refuses to use Janker Clinic isophosphamide, A. Mulsin, Wobe enzymes and other successful Janker techniques because they refused to use sufficient dosage. The American Cancer Society is even more rigid. It prides itself on keeping the Janker techniques out of the United States." The Es­quire reporter went on to complain that "The American Cancer So­ciety has become a major part of the problem. It eschews sponsor­ship of chemical and research innovation and instead goes in for propaganda (cigarettes are harmful, the Seven Danger Signals, celebrity radio and TV spots) and it virtually condemns and suppresses unorthodox methods which, incidentally, it does not even trouble itself to investigate thoroughly."

The reporter did not know that the American Cancer Society has a vested interest in the established forms of cancer treatment; for in­stance, it holds a fifty per cent ownership of the patent rights of 5 FU, (5 flourouracil), one of the toxic drugs now in vogue as an "acceptable" medication for cancer. 5 FU and a later development 5-4-FU, are produced by Hoffman LaRoche Laboratories.

The Knight Ridder News Service reported in 1978 that the ACS refused to take a position on suspected pesticides which caused can­cer. The ACS board and its allied organization, Sloan Kettering, have many members who are heads of the largest chemical firms in the United States. The war against pollution will win no adherents there. ACS was asked to take a position on other dangerous sub­stances, such as Red Dye #2, the fire-retardant TRIS, used in chil­dren's clothing (it has since been banned), and forms of synthetic estrogen. Yet ACS again refused to state its position on these sub­stances. To counter its baneful influence, the Committee for Free­dom of Choice in Medicine planned to file an action in 1984 before the Permanent Committee on Human Rights at the United Nations, charging that the American medical establishment was in violation of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and the Interna­tional Human Rights Agreement of 1966. Its prepared statement noted that "Americans have been needlessly slaughtered and crimi­nalized because a host of useful products, medicine and metabolic nutritional approaches in medicine have been crushed by vested in­terests." The Committee termed the present situation "a Medigate".

The failure to reduce the death rate from cancer is a grim in­dictment of the insurmountable obstacles which the ACS has placed in the path of a viable approach to this problem. John Bailar of the Harvard School of Public Health, addressing the American Associa­tion for the Advancement of Science in 1986-7, pointed out that "The government's fifteen year old national cancer program has not lowered the death rate for major forms of cancer and should there­fore be considered a failure. It has not produced the results it was supposed to produce." Bailar was well qualified to make this obser­vation; he had been editor of the Journal for NCI for twenty-five years. He was supported by a fellow member of the faculty of the School of Public Health, Dr. John Cairns, who reported that, "In the past twenty years, cancer has increased; there have been no signifi­cant gains against cancer since the 1950's."

Dr. Hardin James addressed the ACS Panel in 1969. A professor of medical physics at the University of California at Berkely, he stated that his studies had proven conclusively that untreated cancer victims actually live up to four times longer than treated individuals. "For a typical type of cancer, people who refused treatment live an average of twelve and a half years. Those who accepted surgery and other kinds of treatment lived an average of only three years. I at­tribute this to the traumatic effect of surgery on the body's natural defense mechanism. The body has a natural type of defense against every type of cancer."

In February, 1988, the National Cancer Institute released its definitive report, summarizing the "war against cancer". It reported that over the past thirty-five years, both the overall incidence and death rates from cancer have increased, despite "advances in detec­tion and treatment". Washington Post, February 9, 1988. The problem may be that, just as in other wars we have engaged in the twentieth century, too many of those "on our side" are actually working for the enemy.

********

Perhaps this might well remind you to look at the "War on Drugs" which is also handled by the very ones dealing the drugs and selling and providing the guns. If the enemy is "within" you are in bad trouble--America, you are in BAD TROUBLE. This subject has only dealt with the "CANCER" problem so don't think it is sweet­ness and light when you don't have "cancer"--it gets worse when you consider AIDS and "OTHER HIGHER FORMS OF KILLING!"

Dharma, thank you, chela, for an incredibly long day of work but it's a fun job and somebody gets to do it--or something like that, the saying goes.

Walk in beauty and in the Light and all shall be revealed and in the knowing can Man find freedom for he falls not for the evil de­ceiver's plans. God keep you in his Glory. Good day. Hatonn to clear, please.

PJ 42

CHAPTER 16

REC #1 HATONN

FRI., JANUARY 10, 1992 10:12 A.M. YEAR 5, DAY 147

FRIDAY. JANUARY 10. 1992

Perhaps, since we have spent some heavy, heavy days of writing on the "Cut, Slash, Burn (and Poisoning)" method of medical treatment--most especially cancer treatment--I shall sit with you and take stock of subjects to be attended. I shan't give them all in detail or I might just lose my scribe for we are finishing our 49th book, this week, and she is weary.

I need, first of all, to thank Nora. I have no way of actually showing and giving my appreciation for the research efforts she is making in the JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA. It is difficult and "draining" work--although I note a distinct relief and rising level of Truth in her being as she finds I speak only Truth. Dharma has not time to read that which is being offered for I plan it that way. Please, Nora, if you feel slighted in response, it is because I ask that she not study the work you are doing--yet.

The hardest one group which you have to defend against are the ones who 'THINK' themselves 'JEWS'. As history is being outlayed in THEIR OWN BOOK you will find Truth and it is as I give it unto you. At the appropriate time, Nora, we shall present the information in abbreviated format as according to your excellent notations in ref­erence to those things which we have given so that confirmation can be presented to our brethren who are worse deceived than are you of the other religious beliefs.

Please note that as with the coinage of "terms" such as "Jews", which deceives the multitudes--so, too, does "born-again Christian". This latter term is applied only in the very recent days as a bigger fact of deceit. What the NEW term "born-again" means is NOT what was written as to be reborn in Christ/God. This new term in­dicates a belief in the physical assumption of believing on the person of one, Jesus, "who shed blood, died, and absolved you of all responsibility of sins by that sacrifice." No! It is and will always be exactly as that very person told you--you will stand responsible for that which you do even unto the end and through the recognition and assuming of that responsibility and coming into knowing with full intent of changing into the laws of God and Creation, shall ye be washed clean and accepted within the places of God. It has naught to do with forgiveness--for God does not "judge". You are either in the intent of Godness or you are short of Godness--forgiveness indi­cates a need for "another" to choose your path--nay, nay--you will choose for self and judge of self's actions and no blood of another will change an iota of it. The new presentations are to make you be­lieve what "they" want you to believe and deceive you unto the very ending of the cycle so that you are forfeit.

You fail to recognize the punch-line of "salvation". Indeed, you may come into intent of Godliness and you may fall short of per­fection--but the acceptance of the contract is based on the intent to stop breaking the laws of God and Creation as given unto you--not a bunch of rules and voted-in "OK's". Moreover, when you go forth after proclaiming to man and God that you accept His directions and are "birthed anew", you are in worse trouble when you deliberately break the original laws as given of God. You cannot have selective hearing and seeing so that it is as you WANT it to be without re­sponsibility or course change. It is fine if you choose that path but you will not be acceptable in the higher places of God and it gets very "iffy" as to whether or not you will get off the planet under any circumstances. If you continue in the lies, you will, at best, be taken into placement to continue your learning and not into the presence and co-creation places of God. Pronouncing a ritual chant simply does not cut it. You see, I come with the transportation to the place prepared for you--according to your stature in God's school of learning. Nothing is based on Man's physical anything--except as your actions project intent.

You ones in overwhelming mass denounce and reject the very ones and things sent for your security. Who taught you those things of rejection? Could it be that the Men who would control you have led you through the primroses? Think about it a minute--You have no PROOF that there ever was such a one as Jesus of Nazareth. Does it mean that a Christed being did not exist? No, it only means that you still place your very transition and infinite experi­ence into the limitations of the Man who chose to do the writing. That is the same as believing that one, Doris, is laying the in­structions for security and lift-off for you. She can write any­thing and after a while some of you would accept it simply be­cause she writes it. That is why we of the higher and farther projection do the authoring for no MAN is given into the remem­bering even though there well might have been the experience.

MOREOVER--WE ASK, YEA--INSIST, THAT YOU READ ALL WITH FULL REASON, LOGIC AND TRUTH AS BAL­ANCED AGAINST THE GIVEN LAWS OF GOD AND CRE­ATION--AND NOT THE OPINION OF "ANOTHER". GOD WILL NOT COERCE AND NEITHER WILL ANY OF THE HOSTS--OURS IS TO BRING THE TRUTH FROM THE LIES SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE YOUR PROOF FOR THE PUR­POSE OF CHOOSING WISELY. YOUR CHOICES, HOW­EVER, WILL BE HONORED AND IF YOU CHOOSE TO CONTINUE IN THE GREED AND WANTON PRACTICES OF THE HUMAN FORMAT--SO SHALL YOU BE LEFT TO THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT CHOICE. EVIL SHALL NOT BE BROUGHT INTO THE REALMS OF GODNESS. EVIL IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE AND IS NOT OF GOD. IT GOES BEYOND ANY ONE PER­SON OR BEING--IT SIMPLY IS HOW IT IS. THERE IS A SAYING THAT IS MOST VALID--"LIVE BY THE SWORD AND DIE BY THE SWORD" but more: "LIVE BY THE FLESH AND YE SHALL DIE IN THE FLESH." Then all those "things" which seemed so wondrous to have in the flesh cannot even be "touched" in the Spirit and all those things which "felt" so good "so do it" will be equally as removed from your expression. It seems the better part of wisdom to think on these things.

It is not the "death on the cross" which has meaning for that was a physical death by ALL of your touters--it is the LIFE of the being which had value--not the death of physical housing. HIS SACRI­FICE WAS NOT YOUR SACRIFICE--YOU WERE THE VERY ONES WHO MURDERED HIM AND NOW MAKE YOUR RULES TO SUIT YOUR CRIME. He, this sacrificed lamb, may well forgive you and you may "claim" it if you have made your­selves worthy--but through no other route can you receive same. YOU HAVE MISSED THE DIFFERENCE IN THE TERMS "JESUS", "IMMANUEL", "EMMANUEL", "ESU", AND CHRIST. "CHRIST" WAS NOT A PART OF HIS NAME--IT WAS HIS "STATE OF BEING". And, a "Christ" does not go about voting-in pleasing laws to suit mankind.

Does this mean, then, that ones who praise God and honor "Jesus" are discounted in my journey? Of course not. However, they will likely deny the presence of the Host and also the Master returned for they are seeking the wrong personage. They will withdraw and never take the opportunity of the lifeboat while awaiting the won­drous rapture. To rapture as projected means absolute and total death of the physical being--it does not mean Ascension. It means that, literally, you have to "disperse" the physical being to maintain a density capable of being within a cloud. Without intent of moving on into security--the being cannot endure the trauma and the physical will perish.

Why is there trouble in merging the expressions? Because one is fed by the Lie and the other by the Truth and the projecting speakers KNOW WITHIN, the errors. There is no need for defense as to be­lief, for if the intent is Godly, what is there to defend? If all of your time is spent defending physical manifestation and actions, you have missed the entire point of the transition. YOU are Spirit, your body expression is physical and the body, at best, can last, say, a century or less. YOU endure for eons of expressions and experience to again reach ONENESS with God.

Think a moment: If gold be a physical expression of a precious metal and in the same breath you claim heaven is a place with streets paved with gold--you are obviously saying that you are GOING TO A PHYSICAL PLACEMENT! THAT CANNOT BE OF GOD FOR GOD IS OF SPIRIT. Therefore, does it not make some logi­cal sense that you have interim needs? Further, if one you say is unlimited and infinite--would you not expect that ONE to prepare most carefully and in perfection for your transition? Yes, you DO have to choose for you can't have it both ways unless you choose the way unto God. If you truly choose the way of God you auto­matically claim your placement and the ticket is the intent of acting without evil in purposeful intent. The journey will most certainly be one of "Rapture" for your goal is final oneness with God and there­fore the "interim" journey will be one of glory. But, if a cloud be your rapture then you have no way to release yourself from your bindings.

LIVE BY THE RULES

If you are in trouble and you knock on your neighbor's door and ask shelter--does not your neighbor have a right to ask you to abide by the rules within his shelter?

Well, brothers, YOU are going to be coming into OUR shelter and transportation system. We welcome you aboard--but, you will not be in setting of our rules. Our laws and rules are sufficient for God and therefore, you either leave your rules behind or remain behind with them. We are not interested in your opinions. "Except by me will you enter into the Kingdom of God"--ah so, I happen to travel with the very Christ who told you that. And therefore, I can promise you that except by Him shall ye enter in. We are the ser­vants of Holy God come to reclaim that which is His and if ye be His, YOU. If you choose to abide with His adversary, so be it to your choices. And remember, after the third chance of discernment in wisdom--you shall be left to the physical absence of God--called Hell. Would it not be far easier and nicer to simply change your op­eration into the balanced and harmonious laws of God? Look most carefully at your perceptions. Do you not see how evil works? Joy, pleasure, happiness, etc., is experienced in the soul (emotion). That of physicalness is experienced in the "senses" of the physical manifestation. The experience of a moment may well be registered in the soul as expression but the fulfillment of the experience unto soul is always balanced against the laws as given. This is why one can experience the same as another and one will wilt in guilt and the other experience joy. Each must have his own perception and there­fore is the reason for LAWS. I speak not of laws of the land--for those are physical and written by the "rulers" to contain and control you-the-blind.

You who SAY you claim CHRIST--what are you really saying? You cannot claim "Christ" without claiming His Truth! In coming into that Truth you are ALLOWED. You are allowed the privilege of errors and growth but if you claim forgiveness while still per­fecting the error--you are in gross trouble on "judgment day" for you will "judge" self and you will find yourself far short of that goal you know to be correct in actions.

We shall not be in the leaving of anyone but this will be a physical transition and it is up to you whether or not you can physically pull it off. Moreover, if you wish to come with us, you will be brought aboard unto the 11 1/2th hour. But the facts are that you are being told and trained to deny our coming--and we will be called and claimed to be of the evil empire. The facts are simply that most of you who think you claim "God" shall deny the Truth of the rescue (salvation). So be it. You can kill my scribe, deny me, kill all ones attached to the Phoenix material and burn every JOURNAL--will that change anything? No.

USE OF GOD'S SYMBOLS

If you do not research your own journey it is most sad. However, that is why we bring you the WORD--because you have been put to sleep by your own enemy of infinite life. The very symbols of God have been taken and adorn the evil mansions and power seats. The Eagle will be used to adorn the gates and coats of arms of physical tyrants. Remember, Satan himself utilizes the TRUTH to project his LIES. Why? SO YOU WILL BELIEVE HIM AS HE DECEIVES YOU! GOD HAS NO NEED TO DECEIVE YOU FOR HE WILL LEAVE YOU TO YOUR GIFT OF CHOICES AS WAS PROMISED FOR THE PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE. REMEM­BER, THE BATTLE WHICH YOU AWAIT--IS BETWEEN EVIL AND GOODNESS AND IT IS FOR THE FREEDOM OR IMPRIS­ONMENT OF YOUR SOUL. If you remain locked into the physi­cal consciousness--you will, by choice and default--continue in the ignorance which is separation from God. Salvation and destiny in infinity in God presence is NOT a bloodbath and spillage 2000 years ago--it is intent of Godness with desire to live within the Godly laws--NOW.

IF THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THIS AS YOU READ IT--THEN YOU HAD BEST LOOK AGAIN AT WHERE YOU HAVE LEARNED YOUR SO-CALLED TRUTH. IF YOU ARE TOLD BY "MAN" TO CAST THIS TRUTH AWAY--THEN YOU HAD BEST LOOK EVEN CLOSER FOR "MAN" IS NOT IN CHARGE OF THIS TRANSITION, ESPECIALLY MAN OF EARTH-SHAN. I CAN'T TELL YOU OFTEN ENOUGH OR STRONGLY ENOUGH--I AM YOUR WAY OFF THAT ORBIT­ING ORB, AND, IF YOU ABIDE NOT WITHIN THE LAWS AS GIVEN DOWN IN THE CHRISTED TRUTH--YOU SHALL GET A VERY BIG HOT-FOOT FOR WE FORCE NOR COERCE NO-ONE. BY THE WAY--WE DON'T TOUCH EVEN A HAIR OF YOUR HEAD WITHOUT BEING ASKED! PONDER IT!

OTHER SUBJECTS

Only through knowing the problem can you make solutions. So, only through knowing what is wrong and who did it (your enemy), can you change anything lest you run in circles and cure nothing. Therefore, it is my task to continue to inform you of facts and Truth and then guide you to others on your place who present that Truth. MY MISSION IS FIRST TO BRING TRUTH, THEN BRING INTO SAFETY A REMNANT AND THEN TO REMOVE GOD'S CHILDREN FROM THE DANGEROUS PLACES OF EARTH--IN THAT ORDER. THE FIRST TWO ARE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME FOR, IN TRUTH, WE SHALL FIND AND HAVE THE REMNANT.

I will give example of intent of these ones who would control you in the name of Jesus. In this community, my scribe has been literally slain (but it is very hard to keep God's child dead). Guess who did the slaying? Guess who continued the threats when the first trials appeared to have failed? Denouncement, rejection and open threats of horror such as: "The Christian community will be coming to visit you and you will not be allowed to remain in this town," and "Every time any of you turn the key in your ignition you will be terrified for your cars will be bombed," and, "By the ending of July, George Green will be assassinated." George is a publisher who publishes many things so would this be considered even "fair"? More than that--IS ANY OF THE ABOVE OF GOD AND/OR CHRIST BEHAVIOR? WELL, THEY PROJECT THE SAME THING THEY DO ON T.B.N.--RAPTURE, SALVATION, BORN-AGAIN, ETC. How much do you contribute to ensure your "salvation"? Just a point to ponder and WHO sets himself up as your leader and instructor and from WHERE does he claim the truth of his speeches? Oops!

I urge ones to go and sit with all AND ANY, in the Church build­ings, and listen, listen, and listen. I ask them to study all of the books called Holy. I only remind you that war, killing, and the other ten commandments broken, are not of God in Truth. God does NOT NEED TO SEND YOU TO WAR! SO, IF GOD IS NOT SENDING YOU TO WAR--WHO MIGHT BE? AND, WHO JUST MIGHT BE THE IGNORANT AND MISLED TOOLS OF THAT BIG BAD BOY? Does it not sound a bit fishy to dump your evil trip on a person of perfection some 2000 years old? Isn't that some sort of mad cop-out from responsibility for your own chosen actions? So be it. You go by your rules and I shall go by mine and see who ends up in the halls of God. I have the transportation system and you have no way off the place.

Some of you are "learning" Ascension? To where? What will you do when you get there? How many people have you seen ascend? How many have you seen get even a quarter inch off the ground?

SPACESHIP LIFTOFF ACCORDING TO "NEW AGE"

Some of you actually have the first part right--space commands will lift you off--but the next part is the hard part--WHERE WILL YOU GO? You will NOT go into the places of God's pure balance. So, it would indicate that you will go to places of interim learning to con­tinue with your growth. Is this possible?--oh indeed. But, you aren't going to like those places any better than the one you are leaving because each is placed according to his KNOWING. Gray does not make black or white.

Since, however, I, Hatonn, command the fleet which brings God/Christ (Sananda), I do know how and who will be aboard which craft and destination. Claiming without intent of Truth to be in ser­vice to God of Light (by whatever name) means nothing--you shall be judged by your actions and not by your speeches.

You ones miss the point entirely in most instances. You effort to ac­cept EVERYTHING AND EVERY BEHAVIOR because you do not wish to be a bigot and labeled as such. You claim to be "allowing". I said "God" allows--I didn't say "you" can allow for what you allow in practice, is committed within your soul intent. You can allow, for instance, if you choose without ACTING IN BIGOTRY OR CON­SENT OF BELIEF. For instance, if you have taught your child properly, you can have the schools give him 200 boxes of condoms and he will put them aside and ACT in responsibility according to his KNOWING of proper behavior. If you have failed to teach the proper responsible actions--then it is your burden and you cannot dump it off on the perfection of Christ. If you don't know any bet­ter, so be it. IF YOU, HOWEVER, REFUSE TO LEARN BET­TER, then the piper will be paid. In this instance the sins of the fa­thers (and mothers) shall be rested upon the sons (and daughters) for all time to come.

It is the time of separation and choices. There will be some three migrations--will you be included? It is up to you and YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF SAME ARE ALREADY PAST! YOUR ANSWER IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS--MY MISSION IS MY BUSINESS AND I SERVE ONLY GOD OF DIVINE LIGHT-­SOURCE/CREATION. BY THE WAY, HATONN HAS A LOT OF PULL WITH THAT PARTICULAR PROJECTION SO IT MIGHT BE HANDY TO READ A BIT ABOUT ME.

YES, indeed, there are other scribes and speakers for ME. But most have fallen by the way and into the trap of "New Age" confusion. They were told how it would be and all the quarreling in the physical form will not change the journey one iota. Calling me evil will not make it so and if you balance that which I bring against that which they teach--I believe you will have your proper answer! You may never bring yourself to "admit" it--but you will have your TRUTH. If you break the laws of God and Creation--then you are not in full service unto God and your "opinions" will not change anything.

SAFE PLACEMENT

Be careful when you continue to ask, "Where is a safe place for me?" Look carefully at WHY you want a "safe place"! Dharma, for instance, doesn't even want a safe place for she knows that her work is only just begun. It is perceived that if your place "is not safe" that you transition and get out of your responsibility. So, look at WHY you want safety! If it is to save your "assets" (either one) your reason is unsound and you will likely not be "safe" anywhere! If you think yourself to escape the transition of the planet and conse­quences of the actions upon the planet--no place is any safer than another--all will experience the trauma for it is the cycle of chaos and trauma.

What, next, is your definition of "safe"? You cannot simply ask for a "safe place" without making clear "safe from what"? If you are within the shield of God, you are safe ANYWHERE--if not, you are safe NOWHERE.

Do not limit God. If you are within God, you are safe EV­ERYWHERE AND ALL-WHERE. Further, we have capability of bringing you aboard from ANYWHERE you happen to be. If you are within the shielding of God you go about your work and all will take proper sequence. If, however, you're only half-shielded, then I suggest you might have a bit of problem no matter where you are.

THE ADVERSARY PLANS TO HAVE ALL OF YOU AND ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY AND THEN, YOUR SOUL AS WELL. WILL YOU SELL YOUR SOUL? WILL YOU GIVE IT AWAY? WHAT WILL YOU CHARGE? SAFETY? A CRUST OF BREAD? SLAVERY? KNOW THAT ONCE YOU SUCCUMB--HE GETS IT ALL ANYWAY! SATAN AND HIS EVIL THRONG ARE LOCKED INTO THE PHYSICAL--HE CANNOT GET YOU OFF THE PLACE AND INTO SAFETY ANYWHERE. ONLY GOD CAN LIFT YOU OUT OF THE TRAP. I DO NOT COME FORTH TO TELL YOU THAT WHICH YOU PREFER TO HEAR--I AM COME TO TELL YOU HOW IT IS AND GIVE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER CHANGE WHILE THERE IS YET "TIME" TO ACCORD THAT CHANGE. IT IS UP TO YOU.

CAN'T I DO SOMETHING? DO I HAVE THE "POWER" TO DO THINGS? YES INDEED--BUT I SHALL NOT INTERFERE--IT IS YOUR JOURNEY AND IF I TAKE YOUR JOURNEY FROM YOU--I HAVE ONLY DEPRIVED YOU OF YOUR JOURNEY AND MADE MORE SLOPPY, MY OWN. I WILL NOT DO IT FOR YOU, HOWEVER, WHEN YOU PETITION IN THE SERVICE UNTO GOD--I HAVE PERMISSION TO SHOW YOU THE WAY AND MAKE KNOWN "HOW".

There is more which must be unfolded to uncover the adversary, from more on medical murder to judicial murder and annihilation of freedom to the workings and infection of the CIA and One World Government.

Then we can turn our attention wholly unto the glory of that which will come to you who see Truth. Until that day when you open your eyes and "see", your ears and "hear", the Truth of your destiny in glory cannot be witnessed nor perceived. The lessons must be con­fronted in your manifestation and your manifestation is in the physi­cal projection. When you can separate the two, then we can begin the "how to" get into the swing of perfection beyond the bindings of physical limitation. Do we have time? You don't have anything else! Only perception--and that is of time and space--both an illu­sion. You will separate the reality of existence from that illusion just referenced or you will remain binded to the illusion in helpless­ness. You must KNOW THINE ENEMY, KNOW THE TRUTH--AND YE CAN BE SET FREE. IF YOU REFUSE TO HEAR THAT WHICH IS SENT FOR YOUR NEEDS--YOU CANNOT REMOVE SELF FROM THE TRAP. I OFFER MY HAND IN LIGHT AND TRUTH--LOVE AND FRIENDSHIP. WHETHER OR NOT YOU RECEIVE OF IT IS YOUR CHOICE. SO BE IT FOR THAT IS THE WAY OF GOD. REACH OUT AND DARE TO LIVE! DEATH IS SUCH A BORING ADVENTURE! SALU.

May the Light of Truth shine around you so that you can be touched and claim of your heritage and birthright. You have not lost of it--the deceiver has only hidden it from your sight and told you that only through his way can you have that which you desire. Which do you struggle for--fulfillment of desire of flesh or soul? Peace or pleasure? Power over Men or "God Power"? A roll in the hay or an energy fulfillment beyond your imaginings? Limitation or infinite freedom? These choices are but yours to make and they are as indi­vidual as your fingerprints or soulprint. YOU are YOU and not any other can do of choosing for you.

Good day. By whatever name ye shall call me--I come to show the way and bring you home--you who will come with me. I do not travel the roads of hell, I fly and soar in the places of glory--and you are caught in-between the two. Salu.