HOME PAGE HEALTHLIBRARY CATALOG
We are frequently reminded that this is a difficult age foryouth to grow up in. And so it is. From infancy up our children are overstimulatedand under-nourished. From the first day of their extra-uterine life, they are subjectedto unnatural influences and conditions which mar their natural unfoldment. Dire povertyon the one hand and gross luxury on the other is an unhealthy condition for any nationto get into.
So long as the highest ideal which we hold up to our youngpeople is that of securing, by any possible means, social and economic advantagesover their fellow men and using those advantages to squeeze everything out of theirfellowmen that they can, we are going to have our troubles. A white-collar idealof work, a civilization of lazy, money-mad, thrill-fed, stimulant-driven people cannotbe expected to offer growing, expanding youth an ideal place to grow up in.
Most of our children grow up in the cities--yet the citiesare not for children. Cities are for adults and for commerce. Cities are the centersof the ceaseless adult struggle for place, power and pelf. In the city there is noplace for children to play; there is not enough sunshine; the children are divorcedfrom nature. The streets are dangerous; the mental atmosphere even more so.
The cities have divorced the child from nature. Contact withnature is essential to the normal unfolding of the child's mind. In the larger citieschildren spend their lives in apartment houses. Where they have advantage of theinfrequent city playgrounds, it is always canned play. Spontaneous, self-directedplay is an urgent need of our children.
"What sense is there in making a success in businessbut missing the one big thing that makes a success worth while?" This pertinentquestion was asked by Dr. Henry Neuman, of the Brooklyn Society for Ethical Culture,in a lecture before the annual spring conference of the Metropolitan District ofthe New York State Congress of Parents and Teachers, held in the Hotel Commodore,April 16, 1927.
Dr. Newman was discussing the relations of parents to theirchildren and to their homes. "A home," he said, "is a place whereyoung and old live together." He advised parents to do more than merely workfor their children. They should "live with them, play with them, read, laugh,discuss, and think and work with them." These things may all be done in thehome "where old and young live together."
It is in the home that parents and their children meet andmingle. If the home influences are good, it will require an awful lot of unfavorableinfluence outside the home to counteract these. The value of advice and suggestionis in direct proportion to the faith the receiver has in the giver. Children quitenaturally have great faith in their parents. It is quite natural for every childto regard his own father as the best, the greatest, the strongest and the wisestman in the world. Every father is a hero to his children. And these things are justas true of the relations of mothers to their children. No woman can take the placeof mother in the heart of the child. But these things are only true if the childknows his parents and associates with them and draws his mental and moral sustenancefrom them.
Dr. Newman says: "In the changing family life of today,the larger freedom of the young need not lead to moral disaster if the young aretrained to manage their freedom wisely. Persuasion, example and advice will go furtherthan whippings and scoldings when parents have learned to keep their children's confidencein them."
Freedom lead to moral disaster! Stiffle the thought! Therecan't be any morality without freedom. An action loses every bit of its moral valuewhen it becomes an act of compulsion. If we are coerced into doing right we are notmoral. Only that is moral which is done of one's own choice and volition.
Punishment cannot make children good. It may make slavesand puppets--but not moral beings. There are example, persuasion, advice; and thegreatest of these is example. Children pattern after their parents as naturally andspontaneously as they eat and sleep. This is the reason the right kind of home influencesare so important. The child does what he sees his parents do and says what he hearshis parents say. The parent is the natural teacher of the child. An ounce of parentis worth a pound of teacher or preacher. See that you are a real parent to your child,and not merely a boarder at the same house with him.
The Rev. Walter H. Stowe, rector of St. Mary's Church inDover, warns the home, school and church about passing the buck. He charges thatthese three institutions each pass the buck to the other, in matters relating tochild training and youthful delinquency.
He strikes the vital spot when he declares the home shouldbe more than a lodging house for the family. He scores another center shot when hedeclares the school should not serve as an overparent; that the church should notserve as a policeman. Our present educational system cannot be defended. It is topheavy. Its foundations are sometimes rotten. It is often meaningless and purposeless.Education should prepare one for the battles of life. It does not always do this.It is supposed to teach students to think. It frequently succeeds in teaching themto repeat the textbooks. Education should have some relation to life as it is beinglived today. It devotes too much time to the past--not enough to the present.
We stumbled into our educational system blindly. We havenot been able to extricate ourselves from its restrictions. Yet the average parenthas great faith in education. He desires that his children go through the stereotypingprocess. He is anxious to have some place to send his child. He wants to get thechild off his hands. He does not want to shoulder the responsibility of rearing thechild. Some women send their children to boarding schools and adopt a pug dog. Suchwomen are not mothers. They are slackers, moral cowards.
The state claims the child. It takes the child at an earlyage. The parent has no choice. The child must go to school and learn all the vices,or the parent is punished. Parents are responsible for this. The state could nothave confiscated their children had the parents not been all too willing. Childreninterfere with the pleasures of parents. They create responsibilities. They are gladthat the state demands to be allowed to serve as parents.
Complaints have come from the police at Coney Island thatmany mothers temporarly abandon their children while having a "good time"at the beaches. It is stated that mothers have been seen drinking and dancing whiletheir children were crying their eyes out, believing they were lost. Nearly all theleaders in the feminst movement demand state care of children, this care to commencebefore birth and extend to maturity. Feminists especially do not want to be botheredwith children. The children interfere with the glittering careers they seek. Children,they say, should be brought up by trained nurses plus the cow. The church cannotand should not usurp the duties of parents. The duty of training a child falls naturallyupon the parents. Moral instruction particularly should be given by the parent. Notalone by precept, BUT BY EXAMPLE. Character building in the young belongs to theparent. The chief trouble with the youth of today is their slacker parents. Parentspass the buck to the institutions. And institutions cannot perform the work of parents.
Two young ladies sat in a restaurant having lunch. They talkedof friends and families. We learned from their conversation that they were both single.From their appearance and from remarks they made we judge them to be about 23 and26 years of age. They work in an office in the city. The conversation turned to theyoung baby of a friend of theirs. They discussed its name. Then the oldest girl remarked:"I am going to name my baby Evelyn." The younger one remarked "I amgoing to name my baby Doloris." Now, there are more important things to givea baby than names. The right kind of a baby can make a name for itself. But herewere two prospective mothers--or at least they think they will some day be mothers--whowere only thinking of names for their future babies, providing (and they probablyhaven't considered this) that they are to become mothers.
They were both extremely thin--twenty or more pounds underweight. They carried their complexions in their handbags and put on a new one afterthey had finished eating. Their lips were of a deep red hue--but it was rouge. Therewas redness of their cheeks which feebly imitated but over-emphasized the pink cheeksof health--but it was rouge. At so young an age their teeth were defective. One ofthem had at least one tooth with a gold filling. Their "eats" could notbe called food-- it consisted of egg on toast and a cup of coffee. The toast, twolayers of it, was of white bread. Into the coffee, one of them put four teaspoonsfulof white sugar, and the other two. One of them smoked two cigarettes during theirshort stay at the table. The other felt that she had had enough until later in theday.
We are beginning to learn something of the influence of poornutrition on the germ plasm. We are learning of the influence of food, sunshine,poisons, etc. Only a properly fed mother can have sound children . She must alsohave sunshine. She must not be poisoned. We have learned that so-called hereditarysyphilis is mercurial or arsenical or other poison derived from the mother. It istime the future mothers and fathers, that are now growing up, were informed of theevils they are bringing upon their children by their own reckless follies and madpursuit of the goddess of false pleasure.
An infant needs more than a name that the mother likes. Givethe child a sound body, and he'll bless you for it to the end of his life.
Some people smother their children with indulgent attention.They spray them with meaningless education. They raise them in crowded apartmentsand feed their growing bodies on denatured foods. They over-stimulate them in a hundreddifferent ways. They do not give them an opportunity for normal development. Thenthey blame the children when they become bob-haired bandits, or youthful gunmen,or boy murderers, or present other neurotic manifestations. We have to build prisonsand insane asylums to house them later. We have to maintain police forces and courtsto corral and convict them. We sometimes have (?) to electrocute them.
Many parents neglect the moral development of their children.They bring them up in a social whirlpool. They fail to give them the most vital factsof life. They grow up amid the strife and greed of business ethics that hark backto the jungles. They are often taught that they should avoid hard work. They lookfor soft jobs at big pay. They are sometimes supplied with a constant round of thrillsand excitement. And the parents who are often to blame, hold their children responsiblefor the inevitable results of their own ignorance and folly.
Children are not naturally evil. All life is good. All normalmanifestations of life are good. Under natural conditions life develops naturally.Body and mind unfold in an orderly and progressive manner. Mentally, physically,morally and socially, the child tends naturally toward the ideal. Only suppressedand perverted development is productive of evil.
Give children a chance and they will produce splendid typesof manhood and womanhood. Take them out of the crowded, filthy slums. Give childrena place to play. Give them fresh air and sunshine. Feed them wholesome food. Providethem with an opportunity to exercise their creative ingenuity and imagination. Givethem a wholesome environment. Stop poisoning their bodies with drugs and serums.These provisions will give us strong, heartily virile men and women. These provisionswill ultimately empty our prisons and asylums. They will give us workers insteadof shirkers. These children will then grow up well-poised instead of weakly neurotics.A really cultured and intelligent people will always create the good and beautifuland not the ugly and immoral.
This is an age when children are trained instead of beingpermitted to develop. Like circus animals, they are trained to go through certainmotions and say certain things without understanding them. The idea is general thatthe form is enough--the spirit back of the form is unimportant. Voluntary or spontaneousactivities are not encouraged.
Ellen Key tells of a little boy who had been rude to hisbrother and whose mother placed him on a chair to repent of his actions. After atime she inquired if he was sorry. "Yes," he answered with great emphasis.The mother, however, detected a mutinous sparkle in his eyes and asked, "Sorryfor what?" "Sorry that I did not call him a liar, besides," came thequick reply. His mother had made the mistake of forcing him to repent. She demandedan expression of sorrow. She was transforming her son into a hypocrite and an artfulliar.
Children are frequently compelled to apologize for somethingthey have done. They go through the motion to avoid difficulty. They make an apologythey do not feel. They are thus made into smooth hypocrites. When a child becomestruly sorry for something he has done, he shows his sorrow in his own way. Spontaneouspenitence of this kind is full of meaning. There is no pretense about it. There is,at its base, a real desire for pardon and a desire to make amends.
Artificial or pretended emotions are both worthless and injurious.Parents should refrain from forcing their children to pretend sorrow and emotionsthey do not feel. We have learned that morality cannot be legislated into people.Do we imagine this applies only to grown-ups? Do we imagine we can force moralityinto children? The effort makes hypocrites out of grown-ups. It can but do the samefor children.
An expression of "sorry" should be felt and meant,not merely made. Children should not be made into diplomatic hypocrites. A forcedapology is no real apology. A forced "I'm sorry" is no expression of realsorrow. It is an expression of fear or of expediency. It is not sincere. Childrenhave the same right to be sorry or not to be sorry that adults have. They have thesame right to express their sorrow in their own way as adults have. Their moralsshould not be put upon them like a coat. Give them an opportunity to express theirown inner natures.
The well known myth about George Washington cutting downthe cherry three with his hatchet, was once being told to a little boy. That partof the story was reached where young George escaped a spanking by the remark: "Father,I cannot tell a lie. I cut it down with my hatchet." The little boy quicklyremarked:--"It is no trouble telling the truth when one has such a kind father."
That remark is full of meaning. Every parent should mentallydigest and assimilate it. Children lie through fear of punishment. A father oncetold his young son that if he would always tell him the truth about his activitieshe would never whip him. But, he added, if you lie to me and I find it out, I willwhip you all the harder. The boy took the father at his word. He was always honestand truthful. Instead of cuffings and beatings, the father gave the boy advice andinstruction.
Then, one day the father lost his head, when the boy confessedto some mischief. He gave the boy a severe whipping. This ended forever the beautifulrelationship between the father and son. The boy no longer trusted him. He fearedhim ever after. He feared to tell him the truth. He feared he would receive anotherbeating. He learned to lie as cleverly as other boys. He found that if he was cleverenough he could avoid another whipping.
He grew to manhood and became a father himself. Rememberinghis own experience, he never gave his son a whipping. He treated his son with kindnessand sympathy. He guided and instructed him. He never drove him like slaves are driven.This beautiful relationship between father and son was never broken until death carriedthe father away. The son was always honest and truthful with his father. He honoredand trusted his father and respected his advice and counsel.
Ellen Key asks: "How many untrue confessions have beenforced by fear of blows; how much daring passion for action, spirit of adventure,play of fancy, and stimulus to discovery has been repressed by this same fear? Evenwhere blows do not cause lying, they always hinder absolute straightforwardness andthe downright personal courage to show oneself as one is. As long as the word 'blow'is used at all in a home, no perfect honor will be found in children."
A little boy was telling his mother of some of his troublesat school. He had been into some boyish mischief. Two or three other boys had alsobeen into the same mischief. The teacher asked who was guilty. The little boy, abovereferred to, admitted his guilt. He was punished. The other boys remained silent.They went unpunished.
--"You see, son, it does not always pay to be honest.Had you been dishonest you would have escaped punishment, as did the other boys."One is forced to wonder what the results of such training will be in this boy. Theschool places a premium on dishonesty. His mother encourages him to be honest onlywhen to be so is immediately advantageous. Such teachings would soon undermine andwreck society. Human relations can go on only so long as one man may trust another.If we are to tell the truth only where nothing else will fit, business and socialrelations will end.
A teacher went out of the schoolroom. During his absencethree of the boys in the room started a loud noise. They used one hand as a horn,their desk as a drum and the fist of the other hand as a drum stick. Bedlam reignedin the schoolroom. The teacher returned and heard the noise as he approached. Whenhe opened the door everything was as quite as a mouse. He asked who made the noise.One boy frankly acknowledged his part in the celebration.
The other two boys remained quiet. The boy who told the truthwas suspended from school. The other two remained in school. The teacher found later,through other sources, who the other two boys were, but as the incident was passed,did not punish them. He penalized truthfulness. He placed a premium upon dishonesty.Such procedings encourage dishonesty and deceit in children.
Teachers and parents should stop and think what they aredoing, perhaps unintentionally, to encourage the development of unwanted charactersin children. Surely the development of the character of a child is worthy of as muchand as careful thought as the development of a new variety of peonies or a new colorof roses. Children will choose the right as naturally and spontaneously as waterflows down hill, if they are not encouraged to choose otherwise. We are too oftenresponsible for ugly characteristics in our children, because we work in a haphazardand thoughtless manner. There is nothing in this world that requires, or that shouldreceive more intelligent thought and patient understanding than the developing child.
"PLAGUING" CHILDREN: Dr. Page says: "The manwho would not permit himself, nor anyone else, to 'plague' his colt or young horselest it make him vicious, will devote considerable time to harrassing his infantor three-year-old child to his own and lookers-on infinite amusement, and the destructionof the child's good temper. I have seen a group of parents, aunts, uncles, and cousins,amusing themselves at the anger and vexation displayed by a little, eighteen-months-oldgirl, whose puzzle had been tampered with so that she could not pull it apart asshe had been accustomed to do. The trap was set again and again by the elders, anyoneof whom would have been incensed at the suggestion that the action was even of questionableadvantage in its influence upon the baby's character and temper."
The average adult is such a superinflated egotist that heresents advice, however well intentioned the giver may be. If he gets fun out ofthe anger, vexation and temper of his or some other person's child, who dares tosuggest to his wisdom that he is an ass and is hurting the child. In a future andhigher civilization adults who "plague" children will be punished in someappropriate manner.
THE VIRTUE OF SELF-ESTEEM
"If a man," wrote the philosopher, Epictetus, "couldworthily realize this opinion, that we are all in a special sense the children ofGod, and that God is the Father both of men and gods, I imagine he would think nothingmean or vulgar about himself."
The man who thinks life is noble will live nobly. He whoregards life as ignoble will not strive upward. The worthlessness of terrestriallife, the central dogma of Buddhism, early found its way into the doctrines of theChristian Church. For ages this doctrine of total depravity--that we are born insin and shaped in iniquity--ruled the European mind. Men looked upon themselves agroveling worms of the dust. They became lower than worms. They regarded their bodieswith contempt. The human body was looked upon as a vile, vulgar and unclean thing.It was allowed to become vulgar and unclean.
This fatal doctrine caused the human race to sink to thelowest depths of depravity. How much better the idea that man is always and everywherethe child of divine love and solicitude?
"You are wrong," asserted Seneca, "if youthink our vices are born with us; they are aftergrowths--Nature accomodates us tono vice, but brings us forth pure and free." Epictetus thought we are by natureof noble origin and that we are naturally constituted to do good. We are childrenof love--not of wrath. This view lends a dignity and importance to human life andconduct. It causes a man to respect himself and to hold his head up. Men and womenlearn to see the sanctity of life and to reverence its normal manifestations.
How different in its-tendency, is the doctrine of the innatenobility of man, to that of the buddhist's doctrine, of the worthlessness of terrestriallife. The first is uplifting--the second is debasing. The one builds a proud reliancein human nature and sustains a strong belief in its high capacity for virtue. Thisbelief and reliance serve as powerful incentives to good. They also serve as strongsafeguards against great moral debasement. The habit of mentally dwelling on thehigher and better sides of life and of keeping before the mind the possibility ofhigher attainments must have a more uplifting influence than that of always harpingon the sinfulness of man.
The central doctrine of the theology of the past was theutter worthlessness of terrestrial life. Man's chief duty was to prepare for a postmortemexistence beyond the clouds. Man was said to be "born of evil." Unhappinesswas thought to be his lot in life. The world was regarded as a "vale of tears."Man was a "lowly worm of the dust." Having decided that these ideas representedeternal verities, the theology of that day was shaped to insure the evil, unhappiness,tears and worminess that were man's.
Can there be any wonder we call that time the DARK AGES?They were indeed dark. Misery and unhappiness were everywhere. Poverty and squalorabounded. Ignorance and filth went with these. Fears and superstitions made lifeburdensome. Life was short. Infant mortality was frightful. Epidemics scourged thepeople. When life is regarded as worthless and treated as such, it becomes worthless.When the human body is looked upon with contempt and treated with abuse it deterioratesand becomes diseased.
It matters not whether the body is abused in the interestof the spirit or the mind Whether it is abused for the sake of a life beyond or forthe pursuit of triangular fiction now; its abuse must always be paid for.
ENCOURAGE YOUR CHILD TO REASON
"Don't talk back to me!" Thus scolded in irateand ignorant mother to her young son. The boy was attemping to make her understandhis view of the matter. Her words to the boy simply said to him: "I don't wantto hear your side." Many parents tyrannize over their children in this manner.The superior strength or official authority of the older person is used to shut off,in advance, all argument from the child. He is forced to accept in silence what heconceives to be a false statement of a case.
The child feels that he is being unjustly treated. He feelsthat he is entitled to a hearing. When he does not receive this, a spirit of resentmentand rebellion is kindled in his mind. His whole disposition and temper is affectedby it. To demand a mechanical and unreasoned obedience from a child, where a reasoncan be given, is little short of a crime against the child. Those who hold that childrenshould not be reasoned with, but should be made to obey orders without question orhesitation would make good slave drivers but poor parents and educators.
Man is a reasoning being. He is capable of understandingthe reason and the necessity for his action. He is intended to control and directhis own conduct. His own judgment is intended for exercise and to enable man to direct,himself. There is a principle of freedom that is more fundamental than the autonomyof small nations, and this is the autonomy of individuals. The highest aim of education,instruction and training, whether at home or in school, should be to help the childto attain rational self-control and righteous self-direction.
Such an aim cannot be realized by demanding of children unquestioningobedience. Give the child a reason why he should not pursue a given line of conduct.If he is too young to comprehend the reason, make him understand that he cannot understandnow but will later. We want men and women whose conduct is constantly determinedby intelligence and based upon moral principles. To produce such men and women shouldbe the purpose of the training of home and school. Absolutism should be forever banishedfrom the home and school. Rejoice that your child wants to know the why of his actions.Why is one line of conduct superior to another? Your child is entitled to know theanswer to this question. Blind, unreasoning obedience is the mark of slaves, notof free men and women. Children should not be treated as slaves nor prepared forslavery.
Children are suffering from too much protection. There istoo much paternalism in our homes and government. People are too prone to ask thestate to do for them things they can do for themselves. This is wrong. It shouldbe an axiom of sound government that the parents should do for children only thosethings they cannot do for themselves. Children should be allowed to use their ownbrains. They should be placed upon their own responsibilities. They should be calledupon to exercise their own powers. They should not be taught to depend upon parentsor the state or some organization to shield them from evils from which they can shieldthemselves.
It is the duty of every individual to look out for his owninterests. If he fails to do so, he usually pays a heavy penalty for his negligence.Nature places us on our own feet and bids us walk. She does not permit us to rideupon the shoulders of others. If we use our own powers, this strengthens them. Ifthe state exercises our functions for us, our powers are weakened thereby.
Vicarious salvation, like vicarious thinking and exerciseby proxy, is injurious. Protection weakens. It builds weaklings, cowards, dependents.Too much protection is like compulsion. Compulsion that forces the will of another,or the ideas, ideals and dogmas of another, or of a group, upon the individual deprivesthat individual of the right to live his own life, think his own thoughts and formhis own ideals. Compulsion drives the individual like oxen and does not permit himto develop and expand. All forms of compulsion are evil. All protection given tothe child by the parent that the child can give to himself is evil. Children shouldlearn to defend and protect themselves.
Any one can take paint and daub a canvas. It requires a painstakingartist to produce a work of art. Mind and skill must be mixed with the paint. Anybook can build a chicken-coop. It requires a skilled, painstaking mechanic to builda cabinet. Brass and glass may be melted together to produce slag by any half-wit.Skill and intelligence are required to convert these into a microscope. If you donot put your mind into your work, you can never do good work. If you do not takecare to do the work right, it will not be done right.
It is the same with life. We get out of life all that weput into it. "As ye give so shall ye receive," as the Master declared.If we are to live in the highest, we must live intelligently. We should comprehendthe sacredness of life and cease to hold its creative functions in contempt. Theinception of life should not be regarded with contempt or indifference. Parents shouldnot permit their children to grow up in ignorance of life and sex. The old policyof lettting children "find out for themselves" is ruinous.
It is not "how long" but "how well" welive that counts. To live well requires knowledge and intelligence. Any boob canstumble along through life in a haphazard manner. Even a fool can drift with thetide or sink into the gutter. An ignoramus can wreck his life. This is no acomplishment.This requires neither effort, skill nor intelligence.
No training or enlightenment is required to daub the canvasof life with vari-colored paints. Training for life should be the highest form ofeducation. It should be the first thought in the minds of parents and educators.Too often, indeed, it is their last thought. How often do they fail to think of thishighest of the higher educations, until it is too late.
After life has been wrecked on the shoals of ignorance andmisunderstanding, parents and educators sometimes awaken to the realization thatwhat now passes for education is a miserable distortion of what it should be. Themost vital facts of life are concealed and distorted. The most important forces ofbeing are treated as though they have no existence. Each generation is forced torepeat the mistakes of the past, because it is left in ignorance of the vital factsand forces of life. When are we going to really begin to educate our children?
Between the ages of fifteen to twenty-one is a critical periodin the life of girls, as well as young men. It has been found that a large majorityof the girls who go wrong take the first step in wrong doing during this period.It is a period of transition. She is passing from girlhood to womanhood. New forcesare becoming active. New powers and desires manifest. It is a dangerous period. Itis dangerous because of lack of experience. Temptations arise which she has nevermet before. The fall of most girls, who tread the pathway of vice, is due to seduction.Pitfalls surround her on every hand during this period and mistakes are often made.It is a dangerous period, due to ignorance. Ignorance of sex is a poor protectionagainst temptation. Halftruths or distorted knowledge, gained from questionable sources,are often worse than no knowledge at all. To be fully informed is to be forearmed.
Many still object to teaching children the truths of sex.But we do not have to settle the question: Shall they be taught? That question issettled. The knowledge will be given them. The only question we must decide is whoshall teach them. Shall parents tell their children the truth in all reverence; orshall they be permitted to get vulgar half-truths, from their acquiantances, wherea sacred subject is tinged with vulgar significance?
This is a dangerous period due to lack of self-control. Girlsat these ages have not learned to control themselves. They have not learned the meaningof their new emotions and desires. Often, in their ignorance, they cultivate thesefor their own sakes. Such emotions and desires are often easily aroused. Erotic novels,plays, pictures, thoughts and conversations are effective means of arousing them.But most fruitful of all means is physical contact or association with persons ofthe opposite sex. This method is now in general use. Petting parties are indulgedin for no other reason. They arouse emotions, awaken desire. New sensations are experienced.This is what makes petting a dangerous pastime.
Girls are given more liberty today than ever. They shouldbe fully armed with knowledge. Today we blindfold them and head them towards thecliff. Our girls are above temptation. They are innocent and can do no wrong. Thisis our attitude. But it is usually the innocent girl that goes wrong. And the descentfrom virtue into vice is gradual. One step leads easily to another. Petting partieswill break down a girl's natural reserve. They may arouse emotions that get beyondcontrol. At any rate, ignorance is never a safeguard. These dangers should be avoided,by supplying the vital facts of life to every maturing mind.
Knowledge is power. Both girls and boys should be thoroughlyarmed with this protective force.
Modern life is a great source of danger to the adolescentboy or girl. Adolescence is the period of mental and physical unfoldment. Boys becomemen. Girls become women. New mental and emotional powers are unfolded. New functionsbecome active Boys and girls find themselves in a new world. An ardent emotionallife develops. The social qualities of the child unfold and blossom out. The oldlandmarks of boyhood and girlhood disappear. They no longer serve. A new attitudetowards life appears. Life takes on now force, new meaning. The desire to get "behindthe scenes" and learn the how and why of things, springs into existence. Newcompanions are sought. New forms of amusement and indulgences are desired and found.New likes and dislikes develop. Life at this time is potent with great possibilities.It is reaching upwards towards its highest goal. Life is unfolding itself. The budis opening into a beautiful blossom. Nature is producing her masterpiece. All thisis natural and as it should be.
In a state of nature the natural tendency of life towardsthe highest and best would carry the adolescent safely into manhood and womanhoodof the highest type. But we do not live in a state of nature. The groping boys andgirls of today are thrown into an environment that, is wholly out of harmony withtheir inner natures. Their instincts relate them to a state of simple nature--theirenvironment is largely artificial and highly complex. With their changing tastesand bewildered instincts they often form habits that lead to their undoing. Oftenthey develop a passionate fondness for stimulants and narcotics. Due to increasednervous tension and an innate fondness for new and novel experiences, which naturallydevelop at this period, the adolescent experiments with life. In a state of simplenature no danger would accompany this. The normal instincts of life would guide theadolescent safely manward and womanward; and what psychologists wrongly term "troublesomevital energy" and "troublesome tendencies" would be seen to be beautifuland good. The trouble lies not in the normal energies and tendencies of adolescence,but in the vicious artificial environment in which the unfolding man or woman isforced to grow up. Some day our educational system will be fitted to the needs ofthe child and not to those of the adult, as now.
"Love and marriage can't possibly be clean when childhoodis dirty." Thus declares Prof. Schmalhausen in HUMANIZING EDUCATION. He says:"The dirty and distorted notions about life and love," "which littlechildren pick up in gangs on street corners, in bed, by hearsay, on the school premises,in adult society, in all the twilight alleys of gossip and scandal, are the chameleon'damaged goods' later refurnished for show and barter at the Bargain Counters ofLife, Love and Marrlage."
Children are a constant source of wonderment and awe. Thewonder is that they ever do as well as they do. They come into a world that is reekingwith moral filth and mental nastiness. There is an adult "conspiracy of silence,"which denies them the protective truth and helpful knowledge with which they shouldbe armed. They are forced to gather up bits of information--misinformation and half-truths--fromany source they may be able to get it. The frank curiosity of childhood is regardedas indecent. Its constant reaching out for more knowledge is considered an evidenceof depravity. Honest questions are answered with myths, fairly tales, lies. Whatwonder there are so many shipwrecked children! The only wonder is that there arenot many times more.
Armed with ignorance, and what is worse, misinformation,they are left to fight life's battles. Bewildered, filled with doubts and fears,not knowing where to turn, nor whom to go to for advice, they flounder and staggeralong. From all sides and from a thousand sources there pours in upon them the everincreasing stream of filth and nastiness. That any of them ever survive it, forevergives the lie to the hideous doctrine of total depravity.
Life to such children is a nightmare--a terror. It is a constantround of mistakes and regrets. They grow up and get married. And what marriages!"Love and marriage can't possibly be clean when childhood is dirty." Societyis an Augean stable full of lewd filth. Only by turning the waters of truth fromthe river of knowledge into it, can society be purged of its filth and childhoodbe given a fair chance and an even break. A moral Hercules, who can arouse this nationto a realization that its prudery, pruriency and hypocrisy are dragging its childrendown to ruin, is the crying need of the times. The children are demanding the truth.They insist on having the knowledge they have hitherto been denied. Why are we notco-operating with them in getting it?
PLAY AND WORK
"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy," runsthe old adage. Play is the life of the child. Its instincts are to play almost incessantly.Life is growth. Play is essential to normal growth--of body and brain; of moral andsocial instincts. Youth requires a stabilizing safety valve and this is suppliedby play. Wholesome play provides a safe channel for the impulses of childhood andyouth.
Jane Adams assures us that "amusement is stronger thanvice and that it alone can stifle the lust for vice." The energies and impulsesof life demand expression. If they are not expressed through wholesome channels theywill be expressed through unwholesome ones. Vice and crime among the young presenta great problem. It must be solved. Our young people must be saved from a life ofvice and come. They must be induced to lead wholesome lives. Methods of the pasthave failed. Those of the present are failing. We need to overhaul our training andeducational methods.
There has never been a really constructive effort to makewholesome living attractive. We have always tried to scare young people into doingright. Or else we have attempted to bribe them. It is natural for normal beings todo right. They only need the opportunity. Wholesome amusements will do more to preventvice than all the sermons ever preached. Youthful activities and instincts shouldnot be suppressed. Give them an opportunity for normal expression. Give the childrenparks and playgrounds. Encourage them to play. Train them in atheletics. This willdevelop strong, healthy bodies, alert, active minds, a spirit of fair play and awholesome attitude towards life.
The energies and instincts of youth must express themselves.They must flow onward to the sea of life. If not suppressed or thwarted, they flowmajestically along, turning neither to vice nor to crime. If suppressed they breakout here and there in misdeeds and injure society.
Life will express itself. If not one way, then another. Itis the duty of parents and educators to see that children are allowed to expressthemselves normally. Turn their energies into wholesome channels. Do not seek tosuppress them. Wholesome amusement is stronger than vice. It is also more healthfulthan vice. Give the children their play as regularly as their milk or their baths.Let them laugh and sing and play.
Educators generally consider the segregation of industry,thus taking from children their natural copies, as from the educational view point,a grave evil. Those of us now living are too prone to forget that the home was theoriginal work shop. The segregation of industry and its separation from the homeis a very modern innovation. The natural environment of the child, until within veryrecent times, included the occupations of adults. Children learned from the exampleof their elders. They learned by watching and imitating, by helping. Every girl likedto play at "helping mother." Every boy played "helping father."In their play they imitated the occupations and activities of adult life. Life wasa school and play the means of securing an education. Play related to the futurelife of the child.
The Indian boy played at making bows and arrows. He playedat hunting. He played at war. When he reached a definite age he went with his fatherto be schooled in the "work of a man." But the work was easily learned,for he had already performed it hundreds of times in play. Play is the natural methodof education. By it nature trains the mind and the body. It trains the social faculties,and teaches men to adjust themselves to each other and to varying conditions. Byplay, children learn the rules of the game of life. Through play they learn to workand learn the work they like best. Through play, as one educator says, the childsalts away in his spinal marrow his social inheritance and makes it a part of himself.
Modern life has divorced the child from the parental workshop.Play tends to become a series of meaningless games of amusement. The educationalvalue is partly lacking. The child does not see his father work. Often the girl doesnot see her mother work. This separation of the child from an essential element inhis environment has imposed a great strain upon our educational system--a strainthat it is not, at present, fitted to bear. The play element in education is toolittle considered in our public schools. Indeed, in great cities, play has been largelyeliminated. A radical change is essential.
"The way to keep boys good is to keep them busy."This expresses a half truth. Boys are always busy--if not at "good" thenat mischief. They will be busy, REGARDLESS. The way to keep boys good is to givethem an opportunity to remain so. Life cannot repudiate itself--it must go rightif allowed to. There are several things boys love to do. They love to play. Theywill play at wholesome games if allowed to--they play at the unwholesome games ifdenied the others. The point is, they will play, REGARDLESS. They love to work. Ifthere is one thing a boy loves to do more than he loves to play, it is work. He likesto do things, to build things. Probably he does not like to do the things his parentsor teachers want him to do. This is one of the greatest evils of our present daymiscalled educational system. Instead of permitting the child to unfold in a normalmanner, it seeks to force him into a prearranged pattern. Instead of allowing himto express himself in those normal channels, through which his inner nature seeksexpression, it attempts to force him to express what some one else desires expressed,through channels some one else wants them expressed through.
The child of "spirit" quite naturally rebels. Heis perfectly right in rebelling. It is usually his misfortune, however, that whenhe rebels against this tyrannizing over him by the training machine, his parentsand teachers drive him into being a "bad boy." It is not because the boyis inherently evil, but because ignorance attempts to direct life instead of permittinglife to direct itself, that such a boy becomes bad.
Boys love to explore. They like to find out for themselves.They explore their environment and, as the environment widens, their exploring workwidens. Nothing affords them a better means of development. They love to test theirstrength--not merely against each other but against everything and every one theycontact. This is mother nature's way of teaching them discipline. What they cannotovercome, they learn to let alone. They pit their powers against the powers aroundthem and the outcome is discipline.
All that we have said above about boys applies with equalforce and equal truth to girls. Give children an opportunity to express themselvesnormally and they will do so. But they will express themselves as surely as the watersof the river will flow down to the sea. Dam up the river and its waters will creepout over its banks and lay waste to farm and fireside. Suppress the normal expressionof child-life and it will break out and lay waste to society. The point is, child-lifewill express itself, REGARDLESS.
THE EVILS OF TOYS
Toys discourage the child in the normal exercise of its creativeimagination. They teach a child to be wasteful. They teach the child to treat hispossessions with indifference, carelessnes and even with contempt.
The best toys a child can use are those he makes with hisown hands. The toys so freely used today supplant the desire to create with the desireto buy. Children easily learn covetousness by seeing toy windows, toy shops and thetoys of their playmates. Toys are painted in bright colors to catch the eyes of children.Toys are made to be active to attract the attention of children. Every means of salesmanshipis employed to sell toys. Every advantage is taken of child psychology in the effortsto load the child's arms with worthless toys--toys that last but a day and are forgotten.
Many factors in modern child life are unnatural and detrimentalto child development. We do too much for the children. We teach them depenence. Theyshould learn independence. They should be self-reliant. They should be permittedto depend on their own ingenuity. Let them build and create for themselves.
The city child is greatly handicapped in this respect. Hehas no playhouse, no workshop, no playground. There are no sticks and stones, nopieces of colored glass, broken crockery, bits of steel and iron for him to experimentwith. Young ducks raised on hard floors, and never allowed in the water, never learnto swim. Their instinct for swimming is suppressed and, finally, lost altogether.Young children reared in city apartments never learn to create. Their creative instinctsare suppresed. They need more of nature and less of books--more opportunity to createand less toys.
Every Christmas, the toy buying season, many children areoverloaded with cheap toys. Fortunately, the toys don't last long. The children willsmash them. Don't give your children toys. Don't teach them wastefulness and spendthriftiness.We often ruin our children and then blame the children. Prisons and electric chairsare the penalties they face when they grow up, and the blame should often be shoulderedby the parents.
BABY TALK is talked to babies only by adults with baby minds.Never talk down to your children; talk up to them at all times. Babytalk retards their progress in talking, and in learning to correctly pronounce andenunciate words. However cute it may sound to hear their first imperfect utterances,never encourage them in these imperfect utterances. Don't dwarf their speech in thisway.
I do not believe in drilling a child in an effort to forcecorrect expression, but if the child must be drilled, it is better to drillit in correct expression than in the incorrect expressions that constitute baby-talk.I have seen adult sisters who never got over their baby talk and who spoke to eachother and to their mother in the crude imperfect way of a prattling child. This isa mental handicap I urge you not to place upon your child.
Let the child hear chiefly good language, observe good languageand, thereby, cultivate good language. Give him a chance to develop rightly fromthe start and you and the school will not have to work so hard later to build himall over again--a work you are likely to fail in.
Education is the from within outward development of the facultiesand talents of the individual. Education is life. Education begins at birth and endsat the grave. It is peculiarly and wholly individual. This is not the present dayconception of education. We are too prone to regard training as education.A trainer may train a seal to perform stunts in the circus. Or, he may train childrento perform stunts in the schoolroom. In either case, the product is an automaton.We think education begins in the kindergarten. It almost ends there. In the kindergartentraining commences. We polish off our "education" in the university. Afterthis, if we desire proficiency in any of the arts, sciences or professions; we takespecial courses and post-graduate courses. This takes twenty-five or more years.During this time we are being ground and polished and trained. Our individualityis smothered or suppressed. We have been made into carbon copies of the conventionalpattern. We talk and think and act as we have been trained to talk and think andact.
Mental automatons, intellectual nonentities, stereotypedminds --these are the natural products of such miscalled education. The twentiethcentury is suffering from mental bankruptcy. Its intellect has been smothered undera flood of training. Mass training produces mass thinking. Standardized trainingproduces a standardized mind. Individuality in submerged and destroyed. All trueeducation is self-education. All real education is founded on truth. Too much ofmodern training is based on fallacies ancient forms and rituals, traditions of thefathers, conventions and commercialism.
An educated man is not he who knows the most about Alexander'sconquests or of Cleopatra's immoralities. The truly educated man is he who knowshow to live in the highest and fullest sense, who knows how to make himself usefuland who is able to control himself for good. The world is as full of trained menas the circus is of trained animals. But truly educated men are rare indeed. We havea wealth of engineers, mathematicians and mechanics, but few originators. Much potentialgreatness is smothered and lost forever by the training processes now in vogue. Mostof the world's great men are those who have escaped from the spell cast over themind by the training process. They have managed to squirm out of the mental strait-jacketinto which the school put them.
We are accustomed to thinking of education as something apartfrom life. Something separate and distinct from living. It is detached from life.We think of education as a preparation for life. This conception of education isfundamentally wrong. It is pernicious.
Experience is the greatest educational factor in life. Experienceis part and parcel of life. It cannot be separated from life. Every experience preparesone for a broader, fuller life. Life should be a continuous striving for improvement,achievement, beauty. True experiences build character, strength, beauty. They spurone on to higher things. Where a high ideal of beauty is found there is a peoplethat is climbing upward.
By beauty is meant beautiful bodies, beautiful characters,beautiful ideals. A beautiful heart and a beautiful intellect are as essential totrue beautiy as strength and beauty of body. Education--life--should be a strivingfor an ideal of beauty and greatness. Freedom is essential to beauty, to true education,to the highest life.
Free experience is life's great teacher. Compulsion is noteducation; it is not life. Compulsion does not build character. It builds slaves,serfs, dependents. The soul can expand only in an atmosphere of freedom. Mind andbody attain their highest and best only in a free environment. The heart can trulyexpress itself only when it is free to do so.
True freedom is the opened fruit of experience plus intelligence.In society, our rights are those we dare maintain. We are fitted only for such freedomas we demand. Those who demand most are fitted for most. Those who demand least arefitted only for slavery. Freedom is truly the breath of the soul. Without freedomthe soul becomes stunted, dwarfed, gnarled and ugly. Beauty of character and intellectcan only develop where freedom abounds.
Freedom, guided by knowledge and intelligence and held toa stern self-discipline, will evolve a race of moral and intellectual giants. Itis still true that that is the best government that governs least; the best control,self-control. Slaves and serfs are controlled by their masters and make no progress.Free men who control themselves carry the world forward. Ancient civilizations werewrought by the labor of slaves guided by the intellects of free men. Modern and highercivilizations are wrought by the labor of free men and guided by these same freemen. More freedom, less bondage, will give us a higher civilization still.
"Education has become the great enemy of enlightenment.Teachers have become mere salesmen of the intellectual life. School systems are onlydepartment stores of the 'higher learning.' The order of the day is Quick Lunch CounterEducation! Our so-called education is a study in farce and futility." Thus declaresProf. Schmalhausen, who quotes the following gibe from Mark Twain:--"First Godmade idiots. That was for practice. Then he made boards of education."
This is a terrible indictment of our present methods of educatingour children. Our educational system is being attacked from all sides, It pleasesnobody--not even those who conduct it. Least of all does it please teachers and pupils.Many people maintain that our education does not educate; that it lacks vital meaning,and is divorced from life. Many of our foremost educational authorities agree withHenry Adams' declaration that, "The chief wonder of education is that it doesnot ruin everybody concerned in it, teachers and taught." Padagogues agree thatour system is an accident. It came down to us in its present form from feudalism.Much of feudalism still remains in it. It is unfitted to modern life. It is in violationof the best principles of psychology. As Bertrand Russell so truly declares-- "Acertain percentage of children have the habit of thinking; one of the aims of educationis to cure them of this habit."
Now, no one really intends to cure children of the habitof thinking. But this is often just what we accomplish. The trouble with our educationalsystem is that it lacks plan and purpose. It is a crazy-quilt affair. No one everplanned the system we now have. No one ever desired it to be what it now is. No oneever foresaw what the system would develop into. It has simply grown up in a disorderlyand disjointed manner. Many opposing forces have helped to shape it and distort it.
Every one who has studied the problem agrees that the educationalmethods now in vogue are wrong. Modern "education" is often worse thana failure. Joseph K. Hart, in his Adult Education, declares: "Universalcompulsory schooling at public expense is at once the most generous movement everundertaken by society and the most unintelligent--Compulsory schooling has turnedout to be a sort of intellectual canning factory--a factory which cannot, however,guarantee the contents of the cans."
This is a very able summing up of the present public schoolsystem. It does not turn out thinkers. It does not produce men and women who dragthe world along behind them. Every child is run through the same mold. The mind ofa Shakespeare and the mind of a moron are run through the same process. Both areexpected to learn the same things, do the same things, think the same thoughts andarrive at the same goal.
Much that is instilled into the school child is trivial,unimportant and often untrue. There is too much of rote, formula, memorizing, andnot enough constructive and creative thinking. Indeed, the very elements upon whichcreative work is grounded are often lacking. There is plenty of painstaking supervision,an abundance of blueprints and cut-and-dried formulas. There is much imitation, muchcopying, but little creating. One must memorize the books and classroom notes ifone wishes to receive passing grades and a diploma. He must conform to the prevailingfashions in "thought" if he desires to get on well.
Then, too, the school is so often divorced from life. Mr.Hart rightly contends that it is living and not schooling which educates. Educationbegins at birth--it ends at death. The school is a passing incident. It may be helpful.It frequently only suppresses the budding genius and transforms him into a dotard.The discipline of the school frequently subdues and, destroys the adventurous, pioneeringspirit that dares to do new things or that does old things in a new and better way.We are cursed with too much of the discipline of authority and not enough of freedom.
When our fathers desired to impress a child with the importanceof doing good they threatened him with hell. Bad little children were supposed togo to hell in those days. Children were supposed to do right through fear of hell.To supplement this, they were promised heaven if they were good.
But children were not afraid of hell--at least, not enoughto prevent them from occasionally doing wrong; nor could they be bribed with heaven.So our fathers added corporal punishment. It was a costly effort to build characteron fear of punishment and on bribery. It did not work very well.
Critics of modern youth exault the youth of yesteryear Butthey do so without thinking. Youth has always been the same. It will always be thesame. Youth was ever daring and impetuous. It was ever in need of guidance and instruction.It needed sympathy and understanding. Youth never liked correction and instruction.It always wanted its own way--and had it. Each generation has to learn for itself.Knowledge is never ours until we have lived it.
There are better reasons for being and doing good than fewof Lucifer and his sulphur baths. There are better reasons for being and doing goodthan the hope of an eternal residence in Jeovah's Rest Resort. These reasons relateto the present life, not to a hoped-for future existence.
Teach your children that anything is wrong that lessens theirmental and physical powers and lowers self-respect. The conservation and improvementof life is the highest aim of Nature. Anything that conflicts with this purpose iswrong. Anything that accords with it is. We receive our rewards and punishments now.We are punished by our sins, not for them. Virtue is its own reward. If we do aswe should--if we think and act uprightly--a long life of health, strength, youth,beauty, joy and efficiency will be ours. If we live the contrary way, a shortenedlife, full of disease, weakness, misery and inefficiency will be our punishment.We should do nothing that weakens the powers of life.
Prince Kropotkin tells us that the barbarians were our superiorsnot only in refusing to work their children, but also in scorning to beat them. Hequotes them as saying:
"THE BODY OF THE CHILD REDDENS FROM THE STROKE, BUTTHE FACE OF HIM WHO STRIKES REDDENS FROM SHAME."
Indeed it should bring a blush of shame to the face of himwho strikes a child. The pain is greater than an adult realizes. The tender fleshof the child is more sensitive than that of an adult.
But the physical pain, which does not last long, anyway,is the least of the evil effects of this cruelty. Consider, says Alice Park, the"difference between a parent and a young child. If a giant ten or twelve feettall stood over a man or woman and dealt out blows for infractions of giant-maderules, the parent might realize what he now does to his children. He probably doesnot know either the pain, the physical injury, the nervous shock the mental effects,nor the effects upon the other children of the family. The effect upon the motheror father is another subject"--but by no means an unimportant one. Beating achild builds brutality in the parent and actually lessens his or her love for thechild.
The injury to the 'heart" of a child is often permanent.Feelings of bitterness, hatred and revenge rankle in his bread.
His self-respect is destroyed. No child can ever amount toany-thing when his self-respect is gone. The fear created in the child is hopelesslybad. "Children who have been asked how they felt," says Alice Park, "afterbeing spanked or whipped, have said that it made them want to hit somebody, anybody.Since they didn't dare hit their mothers and fathers, they had a strong impulse tohit other children, or to kick the dog or the cat. One boy said: 'it made me feelugly all day'." Think of the influence, on the nervous system, it must havehad to create this last effect.
A child is such a tender thing! A harsh word, deed, or lookwounds it more than we are wont to imagine. A harsh word to a sensitive horse willincrease his pulse ten beats a minute. A child is more sensitive than the most sensitivehorse, until persistent harsh treatment has hardened him and made him callous.
Never strike or scold children. The blow injures and bruisesthe spirit even more than it does the flesh.
Beating children is not a savage practice. No savage raceis known that has descended so low in the moral and social scale that it beats itschildren. Among the American Indians, if an angered parent (and very seldom doesa parent strike a child unless he or she is angry) struck a child, the parent waspunished by some of his or her own kin. Tehan, the "White Indian," whofifty years ago, was leader of a band of Indian "bandits" in Texas andOklahoma, tells of seeing his mother, in a fit of anger, strike her child. The child'sfather then chastized the mother.
Indian children were never whipped and they were never disobedient.They were never thieves--until the white man made them so. They grew in anatural normal way. Mind, body and soul expanded in a perfectly normal way. Theirinstincts and their environment harmonized. Their punishments were the natural andinevitable results of their deeds. Such punishment bears a natural and obvious connectionwith the. deed. The child can see the connection. This is natural discipline,against which man does not rebel.
Until recent years so-called Christians, who disregard thewarning of Jesus to those who "offend one of these little ones," and hisadmonition not to "render evil for evil," and to be "not overcomeof evil, but overcome evil with good," hardly ever thought of training childrenexcept by some means of corporal punishment.
Women, children, slaves, criminals, and dumb brutes werebeaten. It is now against the law to beat women and slaves. Criminals are beatenonly furtively. The Societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals have stoppedmuch of the beating of animals. But parents have not been reformed. The humane spirithas not extended to the care of children--except to a limited extent.
Whipping has been prohibited in many public and private schools,and in some reform schools. One state reform school reported an immediate improvementin the conduct of its 179 boys, representing all ages, when the no-whipping rulewent into effect.
Family discipline still includes much whipping, slapping,spanking, threats and blows. Neighbors or the police interfere only where the punishmentsare known to be extremely severe, but then only in an insignificant number of suchcases as occur.
Children are beaten with rods, limbs of trees, straps, paddles,etc., and are slapped and cuffed with open palms. They are 'beaten for wrong doingwhen the parents are really to blame. Parents have neglected to properly instructtheir children.
Children learn best in an atmosphere of gentleness and kindness.They expand best when not repressed by fear of punishment. If their actions are alldetermined by fear, they change their actions as soon as they grow up and escapefrom fear of punishment. Fear of punishment forms a very unstable and unsatisfactorybasis for conduct. Yet there are many who slap and beat their children almost constantly.There are some who slap the hands and faces of their children for the most trivialthings. They scold them and nag them almost continuously. Their children live ina more or less constant state of fear and confusion. This breaks the spirit of manychildren and thoroughly conquers them. Their self-reliance, innate initiative, self-assertivenessand personalities are repressed. Often they never cast off this spell of repression.
Other children, the more wilful and spirited kind, are maderebellious and unmanageable. They become criminals as a direct result of this cruelty.If their indomitable and unconquerable spirits are rightly directed and instructed,they will give us leaders, great men, builders--men who do things.
If you have a child who has a will of his own, who insistson exercising his own will, don't be anxious to break and subdue that will. Get downon your knees and thank God that you have a child that dares to be himself. Sucha child must be handled carefully and patiently. But for heaven's sake don't tryto conquer him or subdue him. Don't spoil those splendid qualities that are unfoldingin him.
Don't cause your children to lose their love and respect(or you. Don't build rebellion in them. Don't teach them to lie and deceive to avoidpunishment.
A young boy, age 17 years, whose father had beaten him severelyat frequent intervals during life said: "I only hope I live long enough, andgrow large enough, that I can pay my father back for some of the blows he has struckme."
Surely, this is an attitude that no father would desire hisson to have toward him. Yet, this attitude was cultivated by the father. He, andnot the boy, is responsible for this feeling of enmity and resentment. It is theoutcome of the savage practice of beating children when they don't please us. Andthis feeling exists to a greater or less degree in the minds of all whose parentsbeat them. A few old hypocrites declare that they are thankful for the beatings theirparents gave them.
No child was ever made better by beating. No amount of tortureincreases the child's love of and respect for its parent. It builds feat of the parent.A young mother called her children into the house. "Come in here and sit down,"she commanded. Commencing with the oldest and going down to the youngest they filedby her and took their seats. As the youngest child passed her mother, she drew away,saying, "Mamma, don't hit me. Mamma don't hit me." The obedience of thosechildren was due to fear and they will continue to obey only so long as they continueto fear. As soon as they are large enough, that they no longer fear their mother,they will do as they please and she will have no more control over them. Her weaponis fear and time will rob her of this.
A household of unruly and disobedient children is the productof lazy and unintelligent parents. Parents who are too lazy or too ignorant or toounintelligent to govern their children intelligently, resort to the cruel methodof beating their children.
Bertha Meyer, in her Family Government, says: "Aparent who does not know how to govern a child without whipping it ought to surrenderthe care of that child to some wiser person. Sportsmen once thought it necessaryto lash their dogs in training them for the field. They now know that the whip shouldnever be used. Horsemen once thought it was necessary to whip colts to teach themto start and stop at the word, and pull steadily. They now know that an apple isbetter than a lash and a caress better than a blow. If dogs and horses can be thuseducated without punishment, what is these in our children that makes it necessaryto slap and pound them? Have they less intelligence? Have they colder hearts? Arethey lower in the scale of being?
"We have heard many old people say: 'If we were to bringup another child we would never whip it.' They are wise, but a little too late. Insteadof God doing so little for little children that they must be whipped into goodness,He has done so much for them that even whipping can't ruin them--that is, as a rule.Many children are of such quality that a blow makes them cowardly, or reckless, ordeceitful, or permanently ugly. Whipping makes children lie, Whipping makes themsteal. Whipping breaks their spirit. Whipping makes them hate their parents. Whippingmakes home distasteful; makes the boys run away; makes the girls seek happiness anywhereand anyhow. Whipping is barbarous Don't whip."
Whipping is not barbarous. No barbaric people was ever guiltyof such crimes against childhood. This crime came into Europe during the middle agesas a part of the doctrine of total depravity.
There is another very old, very popular and very ruinousmethod of scaring children into the desired ruts of conduct. I refer to the methodsof frightening small children with bugaboo stories. The "black man" thedogs, the booga man, the dark and other things, real or imaginary, are used to frightenchildren and force them to obey. "Come back here, or the black man will getyou," "Be quiet or the dogs will get you;"--these and similar threatsdestroy the peace of mind of children and injure their health.
When the writer was a small boy he would often jump up suddenlyin bed and let out a scream that would awaken the whole household and sometimes someof the neighbors. At other times he would pull the covet down over his head and holdit with both hands while scarcely dating to breathe. The cause of this was frightfuldreams of bears, devils, goblins, booga men and other objects of terror that hadbeen used during the day to dampen his childish spirits. A fear of the dark was developedthat was not overcome until maturity was reached.
Children thus frightened become clinging cowards and timiddependents. The natural courage, freedom and independence of normal childhood giveway to cowardice and timidity. They become afraid of the dark, afraid of the slightestnoise at night, are subject to frightful dreams that disturb their sleep and, itis probable that the shocks to their sensitive nervous system are never fully overcome.Nervousness, ill-health, and premature death often result from this thoughtless cruelty.In many ways this form of cruelty is worse for children than whipping. As a meansof frightening children into goodness or morality it is open to the same objectionsas all other methods of creating cowards and liars.
I was walking down a certain street in New York City once.Suddenly I heard a mother command: "Come back here! There comes a cop!"She repeated this twice. The little boy was running away from her. She sought tofrighten him and, by this means, to force him to return to her. Controlling childrenby fright is an exceedingly evil means of control; whether we tell them the copswill get them or tell them that the dogs, or the bogie man, or the black man willget them, makes no difference. The effects on the child are the same.
These effects are far reaching and difficult to eradicate.They effect the body and mind and character of the child. Besides, this is the worstmeans of controlling children. Like other means of fright and pressure, it is effectiveonly so long as the child is young enough to think that perhaps a cop might "gethim." When he learns that the cry of, "there comes a cop" is onlybluff, he boldly goes on doing as he pleases. Fear of a thing controls child or adultonly so long as he fears it.
My oldest boy as a little child, had no fear of the dark.He went and came at leisure in the dark rooms of the house and gave no thought tothe fact that it was dark. His mother and I may have been three or four rooms away,but the little fellow felt no concern for his safety. No one had ever scared him.Then one day a young man visited my office, while little Bernarr was present. Whilehe was in the outer office, he told the child of ghosts and bogie men. He picturedthem as staying in dark places and as doing vicious deeds. The boy was frightened.The impression made on his young mind was profound and lasting. His mother and Iworked for a full year before we succeeded in largely eradicating the fear of ghostsand bogie men from his mind. A crime had been committed against that child. Suchcrimes should be punishable. People who scare children, who frighten them with imaginaryand unreal dangers, are usually ignorant and thoughtless, but they should be dealtwith.
Frightening them to control them, as the above mentionedignorant mother did, or, frightening them merely for the "fun" of tellingghost stories, as the above mentioned ignorant young man did--its all the same inits effects on the mind of the child.
Fear lowers vitality. It paralyzes effort. It shrivels upevery emotion towards good behavior. It injures their health. It makes them nervous.It impairs their growth. It makes cowards of them. It warps and twists their characters.It is all evil and never good. The crime of frightening children should not be toleratedin civilized communities. It will not be tolerated once its enormity is realized.
They were crossing the street--a mother and her little daughter.The child was about three years old. It had done something to displease the mother.Her head went down near that of the child and in angry and excited tones and witha loud voice, she heaped threats and abuse upon the child.
People heard her shrill voice, above the din of traffic,a half a block away. They crossed the street. The mother repeated her foolish performance.Then, with her hand, there in the presence of every passer-by she vigorously spankedthe child.
The woman lacked poise and self-control. She lacked intelligenceand training. She lacked sympathy for and understanding of her child. Intellectuallyand tempermentally she was unfitted for parentage. Bullying and browbeating and brusingchildren in this brutal fashion is not good for them. To treat them thus, habitually,hardens and coarsens them. Such treatment of children always wounds their tenderspirits more than it does their tender bodies. It makes them cowards. Brutal, harsh,unintelligent treatment of children does not engender in them any love or respectfor their parents. Had this same woman treated a dog or a horse as she was treatingher child, the S. P. C. A., would have had her punished for cruelty to animals. Butit was "only a child," "her child," which she was abusing, andnothing was done.
But she will pay. The law of compensation will not miss her.The daughter will grow up and all of this cruel treatment of her will produce itsharvest. Parents, be kind to yours children. Be sympathetic with them. Strive tounderstand them and to guide them with love and instruction and control them withreason and kindness. Respect them--their persons, their rights, their limitations,their inexperience, their lack of maturity. Treat them as you would like to be treated.Brutality does not build in them desirable characters. Give them the best there isin you--not your worst.
The faults of little children are largely the results ofignorance, accident, enthusiasm and the forgetfulness of immature minds
Children are not adults, with the experience and point ofview of the adult. Children do not come into the world with a full knowledge of rightand wrong. Their instincts relate them to a state of pure nature. But they are borninto the highly complex and very unnatural conditions we call civilization, withits artificial standards and rules of conduct. Their faults are, then, largely thoseof inheritance--the inheritance of instincts which are out of place in civilization.
To whip a child because of ignorance, accident or a lackof the adult point of view is certainly wrong. Is it not a fact that children trymuch harder to fit themselves into an adult's world than adults try to build a worldfor children?
Such little minds and bodies and hearts need patient instruction,intelligent guidance, sympathetic understanding. They should be taught, instructed,reasoned with and led.
Children have difficult and nervous days just as adults do.Be patient with them under these trying conditions. Scolding only adds to their discouragementand moodiness. Try to dispel the gloomy, disobedient mood by diverting the child'smind into pleasant channels.
Children are good by nature. They are not vicious and criminal.They are only ignorant and inexperienced and are born into an unnatural environment.They need gentle and patient guidance. They need instruction and enlightenment. Theysurely do not need cruelty.
A litttle kindness goes a long way with children. Kindnessand gentleness and patience and instruction and a good example are the proper meansof governing children.
The gentle answer turneth away wrath. Make life pleasantfor the child and it will make life easier for you.
Fear of punishment forms a very unstable and unsatisfactorybasis for conduct. Knowledge of the principles of right and wrong are essential tointelligent conduct. Love of right and hatred of wrong are necessary to genuine morality.Any morality that is not founded on these--knowledge of the principles of conductand love of right and hatred of wrong--is not true morality. All conduct based onfear is founded on sand. It cannot endure.
Whipping and spanking children begin to diminish when thechildren reach the age and size that they can hit back, and can defend themselves.The offenses of older children are often more serious, more deliberate and grosserforms of disobedience and more aggravating, and older children are certainly moreresponsible for their conduct, but parents are not so apt to beat them. The storyis told of a little boy whose father was certain he had inflicted the right punishmenton him. To make a deeper impression on the boy and make the lesson complete, he asked,"Do you know why I whipped you?" The little boy answered "Yes; becauseyou are bigger than I am." Had the child been able to defend himself that parentwould have treated the child with as much respect as he treats Mr. Jones, his neighbor.
A high standard of conduct is best built by example. AlicePark puts it this way: "How can any parent have the opinion that children maybe taught not to strike or hit others, by being themselves hit? ### How can parentsor teachers who resort to physical violence, hold up the common rule of our so-calledcivilized society, 'never hit anybody smaller or weaker than you are, nor any onewho is defenseless?"'
Stop bullying your children. Stop abusing them. Inspire themto love, trust and confide in you--not to fear you, or dread your approach.
I was walking, one day, along the street in one of New YorkCity's better sections. A woman suddenly thrust her head out of a third-story windowand shouted: "I'll fix you. You stop that and come in here right now. Doyou hear me?"
Her son had long before learned that this was only an idlethreat. He paid no heed to his mother's voice. He did not even trouble himself toreply to her. He continued playing and completely ignored the excited mother up inthe window.
The mother became calm and settled down to watch the play.Her threat having failed to frighten her son, she became apparently satisfied. Herpretense of anger disappeared and she ceased her unnecessary noise.
This is no means of training children, common though themethod is. It is never wise to threaten a child. There are always better reasonswhy children should or should not do things than the fear of threatening parents.But if you must threaten your children see that you never make idle threats. If youdon't mean them, don't make them. Threats that are only "hot air" sooncome to mean no more than that to a child. He learns that he can disobey and "getaway with it."
The ideal method of rearing children is by education andnot coersion. Neither cruelty nor threats of cruelty have any moralizing or upliftinginfluence. Threats of punishment that are never carried out breed "anarchy"and misbehavior. The psychological effects of threatening and scolding are distinctlyanti- social and more or less ruinous. The child soon forms the idea that he cansafely defy all law and order and "get away with it." It is bad in itsmoral tendencies. It were far better to allow the child to, like Topsy, "justgrow up,"
I am taking the liberty of quoting the following by J. W.McEachron, entitled Just a Boy, published originally in the Farmerand reproduced in The Household Journal:
"Listen, son, I am saying this to you as you lie asleep, one little paw crumpled under your cheek and the blond curls stickily wet on your damp forehead. I have stolen into your room alone. Just a few minutes ago, as I sat reading my paper in the library, a hot stiffling wave of remorse swept over me. I could not resist it. Guiltly I came to your bedside.
"These are the things I was thinking of son. I have been cross to you. I scolded you because you gave your face merely a dab with the towel. I took you to task for not cleaning your shoes. I called out angrily when I found you had thrown some of your things on the floor.
"At breakfast I found fault, too. You spilled things. You gulped down your food. You put your elbows on the table. You spread butter too thick on your bread. And as you started off to play and I made for my train, you turned and waved a little hand and called 'Good-bye, Daddy!' and I frowned, and said in reply, 'Hold your shoulders back!'
"Then it began all over again in the late afternoon. As I came up the hill road I spied you, down on your knees playing marbles. There were holes in your stockings. I humiliated you before your friends by making you march ahead of me to the house. Stockings were expensive--and if you had to buy them you would be more careful! Imagine that, son, from a father! it was such stupid, silly logic.
"Do you remember, later when I was reading in the library, how you came in softly, timidly, with a sort of hurt, hunted food in your eyes? When I glanced up over my paper, impatient at the Interruption, you hesitated at the door, "What is it you want?' I snapped.
"You said nothing, but ran across, in one tempestuous plunge, and threw your arms around my neck and kissed me again and again, and your small arms tightened with an affection that God has set blooming in your heart, and which even neglect could not wither. And you were gone, pattering up the stairs.
"Well, son, it was shortly afterwards that my paper slipped from my hands and a terrible sickening fear came over me. Suddenly I saw myself as I really was, in all my selfishness, and I felt sick at heart.
"What has habit been doing to me? The habit of complaining, of finding fault, or reprimanding--all of these were my rewards to you for being a boy. It was not that I did not love you; it was that I expected so much of youth. I was measuring you by the gauge of my own years.
"It is feeble atonement. I know you would not understand these things if I told them to you during your waking hours, yet I must say what I am saying. I must burn sacrificial fires, alone, here in your bedroom, and make free confession. Tomorrow I will be a real daddy! I will chum with you, and suffer when you suffer, and laugh when you laugh.
And I am passing this 'confession' along to the fathers and mothers who may be priviliged to read it, and for the benefit of all the 'little fellers'--the growing earth--blessing little 'Jimmies' and "Billys" and 'Marys' and 'James' of this very good world of ours."
"It is not so much what you say,
As the manner in which you say it;
It is not so much the language you use,
As the tones in which you convey it.
"'Come here,' I sharply said,
And the baby cowered and wept;
'Come here,' I cooed; and he looked and smiled
And straight to my lap he crept.
"The words may be mild and fair,
And the tones may pierce like a dart;
The words may be soft as the summer air,
And the tones may break the heart.
"Whether you know it or not,
Whether you mean it or care;
Gentleness, kindness, love and hate,
Envy and anger are there.
"Then would you quarrel avoid,
And in peace and love rejoice,
Keep anger not only out of your words,
But keep it out of your voice."
Vaccinia is an acute infectious disease caused byvaccination. Vaccination is the inoculation of child or adult, wellor sick, with septic matter (pus) derived from suppurating (festering) sores on theabdomen of a previously infected cow. I think this definition is incomplete in animportant respect--I should have said that it is a criminal operation.
The disease dates from about the year 1774 when an ignorantand superstitious English farmer, Benjamin Jesty, vaccinated his wife and three childrenwith matter taken from sores on cows suffering with "cow-pox," using adarning needle with which to make the incissions. Jestey believed a superstition,then prevalent among the milk-maids, that one who had had cowpox was immune to smallpox.
Notes of this daring experiment were made by a doctor Nashwho died in 1785. At his death these notes passed into the hands of Mr. Thomas Nashwho was acquainted with Edward Jenner, a notorious Charlatan, who is credited withhaving "discovered" vaccination. In 1789 Jenner inoculated his eighteenmonth's old son with swine-pox matter. He followed this with other inoculations ofother children and the filthy practice of vaccination was definitely launched.
An English writer, Arthur Wollaston Hutton, M. A., says ofJenner's training and qualifications: "But his professional acquirements werebut slender; his medical degree was the outcome of no examination or scientific work,but merely of a fee of fifteen guineas paid to the University of St. Andrews; whilehis other and more important distinction, his Fellowship in the Royal Society, wasobtained by what even Dr. Norman Moore, his latest biographer and apologist, is constrainedto admit was little else than a fraud."
Thus we have a filthy practice, born out of the ignoranceand superstitions of the past and fathered by an ignorant imposter and fraud, palmedoff on the world today as a scientific procedure. It is really remarkable, the numberof instances in the history of medicine, of practices and theories now in vogue,that owe their origin to ancient customs, traditions and superstitions.
It is not known how remote was the belief among the cow handsand dairy maids of England in the immunizing potency of cow-pox; but it is thoughtto have come out of the practice of inoculation which was introduced into England,from the East, by Lady Mary Wortley Montague, wife of the British Ambassador to theOttoman Court, in 1717. The practice was abolished by act of Parliment in 1840, dueto its evils. In 1754 the Royal College of Physicians issued the following manifesto,which reads strangely like the statements made by physicians today about vaccination:
"The College, having been informed that false reports concerning the success of inoculation in England have been published in foreign countries, think proper to declare their sentiments in the following manner, viz.: That the arguments which at the commencement of this practice were urged against it have been refuted by experience; that it is now held by the English in greater esteem, and practiced among them more extensively than ever it was before, and that the college thinks it to be highly salutary to the human race."
Despite this evident lie, by this august body, the practicewas not successful; it was not highly salutary; and experience did not refute thearguments used against it. It was a very damaging practice which caused an increasein small-pox in England and was finally abolished by law.
Edward Jenner, following Benjamin Jesty, grafted the oldinoculation practice onto the milk-maid's creed and vaccination (from vacca--cow)was born.
I mentioned that the inoculation practice was introducedfrom the east. The date of the origin of this superstitious practice is hidden inthe darkness of pre-history. Savage and Barbaric peoples; in various parts of theworld, practiced inoculation. It is thought to have started in India, where so manyof our superstitions originated, and spread from there to Africa and Europe.
From time immemorial the negroes and Arabs of Nubia practicedinoculation against small-pox. The Ashantees and the Moorish and Arab tribes in NorthernAfrica practiced arm to arm inoculation from ancient times. Savage tribes of theUpper Congo practiced it to prevent "syphilis." The Baris of Lado inoculatedthemselves over the left breast. The negroes in Senegal inoculated their childrenon the arms. The Moors and Pouls of Senegambia practiced inoculation against pleuro-pnemonia.A practice of this kind was in vogue in Berne, Switzerland in the 18th century.
The first record of smallpox seems to be in India, wherealso is the first record of inoculation, where the practice was in vogue over threethousand years ago. Dhanwantari, the Vedic father of medicine, and the earliest knownHindu physician, supposed to have lived 1500 B. C., is said to have been the firstto practice inoculation and it is also stated that the Hindus employed a vaccine.For over a thousand years inoculation has been practiced in China.
The practice is so mixed up with the religious superstitionsof various peoples that its origin may not be difficult for students of religioushistory to guess. In India, in Malaba and in other sections of the world, inoculationwas mixed up in the worship of the smallpox goddess. Inoculation seems to have beennothing more than a superstitious rite designed to placate and appease the wrathof an irrascible deity. People who imagined all their sufferings were sent upon thembecause they had offended some of their gods or goddesses originated the filthy riteto get the goddess into a good humor again.
According to a Mr. Porter, who was English Ambassador atConstantinople in 1755 (Gentleman's Magazine, Oct. 1755): "It is thetradition and opinion of the country that a certain angel presides over this disease.That it is to bespeak his favor and evidence their confidence that the Georgianstake a small portion of variolous matter, and, by means of scarification, introduceit between the thumb and fore finger of a sound person. The operation is supposedto never miss its effect. To secure beyond all uncertainty, the good will of theangel, they hang up scarlet clothes about the bed, that being the favorite colorof the celestial inhabitant they wish to propitiate."
I cannot imagine St. Paul, who refused to eat meat that hadbeen offered up to idols, baring his arm for pus that is being offered up to thegoddess of smallpox. I cannot imagine Moses, whose Kosher laws, in, most of theiressential particulars, are excellent, commanding the Jews to have this trefe stuffinoculated into their bodies.
SYMPTOMS: Vaccinia begins after inoculation with slight irritationat the site of vaccination. On the third or fourth day the eruption appearsin the form of a red papule, surrounded by a red areola. On the fifthor sixth day the papule becomes a vesicle, being filled with a watery substanceor a clear substance, with a distinct central depression (unbilication). Bythe eighth day the vesicle is perfected and is then surrounded by a wide reddenedzone of inflammatory edema, which is the seat of intense itching. By the tenthday the contents are purulent (pus) and the vesicle has become a pustule.The surrounding skin is now much inflamed and painful. About this timethe reddened areola begins to fade and dessiccation sets in with the gradualformation of a thick brown crust or scab, which becomes detached and falls off aboutthe twenty-first to twenty-fifth day, leaving an ugly scar. The scar is atfirst red but gradually becomes paler than the surrounding skin; having a punched-outappearance and is pitted.
The evolution of this pathology is accompanied with feverand constitutional symptoms, malaise, and enlargement of the adjacent lymphnodes or glands.
Notice the symptoms above described (and this descriptionis gathered from standard medical works) and you will at once realize that we havebeen describing an acute disease--really the acute symptoms of septic infection.Vaccinia will be found classified in medical books as an "acute infectious disease."
The infectious matter is pus taken from pustules on a cowwhich has previously had pus from the pustules of a smallpox patient rubbed intoincisions in her skin. It is a morbid product, a Virus, and is not and never was"lymph from the calf." Vaccine is pus--it is the fluid product of suppuration.
To vaccinate a person is to produce disease in that person.It is an effort to prevent disease by producing disease. It does not always "runtrue to form." The above description of the disease does not fit all cases.
COMPLICATIONS AND SEQUELEA: Irregular and atypicalpocks may form; several vesicles may coalesce, a general pustular rash,covering the whole arm or large parts of the body, and called generalized vaccinia,may develop, about the eighth to tenth day.
Abscess, sloughing, cellulitis, erysipelas, general septicinfection, urticarial eruptions, syphilis, leprosy, tuberculosis, actinomycosis (bigjaw), mental disease, tetanus, (lock jaw), paralysis, menengitis, sleepingsickness, etc., may follow. In rare cases the pock may reappear in the same placeafter it is apparently healed. In some instances the abscess that may form refusesto heal. I saw one case of this kind where the abscess continued to discharge pusafter fourteen years. Speaking of generalized vaccinia, Sir. Wm. Osler says: "Inchildren the disease may prove fatal." Osler quotes Ackland's arrangements ofthe dates on which possible eruptions and complications may be looked for as follows:
"1. During the first three days: Erythema; urticaria; vesicular and bullous eruptions; invaccinated erysipelas.
"2. After the third day, and until the pock reaches maturity: Urticaria, linchen urticatus; erythema multiformae; accidental erysipelas.
"3. About the end of the first week: Generalized vaccinia; impetigo; vaccinal ulceration; glandular abscess; septic infections, gangrene.
"4. After the involution of the pocks: Invaccinated diseases for example syphilis."
Under the heading "Transmission of Disease by Vaccination,"Osler says: "Syphilis has undoubtedly been transmited by vaccination."Under the heading, "Influence of Vaccination upon other Diseases," he says:"A quiescent malady may be lighted into activity by vaccination. This happenswith congental syphilis, occasionally with tuberculosis. ### At the height of thevaccination convulsions may occur and be followed by hemiplegia." (Paralysisof one side of the body.)
It is the medical alibi, when these evils follow vaccination,and they are far more common than the uninformed may imagine, that they are due to"carelessness" or to "secondary infections.', Dr. Richard C. Cabotsays: "The other things that bother people is the fact that vaccination soresget septic, sometimes when the vaccination is clumsily done, and sometimes when itis correctly done. We need not necessarily blame the doctor because the patient hasa bad arm. In spite of all precautions, if the patient is in a bad condition, thebreak in the skin may become septic.
This is only a half truth. The vaccine sore is septic fromthe start. Vaccine is septic matter. Vaccination is deliberate and forcible septicinfection. We do blame the physician, because he introduced the septic matter intothe arm.
This picture of vaccination is a black one, but it is byno means the whole picture. It is almost impossible to exaggerate the evils of thisfilthy, superstitious practice and any physician or vaccine propagandist who assertsthat vaccination is harmless is either an ignoramus or a liar. I shall make thisquite clear before I am done with this subject.
"I wish we had known sooner what an awful thing vaccinationis," wrote Mrs. A. Kyles, in a letter to the editor of the St. Louis Times,of Nov. 1926, after her boy had died of lockjaw following vaccination. He was vaccinatedOct. 15 and died Nov. 8, 1926; the lockjaw developing about Oct. 31. Thousands ofother fond mothers have cried; "I wish we had known sooner what an awful thingvaccination is." Why not find out beforehand and not after the child is dead?Why be so willing to believe the sales-talks of those who make money out of vaccines?
On Oct. 7, 1926, little Elmer Perry, four-years-old son ofMr. and Mrs. John Perry, of 35 Schalk St., Newark, N. J. was vaccinated by orderof the Health Authorities. Fifteen days later he become sick, and on Oct. 27 theycarried him to the hospital suffering with lockjaw. A few hours later he died.
"They killed my boy, they killed him," cried thegrief stricken father. "They have taken the sunshine from my life" wailedthe frantic mother. This was but one more of thousands of such tragic scenes. Medicalmen kill them to save them.
The authorities in this case hastily denied all responsibilityfor the boy's death. They blamed the boy. It is a fair sample of the cowardly mannerin which doctors always disclaim responsibility for their deeds. They are the onlyclass of criminals of which I know who can escape the penalties for their crimesby placing the blame on their victims.
On June 2O, 1926 little Geraldine Creamer, age 4, 611 JohnSt., Peekskill, N. Y., died of lockjaw, following vaccination during a cooked upsmallpox scare-- a case of ivy poisoning, having been diagnosed as smallpox.
The culprits in this case explained that the girl, who hadbeen vaccinated on the leg, received the lockjaw infection from garden soil, whileplaying in the garden. In a full page article in the New York Evening Graphic,I challenged them to give me lockjaw, by wounding me in a dozen places and rubbingthe soil from the garden in every wound. The Commissioner of Health made a weak replyin the local paper, but ignored my challenge. He did not want his alibi exposed bya test.
Lockjaw is a comparatively rare disease except where a vaccinationepidemic rages. In his Principles and Practice of Medicine, Sir. Wm. Oslersays of tetanus as a disease transmitted by vaccination: "McFarland collected95 cases, practically all American. Sixty-three occurred in 19O1, in which R. W.Wilson demonstrated the tetanus bacillus. Most of these cases occurred about Philadelphia."
The United States Public Health Report, March 20,1925 says that "several fatal cases of tetanus in vaccinated individuals, haverecently occurred in the United States." The Report for June 26, 1925,contains accounts, in its first six pages, of eleven cases of tetanus following vaccination.Boys are more susceptible than girls to post-vaccinal tetanus.
In a letter dated Aug. 9, 1929, and addressed to SenatorRobt. F. Wagner, Dr. Hugh S. Cumming, Surgeon General of the U.S. Public Health Service,says the figures, which his letter shows are incomplete, for deaths due to post-vaccinaltetanus are as follow: 1925, 29; 1926, 15; 1927, 17; 1929, 1. As most of these deathsoccur after school opens in September, at which time the great orgie of vaccinationbegins, the apparent reduction in 1929 s probably very deceptive.
In the early part of 1925, while the whole of the East wasin the throes of a vaccination epidemic the New York Evening Graphic uncoveredat least two deaths from post-vaccinal tetanus, and many other cases of vaccinalinjury, in Baltimore. After they published the accounts of these cases, the hospitalsin Baltimore established a rigid censorship and suppressed the horrid truth aboutthis criminal practice.
But a truce with tetanus; the newspapers carry frequent reportsof such deaths and I can only touch the high spots here. Everyone can know of thesecases who cares to investigate.
Within recent years other troubles have been definitely tracedto vaccination. I have already quoted Dr. Osler's statement that "at the heightof vaccination convulsions may occur and be followed by hemiplegia." Paralysisis a more frequent result of vaccination than has heretofore been suspected. Dr.Osler says: "Cerebro-spinal meningitis has a curious predilection for soldiers."Captain Sheffield Neave, of England, says; "meningitis is a disease of soldiersand babies."
During the recent war there was a great mortality and invalidismamong soldiers due to cerebro-spinal meningitis. Antivaccinationists declared itto be due to vaccination. This brought vigorous protests and loud denunciations fromthe devotees of pus and the smallpox goddess.
In the "Lancet," the leading British medicalJournal, of September 4th, 1926, is set forth accounts of seven cases of encephalo-myelitis(inflammation of the brain and spinal cord, and their membranes), following vaccinationin two London Hospitals within recent years. Prof H. M. Turnbull and Prof. Jas. McIntoshwho painfully and carefully investigated these cases stated in the British Journalof Experimental Pathology, from which the "Lancet" quotes, that:
"There can be no doubt that vaccination was a definite causal factor. "
The Lancet declares that the account in the Journal:"includes summaries of clinical histories and necropsies and descriptions ofthe pathological changes, gross and minute, in the central nervous system as wellas in the vaccinated areas, regional lymphatic glands, and other tissues. Beautifullyclear drawings illustrate the histological lesions found in the spinal cord at lowerlevels. The evidence of aetiology (the science of cause) derived from clinical andhistological manifestations is shown to be strong, and is confirmed by the resultsof biological experiments (experiment on animals made independently by Dr. Paul Fildesand Prof. McIntosh). Inoculation of material from the brain and spinal cord of threeof these cases showed the presence of vaccinia virus, no other virus being obtained."
The suspicions of these doctors were first aroused in 1912when a post-morten on a recently vaccinated boy of 15 years revealed encephalo-myelitis.In December, 1922, a 9-year-old girl came to necropsy with a diagnosis of tubercularmeningitis. However the microscope revealed, no lesions except recent vaccinationscabs, glandular inflammation in the region of vaccination and slight changes inthe central nervous system. Brain and cord presented the same peculiar changes asthose found in the boy ten years previously.
"Other cases," says the Lancet, "werenow quickly recognized one in a man of 21, and the rest in girls of 7, 12, 15, and22 respectively. All these patients except one girl died in the course of an acuteattack of encephalo-myelitis complicated by broncho-pneumonia."
As an example of how these seven cases proceeded the caseof the woman 22 years of age will suffice. She was vaccinated while and infant andagain on November 28th, 1922. Seven days thereafter she developed a severe headacheand other symptoms. On the 10th and 12 days she was drowsy and had high fever. Onthe 13th day she became semi-comatose and on the 14th day she died.
The Lancet for October 9, 1926, states that in Holland,during the period from January 1, 1924, to July 1, 1925: "35 cases, of which15 were fatal, occurred of Encephalitis following vaccination after an interval of10 to 30 days," had elapsed.
The Lancet further declares in the article previously quotedfrom: "Investigation of the possible path of infection gave negative results--Closeexamination of the vaccinal areas and regional glands yielded but little information,since the histological changes appeared to be essentially similar to those in a controlcase, a recently vaccinated boy killed in an accident."
This means, reader, that the ordinary and regular courseof mischief pursued by vaccination may easily result in the production of these diseases.The Lancet further says: "Though the path of infection cannot be traced,the authors would appear to have ample justification for concluding, in view of theclose resemblance between the clinical histories, the uniformity of the pathologicalfindings, and the absence of similar cases independent of vaccination, that vaccinationwas a definite causal factor and no chance coincidence." (Italics mine.).
In the year 1927 when Mr. Marky and Senator Love debatedon vaccination, we exhibited on the platform, a little girl whose body was frightfullytwisted, greatly emaciated and paralyzed as a result of vaccination. With the smoothsagacity of the suave politician and with resort to the ancient medical subterfugesof "secondary infection" and "intercurrent malady," Dr. Loveattempted to make the audience believe the child's troubles were due to somethingother than vaccination. But an "intercurrent affection" is mere bunk. Itnever existed outside the medical mind. The Lancet had formerly held to thesame theory with regard to such cases as cited above. Referring in its issue of August1, 1925, to the numerous cases on the continent, it declares: "Experiment andpathological research have shown that this form of the disease is not due to thevirus of Jenner's vaccine" . . . . "There was a latent infection"and "vaccination merely hatched it out."
"Latent infection" is another subterfuge that haslong served the blundering medical profession when tuberculosis, syphilis and leprosyfollow vaccination. But the end of this subterfuge is drawing near. The Lancethas unsaid what it declared in the quotation above. It declares: "Similar casesindependent of vaccination were not observed at the same time nor any other time.The authors give cogent reasons against the assumption that the post-vaccinal casesdescribed by them and by workers abroad are merely examples of poliomyelitis, (inflammationof the gray matter of the spinal cord) or encephalitis lethargica (sleeping sickness),in which vaccination was an immaterial accident."
It declares that encephalo-myelitis following vaccinationalways exhibits more extensive lesions than those of sleeping sickness and that "histologically,the inflammation in ordinary cases of poliomyelitis (infantile paralysis) differsconspicuously from that following vaccination.
In 1923, 1924 and 1925 great efforts were made in Englandto have everybody vaccinated. Thousands of vaccinations were performed. There occurreda great increase in the cases of Encephalitis-Lethargica. In 1924, there were 6,296cases of this and similar affections reported in England and Wales, with a populationof 38,746,000; or 162 cases per million of population. In Liverpool, with a populationof 836,000 there was reported 257 such cases; or 306 cases per million of population.Liverpool was fifty per cent better vaccinated than the average of England and Wales,and had almost 100% more Encephalitis. I presume this was due to an "intercurrentaffection," or a "latent infection," or to a "secondary infection."
The New York State Journal of Medicine, May 15, 1926,carried two articles from foreign Journals discussing similar cases on the Europeancontinent. In one of these Carl Leiner, (Vienna) is said to have discussed encephalitisand meningitis developing in nine to fifteen days after vaccination. He admits thatin a generalized infection, like generalized vaccina, there may be intracranial complications.The article also states that Dr. Lucksch saw three cases and knew of four more, andof the seven children, five died. In two autopsies, which he obtained, he was ableto show beyond doubt that "death had been due to encephalitis." Bastianse,of the Hague, collected notes of 34 similar cases which occurred in Holland during18 months of 1924--25, with a mortality of forty per cent--"deadlier if anythingthan ordinary epidemic encephalitis." "In addition several cases of seriousmeningitis have been reported."
Three cases reported, by the author of the article, in Austria,showed that "not only the encephalon but the cord and peripheral nerves maybe involved, so that the affection may be spoken of broadly as a meningoencephalitispolyneuritis."
The other article is a brief of an article by Dr. W. F. Winkler,chief of the University Clinic of Rostock. It says: "Quite recently isolatedcases of cerebral symptoms, suggesting encephalitis, following vaccination have beenreported from Holland, Czechoslovakia, and Germany and from Switzerland there havebeen reported two cases of serious meningitis."
The Netherlands, and other countries, for instance, France,have also reported cases of this kind. In the Journal of the American MedicalAssociation, July 3, 1926, P. 45, is an article by its Berlin correspondent discussing"Nervous disturbances and Smallpox Vaccination." In it are these words:"In regions in which there is no organized vaccination of the population, generalparalysis is rare. In patients with general paralysis he (Dr. Daraskwiewicz), hasnever seen smallpox scars, but vaccination scars were always present." It isnoted that, whereas, boys are most susceptible to post-vaccinal tetanus, girls aremost susceptible to post-vaccinal encephalitis.
It would be idle to claim that all cases of local or generalparalysis are due to vaccination. There are cases due to other causes also. But theseother cases must not be made a basis for denying the evil influence of vaccination,as some vaccine apologists attempt.
How new is the phenomenon? Who Knows? Dr. Pierre Baron, AncienIntern of the Hospitaux de Paris, prefaces his work on post-vaccinal encephalitis(1929), in which his conclusions are based on his own observations, by a case hefound after searching through medical annuals and unearthed a report of a case inthe "Archives tie Medicine des Infants," in 1907. Dr. Combay ofthe Medical Society of the Hospitals of Paris, reported a case which had occurredin his practice in 1905.
Dr. Comby tells of a baby girl, in excellent health whenvaccinated at four months of age, who developed convulsions on the eighth day, followedby strabismus and other troubles. She did not die but was left with an "importantsequel." She no longer recognized her surroundings; almost forgot how to nurse;had a vague look; "veritable intellectual obnubilation," developed idiocywith progressive cerebral sclerosis (hardening of the brain), and nearing her eighteenthmonth died. Her death went into medical "statistics" as due to pneumonia--andold trick in hiding their crimes.
Dr. Baron's book discusses 255 cases of post-vaccinal encephalitis,avowedly discussed as such in medical works. His list is far from complete, for hecredits the United States with only four cases, all of these before 1927.
Great Britain appointed two committees to investigate thismatter--the Andrews Comittee, appointed Nov. 1923, which made its report May 1925;and the Rolleston Committee appointed Feb. 1926, which made its report Feb. 1928.These two committees were composed of eminent medical men all of whom supported vaccination.
The Andrews Committee reported 62 cases of post-vaccinalencephalitis with 36 deaths--40 females and 22 males; average age 10-1/2 years. Fourcases were under one year, one case fifty years, and forty-eight cases were fromsix to sixteen years. Government vaccine had been used in 53 of these cases, of which30 were fatal.
The Rolleston Committee reported 30 cases with 16 fatalities.Government vaccine was used in 18 of these with 8 deaths. This committee also reportedthe subsequent history of 10 non-fatal cases under 15 years, showing that 4 werepermanently injured in some way--in mind, memory, temper, vigor, relapse.
Since vaccination was made compulsory in England and Walesone million infants have died of convulsions, tetanus, encephalitis, meningitis,and other nervous ailments. How many of these were due to vaccination there is nowno means of knowing, but in the light of present facts, we are safe in assuming thata large proportion of them died from this cause.
In 1924 there were recorded in England and Wales 5,039 casesof Encephalitis Lethargica, 397 of cerebro-spinal fever, 777 acute poleomyelitis,83 poleo-encephalitis--a total of 6,296 cases, with 2,200 deaths, 2,520 permanentlyinjured brains (insane), and 1,575 complete recoveries.
The cases in 1924 were three times as great as the yearlyaverage for the nine proceeding years. In 1922- 23-24 the doctors of England andWales cooked up a number of smallpox scares, causing 288,000 revaccinations. "Extravaccination was followed by this extra crop of sleepy sickness."
A case of post-vaccinal encephalitis was reported in Irelandthis year (1930) in a baby boy of 10 months. He was vaccinated on May 3rd and becameill on May 10th, "being cross and very restless with vomiting. Next day he wasquiet and apathetic, and on admission to the hospital his condition resembled tetanus."
The League of Nations in its Report of Aug. 27, 1928 mentions139 cases and 41 deaths in Holland. This resulted in Holland stopping compulsoryvaccination during 1920-29. The total number of vaccinations in Holland in the firsthalf of 1928 was less than one- third of those for the first half of 1927 and thedeaths from Encephalitis were reduced to less than one-third.
Germany is seeking a modification of her compulsory vaccinationlaw. She is seeking an optional clause, such as the one England has. The InternationalNews Service, Feb. 27, 1930, informs us:
"The change of attitude of some medical experts towards vaccination in favor of a less rigid enforcement of the law has been brought about mainly through a considerable number of post-vaccinal diseases observed in Holland and England and in sporadic cases in Germany.
"Vaccinated people developed a sort of cerebral inflammation, (encephalitis post-vaccinalis) ### which resulted in a number of deaths and in several cases of a mild form of mental derangement."
Here is part of an item which appeared in the Journalof the American Medical Association for April 5, 1930: "Reisch reports thatfollowing the vaccination of 233 children aged between 5 and 10 years, several caseswith encephahtlc symptoms were observed. Two were especially severe and ended fatally.The necropsy revealed the changes characteristic of encephalomyelitis. Six otherchildren also developed encephalitic symptoms from six to twelve days after the vaccination."
The Report of the Commission of Smallpox and Vaccinationof the Health Organization of the League of Nations, Geneva, Aug. 27, I9z8, says:"The post- vaccinal encephalitis with which we are dealing has become a problemin itself mainly in consequence of the events of the last few years in the Netherlandsand England and Wales. In each of these countries the cases which have occurred havebeen sufficiently numerous and similar to require them to be considered collectively.Their occurrence has led to the realization that a new, or at least a previouslyunsuspected or unrecognized, risk attaches to the practice of vaccination."
Now what of America? Do such cases ever occur here? Theydo. But they are seldom reported and, it seems, are never investigated.
This very year (1930) Julia Motley, age 12 of Irisburg, Va.,died of acute infantile paralysis which "seized" her 3 weeks after shehad been vaccinated. Her parents attributed her death to vaccination, whereupon theState Health Autherities came to the rescue of vaccination. The News Leader,Richmond, March 28, 1930 says: "While the parents gave vaccination as the causeof death, Dr. J. V. Shackleford, the physician, states that the death certificate(made out by him, of course), shows that the little girl died of acute infantileparalysis, with which she was seized three weeks after she had been vaccinated."
And that's that! The doctor who vaccinated the girl makesout the death certificate to shield himself and the vaccine and the matter in settled.The girl is now immune to smallpox and the smallpox goddess has been appeased.
This reminds me very much of a statement contained in thememorandum, of Professor Jorge, to the Committee of the International Office of PublicHygiene (published in the monthly bulletin of that organization, for Jan., 1927)where he refers to "the motives which weighed with us not to noise abroadin the great press the news of this complication of a prophylactic operation hithertolooked upon (sic) as innocuous. . ." (Italics mine.)
The press probably would not have published the news hadthey given it out, for, it always protects the medical profession. The press is asgood about suppressing the truth as Professor Jorge and his co-workers.
The mediums of intelligence (?), our newspapers, magazines,movies, churches and schools, play a vast part in the continual bunking of our moreor less brainy public, while every subsidized press or scientist, professor or preacher,is entirely a politicial organ, at the beck and call of the exploiters.
Of course, when it is all said and done, the class of nincompoopswho take any stock in the stuff dished out, do not really count. They are like thedefenders of any kind of "it-works-one-day-a-week" philosophy; in thatwhen the tide rises they will found to be without a bathing suit.
Surgeon Chas. Armstrong, in Public Health Reports,Aug. 23, 1929, says in an article on post-vaccinal encephalitis: "In so faras the age factor is concerned, the custom in this country of performing primaryvaccinations at the sixth or seventh year would seem to predispose our populationto the complication. Cases have, moreover, occurred. Wilson and Ford, and Fulghamand Beykirk have reported 3 cases in this country which were confirmed by pathologicalstudies. Other possible cases based on clinical and epidemiological grounds havebeen reported from Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Maryland, Illinois, California,Washington, and the District of Columbia."
The Weekly Bulletin of the Dept. of Health, of NewYork City, Sept. 7, 1929 devotes several pages to a discussion of post-vaccinal encephalitisand says: "Although only a few cases have been reported in the United States,it seems advisable to call physicians' attention to this complication so that anycases in which persons recently vaccinated show symptoms pointing to the centralnervous system can be carefully investigated.
It may be interesting enough to doctors to study symptomspointing to the central nervous system but it will not be interesting to you or yourafflicted child. Since the medical profession is determined not to abandon this filthyand deadly practice, no matter how many children are sickened, maimed and killed,it is up to you to prevent post-vaccinal encephalitis, and all the other troublesdiscusssed in this chapter, by not permitting your child to be infected with thisdirty cow pus.
It is your child. It does not belong to the state. It wasnot born into this world to furnish money to the medical profession. You are responsiblefor its care and training. If you betray your child by giving it over to this modernmoloch, you deserve a worse fate than any Dante ever pictured.
In reply to an inquiry, addressed to the United States PublicHealth Service, by Senator Robt. F. Wagner, New York, Surgeon General Hugh S. Cummingsays: "One case (of encephalitis following vaccination) in the United Statewas published in 1929 and two in 1927. These three cases seem to be definitely establishedas sequelae of vaccination. Several other cases less well established have come toour attention but need not be considered here."
That these and all figures given in his reply are not completeis evident from the closing paragraph of his letter. He says: "Although a searchhas been made of the literature since 1925, we cannot be sure that this is a completelist. While the Public Health Service endeavors to learn of and in many instancesto investigate untoward cases suspected of being caused by biologic products, thereis no legal mechanism requiring the reporting of such cases to the Public HealthService."
The Report of the Surgeon General of the U. S. Army, 1918,shows that during 1917 there were admitted to the army hospitals 19,608 men sufferingfrom anti-typhoid inoculation and vaccinia. The Report for 1919 covering the year1918 shows the total admissions suffering from typhoid vaccination to be 23,191 and10,830 suffering from vaccinia. Assuming that the proportions of those sufferingfrom these two inoculations were about the same for the two years it means that approximately20,000 were in the army hospitals admittedly suffering from smallpox vaccination.This takes no account of those whose sufferings were attributed to something else,nor of those whose sufferings, though great, here not great enough to cause themto be sent to the hospitals.
The Chicago Tribune, June 6, 1926 carried the accountof the death of Kasmir Jeskey, 10-year-old son of Mrs. Anna Jesky, 1523 I7th Ave.,Melrose Park. The Tribune stated: "Blood poisoning believed to have resultedfrom vaccination yesterday claimed the life of Kasmir Jesky."
The Report of The Register General, England, from 1875 to1923 recorded 1,464 deaths officially admitted to have been caused by vaccination.These figures give but a small part of the picture for most such deaths are coveredup. For instance, in one series of deaths caused by vaccination, Public Enquiry revealedthat vaccination had been mentioned as a cause in only one case. In another seriesof seventeen deaths following vaccination, investigated by a medical man, who publishedthe details, only one death had been attributed to vaccination. One British Physiciansaid:
"In certificates given by us voluntarily and to which the public have access, it is scarcely to be expected that a medical man will give opinions which may tell against or reflect upon himself in any way, or which are likely to cause annoyance or injury to the survivors. In such cases he will most likely tell the truth, but not the whole truth, and assign some prominent symptom as the cause of death. As instances of cases which may tell against the medical man himself, I will mention erysipelas after vaccination and pueperal fever. A death from the first cause occurred not long ago in my practice, and although I had not vaccinated the child, yet in my desire to preserve vaccination from reproach, I omitted all mention of it from my certificate of death."
Vaccination must be saved from reproach at all costs. Whocares how many children are killed if only vaccination may be saved from dishonor.It is up to parents to put an end to this crippling and maiming of children. It isthe sacred duty of all parents to protect their children from all harm. If the medicalprofession is not honorable enough to abandon this highly remunerative, though eviland deadly practice, it behooves parents to cut their professional throats.
Will it be urged that while vaccination is often productiveof harm and death, it produces less of these than it prevents? If so, I shall showthat this is not so. But, grant for a moment the truth of the assertion, it is stilltrue that to force such a dangerous process upon one is unjustifiable. It is a dangerand we each have a right to choose between two dangers. Compulsory vaccinatlon isa crime.
The Christian Herald, England, July 7, 1927, carriesan account of a smallpox epidemic, of a very serious type, in 15 departments (counties)in France, with a death rate of nearly 50 per cent in women and about 33 per centin men. All of these cases were vaccinated people--many of the victims having beenvaccinated as many as three times. If vaccination protects, why did it fail in thesecases?
In our army during the Spanish American War and in the Philippinesthe soldiers had been vaccinated, not only annually, but every six weeks. Chief SurgeonLippincott said "Vaccination is carried on as regularly as post drill."Yet the official report shows 276 cases of smallpox in 1899 with 78 deaths; 246 casesin 1900 with 113 deaths; and 125 cases with 37 deaths in 1901; the case fatalityof nearly fifty per cent, in 1900 being the highest ever recorded for this diseasein the army -- a well vaccinated army, if there ever was one.
In 1872 Japan passed a compulsory vaccination law which urasrigidly enforced. But smallpox continued to ravage that country. In 1885 anotherlaw was passed requiring revaccination every seven years. From 1886 to 1892 therewere 25,474,370 vaccinations, re-vaccinations and re-re-vaccinations recorded inJapan. During these same seven years, 1886 to 1892, Japan had 156,175 cases of smallpox,with 38,979 deaths or a case-fatality of nearly 25 per cent which exceeds the smallpoxdeath-rate of the pre-vaccination period when nobody was vaccinated. In a singleyear (1893) Japan had 41,898 cases of smallpox with 11,852 deaths.
In 1896 the Japanese Parliment passed an act, which was immediatelysigned by the Mikado, requiring every resident of Japan, whatever his or her stationin life, to be vaccinated and revaccinated every five years. The act was rigidlyenforced under severe penalties. Baron Takalira boasted in London in 1906, at theJubilee Dinner of the Society of Medical Officers Of Health of England that:
"There are no anti-vaccinationists in Japan. Every child is vaccinated before it is six months old, revaccinated when it enters school at six years and again re- vaccinated at fourteen years of age when going to the middle school, and the men are re-vaccinated before entering the army, while a further re-vaccination is enforced whenever an outbreak of smallpox occurs."
Notice the last part of this statement. If vaccination preventssmallpox, how do "outbreaks of smallpox" occur in such a thoroughly vaccinatedcountry? There can be but one answer--namely; Vaccination does not protect.
This compulsory vaccination law became effective in Japanin 1896. In 1897 there were 49,946 cases of smallpox in Japan, with 2,276 deathsfrom this cause. In 1908 there were 10,067 cases with 5,837 deaths officially recorded.
From 1889 to 1908 Japan had 171,611 cases of smallpox with47,919 deaths. If anybody thinks that vaccination, re-vaccination, and re-re-vaccinationprevents or mitigates smallpox, let him look at these figures. Here is a case fatalityof nearly 30 per cent. It would be interesting to know to what extent the diseasewas mitigated by vaccination in those 47,919 fatal cases of post-vaccinal smallpox.
The New York Medical Journal, July 22, 1899, containsan article on "Vaccination in Italy," by Chas, Rauta, M. D., Prof. of Hygieneand Materia Medica in the University of Perguia, Italy. In this he points out that"Italy is one of the best vaccinated countries in the world, if not the bestof all, and we can prove that mathematically." He says further: "For twentyyears before 1885, our Nation was vaccinated in the proportion of 98.5 per cent.Notwithstanding, the epidemics of smallpox that we have had have been something sofrightful that nothing before the invention of vaccination could equal them.""During 1887, we had 16,249 deaths from smallpox; in 1888, 18,110; and in 1889,13,413."
Referring to the Italian army, in which "vaccinationhad been performed twice a year in the most satisfactory manner for many years past"he says that "now we see that soldiers not protected because vaccination didnot 'take' were less attacked by smallpox than those 'duly protected' by the goodresults of their revaccination; and that the death-rate in those vaccinated withgood results was greater than among those in whom the vaccination did not take."
We have forced vaccination on the Philippines since we tookover the Islands. Spain had done the same thing previously. In 1905-06; 1907-08 andin 1918-19 these Islands experienced severe smallpox epidemics, the 1918-19 one beingthe worst of all. There were 47,887 cases of smallpox with 16,578 deaths officiallyreported in 1918. In Manila alone, the best vaccinated part of the Islands, therewere 1,326 cases and 869 deaths, or a case mortality of 65.3 per cent. The lowestmortality, 11.4 per cent was in Mindanao, the least vaccinated portions of the islands.
The Health Service got busy and vaccinated thousands andthousands, performing about four vaccinations for each inhabitant in Manila. Theresult was that in 1919 there were 99,300 cases of smallpox, with 47,395 deaths.
In two years time in a population of less than 11,000,000there were 147,187 cases of smallpox and 63,973 deaths.
The 1920 Report of the Philippine Health Service. (see pages141 and 142), makes the following very brief comment: "FROM THE TIME IN WHICHSMALLPOX WAS PRACTICALLY ERADICATED IN THE CITY OF MANILA TO THE YEAR 1918 (ABOUT9 YEARS) IN WHICH THE EPIDEMIC APPEARED CERTAINLY IN ONE OF ITS SEVEREST FORMS, HUNDREDSAFTER HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WERE YEARLY VACCINATED WITH THE MOST UNFORTUNATERESULT THAT THE 1918 EPIDEMIC LOOKS PRIMA FACIE AS A FLAGRANT FAILURE OF THE CLASSICIMMUNIZATION TOWARDS FUTURE EPIDEMICS." (Caps. Mine.)
Alibies were offered for the failure, however, and the dirtywork continues. No matter how great the evil, those who profit off it will not correctit not so long as profits are still to be made therefrom.
There is an unvaccinated country in this world without smallpox.Australia is the great unvaccinated country and despite dire predictions of disasterfrom vacane advocates, Australia remains free from smallpox. Three-fourths of herpopulation have always been in the never-vaccinated class. Under the modern theorythat vaccinal immunity lasts only five years (Italy vaccinated twice a year and failed)2-1/2% of her population are "protected."
In the whole of Australian history less than one person ayear has died of smallpox. Many of these were from the outside and were simply quarantinedthere. In Queensland where the official figures show 1 vaccination for every 1,500births the state has had but one "outbreak." In 1892 a well-vaccinatedquarantine official contracted the disease on ship. There were no other cases. The''epidemic'' had no show among an unvaccinated people. In Victoria in 21 years thesewere 5 deaths from smallpox and 14 deaths from vaccination--these are only thosedeaths that are honestly attributed to this cause. This coincides with the reportsof the Register General of England covering a period of years in which there were,in England, 42 deaths from smallpox under five years of age and 157 deaths officiallyadmitted to have been due to vaccination.
In England and Scotland the decline of vaccination has beenaccompanied by the practical disappearance of smallpox. Here are the figures, brieflyEngland, 1871-75 percentage of vaccination 97.6%; smallpox deaths per million people,228; 1910-20 percentage of vaccination 43.9; smallpox deaths per million people 0.4.Scotland, 1855-1874 one of the best vaccinated countries of the world, "notan unvaccinated child in Scotland;" 9,087 children under five years old diedof smallpox; 1907-1919 with about one-third of the children vaccinated only 7 deathsunder five years from smallpox.
Smallpox is always worse where vaccination abounds. The scratchof vaccination is the "scratch of death." Yet our medically controlledHealth Boards cook up fake epidemics, create panics for profit, such as the onesin Kansas City in 1921, Pittsburgh in 1924, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington in1925. An effort was also made to create a panic in New York in 1925, but due to theopen fight against it by the NewYork Evening Graphic, the Commissioner of Healthcalled it off.
Surgeon J. P. Leake, says in Public Health Reports,Jan. 28, 1927, the weekly bulletin of the U. S. Public Health Service:
"Will a nonimmunized person contract smallpox if exposed to the disease? By no means uniformly. Exposure to smallpox, especially to the milder forms, without contracting the disease frequently occurs and is no definite evidence of immunity. The number of cases of smallpox among the unprotected persons in contact with patients suffering from the disease is very much less than 100 per cent."
"Though smallpox is unquestionably many times more frequent in the unvaccinated than in those who have had even a single vaccination, it is believed that neither the vaccination history nor the presence of scars should be given diagnostic weight. The unreliability of such a criterion is especially evident in virulent outbreaks of the disease.....
"The purpuric, uniformly-fatal, form of smallpox is the most difficult to prevent by vaccination, and cases of this form, without a true smallpox eruption, may occur in persons with a fairly good vaccination history."
"The mildness of the form of smallpox commonest at present is one reason for endeavoring to make preventive vaccination as harmless and as mild as possible."
"Cases, and even fatalities, occur in every severe epidemic among persons who were vaccinated in good time but with vaccine found, to late, to he of insufficient potency; such cases and fatalities also occur among persons thought to be protected by successful vaccination performed years previously."
You are vaccinated and have smallpox. The vaccine was of"insufficient potency" although this was discovered to late--that is, afteryou have the smallpox. You are vaccinated and do not develop smallpox--it is assumedthat the vaccine was potent. It is like the old test for mushrooms--eat them andlive they are mushrooms; eat them and die, they are toad stools.
In 1926, 30 members of the Dallas (Tex) Chamber of Commercecancelled their trip to Mexico because vaccination was required as a precedent toentrance. Nearly a 100 medical men, at a conference in Dallas, went to Mexico, afterthey obtained permission to enter without being vaccinated. Think this over beforeyou submit your child to this evil and superstitious rite.
This criminal practice will end as soon as parents developsufficient interest in the welfare of their children. At present parents offer uptheir children on the alters of the smallpox goddess, because commercial ghouls demandit and hope that the children will not be greatly injured.
If a child is invalided for life or is killed, the parentsmeekly accept the lying alibies of the scoundrels who maim and murder children formoney, cry a little, and return to their movies and joy rides.
Reader do you know how Judas felt after he had sold his masterfor a few pieces of silver? If you have surrendered your child to be vaccinated andinoculated, after you learned the truth, you know how he felt. There is one greatdifference between you and him--Judas had decency enough to go out and hang himself.
HOME PAGE HEALTHLIBRARY CATALOG