Sunday, November 19, 2017


Source Article:

Growing up in a gardener’s household with a mother who fully expected to do her parents’ green-thumbs proud, I was exposed to many practices and ‘tricks of the trade’ concerning growing plants – both indoors and out. As a kid puttering around after my mom, and later as a young adult attempting to grow my own flowers, I applied many of the same techniques I had watched my mom apply without even knowing why I was doing so.

It wasn’t until I became a homeowner and truly began to claim the land as my own with larger garden beds that I became somewhat overwhelmed with why things worked how they did, or didn’t. Epsom salts had always played a role in gardening, although I never knew why, so I set out to find out the reasoning behind using them in the garden.

Epsom salts for plants have long been hailed as a gardeners best kept secret for generations, but what exactly is so great about using epsom salts in your garden?


To begin, I should probably explain what Epsom salts are. Epsom salts are actually a mineral compound of magnesium and sulfate- essential nutrients that regulate enzymes and are found naturally in most living things. Originally found in Epsom, England (hence the name), they are mined from the ground and have a variety of different uses ranging from healthy lifestyle choices, help with magnesium deficiencies, crafting projects, and in our case – gardening.

Epsom salts are not salts at all even though they look like it (it doesn’t have any sodium chloride in it’s makeup). Because of this, it can be used as a natural alternative in many agricultural and health practices without ill effects- since too much true salt is actually harmful to plants.


Magnesium sulfate is actually a key ingredient for vegetation and is found naturally in soils, although they can eventually be depleted and leach over time. The use of Epsom salts in varied ways can help give a very inexpensive boost to your plants and flowers year round – whether they are grown as indoor plants or out.

Essentially they are a building block of new growth, and is supportive of overall plant health; they can be used in a variety of ways to enhance seed germination, flower production, new growth, and can aide with chlorophyll creation: which is needed for photosynthesis in all green plants.



Seed germination is the process of when non-dormant seeds begin to grow into a plant. Sowing Epsom salts directly into the ground at a rate of one to two tablespoons for each hole when you begin to plan your garden will help ensure a greater percentage of seeds begins this process. Furthermore, magnesium builds up cell walls which also helps keep seedlings stronger and more readily available for nutrient uptake – resulting in stronger, healthier mature plants.


Plant roots don’t grow in search of nutrients, rather nutrients need to be in the soils surrounding the roots and come into contact with them in order to be taken up to feed the plant. These nutrients both help further root growth and plant growth above ground. As roots spread, they encounter more to continue the process, especially when you add in an additional ‘food supply’ for them to take in.

Occasionally nutrients leach through the soils, or washout of soils, causing roots unable to come in contact with these essential building blocks. Natural salts can also accumulate when this happens, which can inhibit nutrient uptake. Epsom Salts help loosen and breakdown salts, and adds back in some of the vitamins and minerals needs to keep your plants growing and healthy.


When any sort of plant is transplanted, whether from one place in your yard to another or from a pot to the ground, transplant shock is a common occurrence. Transplant shock occurs due to the disruption of the root system and the consequential failure of the roots to become established. When this occurs your plant will fail to thrive and may eventually die off, especially if the roots have not begun to grow before winter dormancy.

Most plants suffer from some form of transplant shock upon repotting, replanting, or moving; but with a minimal amount of care you can help alleviate this stress. For starters, providing Epsom salts to the bottom of your transplant holes will ensure there are readily available nutrients upon planting. Keeping your new plant well watered is also essential, and adding in epsom salts to your water every two weeks for the first few months will help keep a new plant from failing to thrive.


Magnesium, produces chlorophyll; chlorophyll is the green pigment that is essential for the process of photosynthesis: the process in which carbon dioxide is taken from the air and converted into oxygen and glucose (plant food) in all green plants. Chlorophyll makes this conversion possible using sunlight, and when chlorophyll is lacking, your plant leaves will begin to yellow and wither, upon which the plant will begin to suffer as it receives less nutrients from the sun and is dependent only upon what is stored in the roots.


Although Epsom salts do dissolve in water, in drier climate (where they are less likely to wash away as readily) they can be quite useful when spread around the surface of the soils in your garden and around the base of your plants. These crystallized minerals are similar in nature to Diatomaceous Earth, and make it pretty uncomfortable for garden pests to cross onto a plant from the ground since it will cut up their soft bodies and exoskeletons, causing them to dehydrate and die.


The production of fruits and vegetables are actually how plants reseed themselves. Therefore this is a very taxing process since essentially what is occurring is what should lead to the end of the growth cycle for the plant as they mature their seeds and then die. Modern agriculture has hybridized and changed how these plants produce to yield larger crops for human consumption, and they truly do need more of a food supply than what would normally be found in the ground in order to keep producing.

Applying Epsom salts regularly will help from the start of the germination process as mentioned above, and continue to feed the plant with regular applications so larger, sweeter, and more abundant, healthy fruits and vegetables can make their way to your table.


Applying Epsom salts as a general fertilizer will boost your soil magnesium and sulfur where needed. You can apply this in a few ways: either by mixing it into the soil with a fertilizer as an added boost upon initial planting, or mixing it into water at a ratio of one to three tablespoons per one gallon of water and using the mixture to water your plants with. You can also mix it directly into the soil around the base of the plant at a ratio of one tablespoon per one foot of plant height.

This is especially important in gardens where you need to produce a yield of flowers, fruits, and vegetables. Whereas certain plants can tolerate low magnesium, other suffer when it is lacking- and this can be seen when the plant leaves begin to turn yellow on the edges and a yellow arrow shaped pattern appears in the center. Plants lacking in sulfur will have younger leaves yellowing and browning, occasionally followed by older leaved. Either deficiency will affect your bloom rate, as well as any sort of produce set you were expecting.


Magnesium can also be taken up through the leaves of a plant, and can be used a foliar spray throughout the life of your plant as a general maintenance measure. Many plants benefit from a regular application of a Epsom salt spray, and can aide in the overall health and amount of produce grown in vegetable gardens.

This application is best used when you mix a ratio of two tablespoons per gallon of water and apply at least once a month to blooming plants beginning after blooms appear. If you plant is showing low magnesium stress as described above, it’s best to mix into the soils itself.


Epsom salt applications cause bigger bud sets and more vigorous blooms in flowering plants. Most flowers begin to suffer from a magnesium deficiency during bloom, so the regular use of them in watering or foliar application can help keep your plant flowering longer, and recover more quickly if it is a continual bloomer.

This is never more so than in roses as they use a large amount of nutrients setting their large flowers; and Epsom salts help build lush, dark foliage as well. The increase in the production of chlorophyll in sun loving plants feeds the entire plant, and roses, especially those that set multiple times in a season, will keep providing an abundance of new growth and bed sets for as long as they can.

There are a few key guidelines to consider for optimal use: work epsom salts into the soil at least once a year surrounding plants, and then provide a good feeding of dissolved application upon planting when dealing with new vegetation.


Potted plants can occasionally start to have a buildup of natural salts through the watering and draining cycle. When this occurs soils will begin to bind and roots will struggle with both water and nutrient uptake. Epsom salts will help breakup natural salts and will improve the plant’s overall health through this process.

Mix a two tablespoon to one gallon of water ratio to water your plants with once a month with it. This will easily take care of any salt buildup and also provide aide for more vigorous growth. Just remember – plants need good sunlight to best utilize Epsom salts, so keep your houseplants in an area where they will receive either good direct, or indirect sunlight depending on their needs to best utilize this application.


Almost all vegetable plants benefit from an application of Epsom salts, but none more so than tomatoes and peppers which are both naturally magnesium deficient. Tomatoes like both the magnesium and sulfur, which helps prevent blossom end rots in all vegetables (squash varieties included). Roots reach deep, foliage will darken, and fruits will sweeten when you both plant your veggies in the spring with a soil mixture, and then follow up every two weeks with a watering solution.
You can also apply a foliar spray, but be sure to do it when you know it can dry to avoid dampening the foliage too much, or too often.


Even though Epsom salts feed all vegetation, it has been hailed as a good weed killer when mixed with other ingredients. A gallon of white vinegar, two cups Epsom salt, and a cup of blue Dawn dish soap when mixed and sprayed on a plant will cause the vegetation on a plant to wither fairly effectively. For a more lasting effect, if you heat the solution in advance to a boiling point and then pour over the weeds this should also ensure the roots are scorched past redemption.


Hopefully this was a help to those of you (like me) who were wondering how Epsom salts worked in the garden and why you should use them. Having begun the application to my roses and veggies this summer, I was shocked at the differences I saw in my plants. My floribunda roses set bloom after bloom continuously through the summer (I also used a rose fertilizer once a month in the soil), and my tomatoes took over (literally) the garden and grew to over 6 feet tall and 8 feet wide (I had to use hog panel to support it). We actually named the Roma, Earl, and Earl produced over 200 fruits this season, with green ones still set until frost.

If you have any questions or comments, or have found yet another way to utilize Epsom salts in you yard, we want to hear from you! Please leave us a message below, and as always, share!

Tuesday, November 14, 2017


What a potent article!!! This is what organized jewry has done to Germany. This is what the jewish EU is bringing to Europe as a means of wiping out the white population. I pray with every fiber of my being that all of this turns against them and that it will soon be they who are erased from our Earth. I, for one, have had enough of their evil.

Source Article:
A Female Doctor Working in Germany Warns the World

Sunday, November 12, 2017


This is how grotesque jews can be. The sexual perversion is unbounded and they think if they change the spelling of their last name from Klein to Cline, no one will know they are jews. Absolutely absurd.

Ye shall know them by their fruits.

Source Article:
Fertility doctor who fathered dozens of children to plead guilty

INDIANAPOLIS (WXIN/CNN) - The Indiana doctor who used his own sperm to impregnate his patients without their knowledge plans to plead guilty to obstruction charges. On Tuesday, attorneys for physician Donald Cline said he will now admit lying to state investigators after fathering more than 20 children.

Some of the children he fathered said they want more to be done to prevent this situation in the future. For some of them, there is a little bit of relief and a light at the end of a long tunnel.

“I’m ecstatic. I couldn’t be any more happy,” said Jacoba Ballard, one of the Cline donor children, many of whom are now young adults.

While a guilty plea will likely mean that Cline will be facing some form of punishment, some of the children he fathered, like Amber Stafford, say it’s not exactly enough.

“It was a kind of reassurance that even though he wasn’t here and didn’t say, ‘I’m guilty,’ it kind of gives you that feeling that he is owing up to what he did and admitting that what he did was wrong,” Stafford said.

But Cline won’t be facing any charges for impregnating more than 20 women. At least 25 siblings have been connected through DNA tests and the website 23 and Me.

“We want more justice, but we’ll get there, and we won’t stop fighting to get laws changed in Indiana,” Stafford said.

Indiana currently doesn’t have any laws on its books preventing physicians from doing what Cline did, so now this group is fighting for some, calling on lawmakers to use their stories to take action.

“This wasn’t just a handful of kids or mothers that this happened to that resulted into a handful of children,” said Matt White, who was also fathered by Cline. “We’re now into several dozen. And it’s going to continue to grow.”

Ballard said the large group is set to fight.

“We’re in this together, and it’s not just me, it’s everyone,” she said. “It’s all of our moms, my family.”

Some of the children hope to be able to give victim impact statements in front of a judge prior to Cline’s sentencing hearing. Cline will officially submit his guilty plea on Dec. 14.


The boy's mother said her son has suffered pain (stock image)

Source Article:
'No-consent' circumcision doctor will not be prosecuted

Dear Friends - Never, ever leave your child alone with a family member that supports circumcision or vaccines or any medical, religious, or otherwise satanic ritual that could cause harm to your child. These people cannot be trusted. Ever. Parents are now forced to be hypervigilant to protect their children because we live in a mind-controlled society and those under mind control are capable of doing great harm to the children.

A mother has been left "sickened" by a decision not to prosecute the doctor who circumcised her son without her consent.

The boy underwent the procedure when his paternal grandmother took him to a surgery in Nottingham.

Dr Balvinder Mehat told police he believed the mother had consented, and prosecutors decided not to charge him.
Human rights lawyer Saimo Chahal QC (Hon) is appealing the "flawed and irrational" decision.

Dr Mehat, of Bakersfield Medical Centre declined to comment, citing patient confidentiality rules.

Police also arrested the boy's father and paternal grandmother on suspicion of conspiracy to commit grievous bodily harm, but they were released without charge.

Boy's mother: 'I will fight this until my last breath'

"It has been a very tough four years and although we have found balance and are learning to live with the modifications inflicted on my son it is something that will always be there.

"As a mother I'm still very anxious about his feelings in the future. I strongly feel that the pain I witnessed has had a long-term psychological effect on myself and it's not even my body so I dread to think what my son's mind must feel as it was his body suffering.

"This has had a huge impact on our life and for no-one to take this seriously is utterly heartbreaking, but I do have the best of the best fighting in my son's corner and we will continue to fight on his behalf.

"I'm sure any mother would feel the same about not giving up, after witnessing their child suffer unnecessarily. I will fight this until my last breath if I have to, it's the only way I can possibly look my son in his eyes.

"I feel I have failed him."

'Insufficient grounds for prosecution'

According to the British Medical Association, male circumcision in the UK is generally assumed to be lawful provided there is valid consent.

Nottinghamshire Police said:

- Officers "thoroughly investigated the incident"

- The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) "deemed that there would be no realistic prospect of conviction".

In a letter to the mother outlining its decision, the CPS said:

- Had Dr Mehat performed the operation knowing the mother did not consent, his actions may have amounted to an assault

- He "may have failed in his professional obligations to discuss the issue of consent with you"

- But "that in itself is not sufficient for there to be a criminal prosecution".

The CPS said:

- The evidence has been "reviewed carefully by an experienced prosecutor"

- The conduct in question "does not meet the evidential test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors".

Dr Mehat is due to face a hearing before the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) to assess his fitness to practise.

Details of the allegations he faces have not been released.

How has the case progressed?

- 31 July 2013 - The boy is circumcised when he is three months old. His mother later contacts social services.

- 24 November 2014 - The mother contacts Nottinghamshire Police

- 12 May 2017 - Human rights lawyer Saimo Chahal writes to police stating they must review the decision not to prosecute.

- 21 June 2017 - Police arrest Dr Balvinder Mehat

- 22 October 2017 - Police visit the mother to inform her that the CPS had decided to take no further action.

- 3 November 2017 - Saimo Chahal receives written confirmation of the CPS decision and reasons.

Case 'raises wider public interest issues'

Saimo Chahal QC (Hon) is appealing the Crown Prosecution Service's decision and has written a 24-page letter, "outlining numerous defects in their decision-making process and evaluation of this case".

She told the BBC: "The decision lacks any semblance of a considered and reasoned decision and is flawed and irrational."

If prosecutors do not review their decision within 14 days, she said, the mother will "be obliged to take the matter before the administrative court for a determination of these very important issues, which need to be resolved not only for her personal case but also for the wider public interest issues that the case raises".

About circumcision

This photo did not appear in the original article. I have replaced their photo with a more accurate depiction of who we need to blame for this disgusting atrocity

- Male circumcision is the removal of the foreskin - a sensitive fold of skin and other tissue that covers the head of the penis.

- Circumcision was promoted as a way of discouraging masturbation in the past, and was regarded as clean and hygienic.

- Circumcision rates in Europe are low, and it is mostly confined to the Jewish and Muslim communities.

- Three-quarters of American adult men are circumcised - but the number of newborns having the operation is falling as the anti-circumcision movement grows.

- Some argue there is a medical case for circumcision, to reduce the risk of urinary tract infections and penile cancer.

- "Intactivists" argue that circumcision has negative health effects and reduces sexual pleasure for both partners.

Sunday, November 5, 2017


With a stepfather diagnosed with "thyroid cancer" and a close family friend diagnosed with "breast cancer," both of whom have undergone surgery and one of whom is being "treated" by poisonous chemotherapy, this article really speaks to me. THE MEDICAL SYSTEM IS KNOWINGLY KILLING PEOPLE. To see whose behind this evil, follow this link.

Source Article by Sayer Ji and
'Oops... It Wasn't Cancer After All,' Admits The National Cancer Institute/JAMA

After decades of wrongful cancer diagnoses and treatments, and millions harmed, the National Cancer Institute and high gravitas journals like JAMA finally admit they were wrong all along.

Back in 2012, The National Cancer Institute convened an expert panel to evaluate the problem of cancer’s misclassification and subsequent overdiagnosis and overtreatment, determining that millions may have been wrongly diagnosed with “cancer” of the breast, prostate, thyroid, and lung, when in fact their conditions were likely harmless, and should have been termed “indolent or benign growths of epithelial origin.” No apology was issued. No major media coverage occurred. And more importantly, no radical change occurred in the conventional practice of cancer diagnosis, prevention, or treatment.

Essentially, in one sleight of the semantic hand, entire swaths of the U.S., and global population, who thought they had “lethal cancer,” and were subsequently treated for it, often with violent procedures and treatments, were being told that “oops….we got that wrong. You never had cancer after all.”

If you look at the problem through just breast cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment in the U.S. over the past 30 years, it has been estimated that approximately 1.3 million women were wrongly treated. Most of these women still have no idea they were victims, and many have identified with their “aggressors” in Stolkholm syndrome like fashion, because they think their “lives were saved” by unnecessary treatment, when in fact the side effects, both physical and psychological, have almost certainly reduced both the quality and duration of their lives.

When the NCI report was released, it was a sort of vindication for those who had been advocating the position that a commonly diagnosed form of so-called “early breast cancer” known as ductal carcinoma in situ was in fact not inherently malignant and should not have warranted the conventional treatments of lumpectomy, mastectomy, radiation, and chemotherapy.

At the time, I based this on available research on the natural history of DCIS, and the extremely high survival rates from DCIS, as well as the fact that breast cancer related mortality had not declined in pace with the expansion of so-called “zero” or “early stage” cancers detected through mammography screenings, as would be expected if these diagnoses actually represented harmful clinical entities. To learn more about this still underreported tragedy in women's healthcare, watch Dr. Gilbert Welch's video on the topic below:

NEJM Screening Mammograms

Since then, I have watched the problem of overdiagnosis and overtreatment closely. I get daily updates from on the topic, and increasingly, high impact and gravitas journals are reporting on this highly concerning phenomenon. Particularly relevant is a review published late last year, which I reported on in my article titled, “Astounding Number of Medical Procedures Have No Benefit, Even Harm - JAMA Study.”

The JAMA study found that a wide range of standard medical procedures and interventions that millions are subjected to annually, are not evidence-based, as commonly assumed, and have little to no benefit, and may even be causing significant harm. As a result, I now believe that good medicine often involves doing as much as nothing as possible. I also think that people should be aware that any conventional cancer diagnosis has the ability to exert lethal harm via the nocebo effect, regardless of its accuracy (i.e., even a misdiagnosis can result in lethal consequences because the power of belief).

Thyroid Cancer Epidemic Caused by Misinformation, Not Cancer

Another topic I have been trying to spread awareness about is thyroid cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment. When I first reported on this two years ago in my article, Thyroid Cancer Epidemic Caused by Misinformation, Not Cancer, a series of compelling studies from around the world revealed that the rapid increase in diagnoses in thyroid cancer reflected their misclassification and misdiagnosis. As was the case with screening detected breast and prostate “cancers,” and even many ovarian "cancers," the standard of care often required the removal of the organ, as well as irradiation and chemotherapy -- two known cancer promoting interventions.

As is typical of research that undermines the conventional standard of care, there has been little reporting on the topic.

That is, until now.

On April 14th, in an article titled “Its Not Cancer: Doctors Reclassify a Thyroid Tumor,” the New York Times reported on a new study published in JAMA Oncology which should forever change the way we classify, diagnosis and treat a common form of “thyroid cancer”:

An international panel of doctors has decided that a type of tumor that was classified as a cancer is not a cancer at all.

As a result, they have officially downgraded the condition, and thousands of patients will be spared removal of their thyroid, treatment with radioactive iodine and regular checkups for the rest of their lives, all to protect against a tumor that was never a threat.

Their conclusion, and the data that led to it, was reported Thursday in the journal JAMA Oncology. The change is expected to affect about 10,000 of the nearly 65,000 thyroid cancer patients a year in the United States. It may also offer grist to those who have been arguing for the reclassification of some other forms of cancer, including certain lesions in the breast and prostate.

The reclassified tumor is a small lump in the thyroid that is completely surrounded by a capsule of fibrous tissue. Its nucleus looks like a cancer but the cells have not broken out of their capsule, and surgery to remove the entire thyroid followed by treatment with radioactive iodine is unnecessary and harmful, the panel said. They have now renamed the tumor. Instead of calling it “encapsulated follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma,” they now call it “noninvasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features,” or NIFTP. The word “carcinoma” is gone.

Many cancer experts said the reclassification was long overdue. For years there have been calls to downgrade small lesions in the breast, lung and prostate, among others, and to eliminate the term “cancer” from their name. But other than the renaming of an early stage urinary tract tumor in 1998, and early stage ovarian and cervical lesions more than two decades ago, no group other than the thyroid specialists has yet taken the plunge.

In fact, said Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer at the American Cancer Society, the name changes that occurred went in the opposite direction, scientific evidence to the contrary. Premalignant tiny lumps in the breast became known as stage zero cancer. Small and early-stage prostate lesions were called cancerous tumors. Meanwhile, imaging with ultrasound, M.R.I.’s and C.T. scans find more and more of these tiny “cancers,” especially thyroid nodules.

“If it’s not a cancer, let’s not call it a cancer,” said Dr. John C. Morris, president-elect of the American Thyroid Association and a professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic. Dr. Morris was not a member of the renaming panel.

Dr. Barnett S. Kramer, director of the division of cancer prevention at the National Cancer Institute, said, “There’s a growing concern that many of the terms we use don’t match our understanding of the biology of cancer.” Calling lesions cancer when they are not leads to unnecessary and harmful treatment, he said."

The article goes on to discuss the fact that while some major medical centers are starting to treat encapsulated thyroid tumors less aggressively, this is still not the norm in the rest of the country. It is a consistent pattern that there is an over decade long lag between changes in evidence and the clinical practice of medicine, which is therefore far less "evidence-based" as is commonly claimed and/or assumed.

Clearly, the truth about cancer's true nature, and the cancer industry's misrepresentations, is beginning to come to light via the very institutions like JAMA and the major media who have been responsible, historically, for generating so many commonly held misconceptions on the topic.

Learn more about these topics at our Cancer Research page.

Tuesday, October 31, 2017


Source Article:

It was found that even 7 of the biggest olive oil makers in the USA, mix their items with cheap oils to get more profits. Namely, one of the products we regard as healthiest and a remedy for longevity has been corrupted.

Apparently, even 70% of olive oil sold in the U.S. stores is fake, as they have been cut with cheaper, inferior oils like canola and sunflower oil! This is similar to the 2008 practice in Italy. This meant seizure for 85 oil farms that mixed some percentage chlorophyll with sunflower and canola to the olive oil.
The oil was mixed, colored, perfumed and flavored too, and these things made the Australian government investigate their oils. The results were awful. After that, not one brand named extra virgin olive oil got the 2012 certificate of approval.
These scams made the University of California to study 124 imported brands of extra virgin olive oil and discovered that more than 70% of the samples did not pass the test.


Antica Badia
Whole Foods
Felippo Berio


McEvoy Ranch Organic
Corto Olive
Bariani Olive Oil
California Olive Ranch
Cobram Estate
Olea Estates
Kirkland Organic

Additionally, you can also test the olive oil you have at home. You should put the bottle in the fridge for half an hour, and if it starts to solidify, it means that the oil is pure, as it contains a large amount of monounsaturated fat.
On the other hand, if it does not solidify, it is fake. Yet, just to be sure, look for official governmental seals of approval on the label, like “Australian Extra Virgin Certified” and “California Olive Oil Council Certified Extra Virgin.”
We really hope you find this article helpful and don’t forget to share it with your friends and family. Thank You.


Sunday, October 29, 2017


HA! All of their attempts to try to force their evil agenda against us is backfiring. It is all turning around now and working for the good. Affirm this with me my friends, and we will make it so. Parents are taking their kids out of the satanically infested school system and refusing to vaccinate - and both of these much needed things are happening simultaneously! THIS IS GREAT NEWS! Please share it widely and let these wicked forces know -- THEY CANNOT WIN. WE ARE TOO STRONG AND TOO MANY. THEIR TIME IS UP AND THEY ARE GOING DOWN, DOWN, TO A PLACE FROM WHICH THEY SHALL NEVER RETURN.

Source Article:
LA Schools Lose 13,000 Students in 1 Year Following Mandatory Vaccination Law

What do you do as a parent, when vaccines repeatedly proven to injure and kill are mandated for your children to attend public school? You get them the hell out of public school.

Our story about our beloved son Nicholas Scott Catone.

Apparently that’s what the parents of Los Angeles have been doing.

After Senator Richard Pan’s infamous bill SB277 was passed a couple years ago, mandati+ng that California schoolchildren receive every vaccine on the schedule or not attend public school, attendance has dropped tremendously in some school districts. While information on attendance for all California school districts is not readily available, the LA USD info is.

The Los Angeles Unified School District lost over 13,000 students this year alone. While most people would struggle to find an explanation for this, understanding the mandatory vaccination law, it makes perfect sense.

According to LA School Report:

“When board members heard Tuesday that the number of students who have left LA Unified schools was even worse than they’d been told, they wanted to know what was being done.

Here’s what they heard:
• launching the unified enrollment system
• offering a broader range of school options
• reducing absences.

And here is what board members have proposed:
• increase achievement at district schools
• redouble student recovery efforts
• ensure that students in pre-kindergarten classes remain in district schools.”

None of those strategies grasp what is happening here in the slightest bit. To understand what is really happening, one must take a look at the actual ebb and flow of public opinion. One must put their finger to the pulse of public opinion, with something like, say, one of the recent viral Facebook posts in which a pro-vaccination sentiment was turned into a raging storm of comments with a contrary opinion.

Recently, we reported that ABC News reporter Ashley Glass’ Facebook post was flooded with comments containing true info about the dangers of vaccines, when she posted about having a reaction to them (while still supporting them, of course).

In addition, this Facebook post was recently made by a page called “Cure Gear.”

It’s a t-shirt that promotes vaccination, on a page that isn’t very large: but the post blew up with comments from people who understand the dangers of vaccines, similiar to Ashley Glass’ post. This is becoming a common thing, and it’s so incredibly inspiring in the face of such apathy, it should be celebrated to the fullest.

These are the comments:

Too many children have been injured or killed from vaccines, from the DTaP to Gardasil, for the truth to not spill through the crevices of public opinion onto public forums.

People are withdrawing their children from the public school system because they probably know a bit more about vaccines than most people did in recent years.

Friday, October 20, 2017


Harvey Weinstein - Hollywood mogul/sexual deviant

Dear friends - several people on facebook have recently commented about Harvey Weinstein's droopy eye and the fact that many celebrities and members of the elite seem to suffer from the same problem. Some of these facebook friends have been influenced by the words of Donald Marshall, who claims that the droopy eye is a sign of cloning or of the person being possessed or occupied by a vrill reptilian parasitical entity. However, I think a much more logical explanation as to what is going on with droopy eye syndrome (especially amongst the "elite") involves the fact that many of these people have been systematically tortured and mind controlled and repeatedly exposed to electroshock torture.

Fritz Springmeier's work confirms that the droopy eye (or lazy eye) is caused by trauma based mind control. Hence, it can indicate that someone is a sociopath.

According to this source, mind control trauma can cause frontal lobe damage which causes the eye muscles not to work properly - hence the droopy eye.

Still another source says that one eyelid being slightly droopier than the other is a sign that the person has been electroshocked tortured.

This type of commentary makes much more sense to me than the vrill theory.

Here are photos of some elite members of "high society" with droopy eye syndrome.

Baron Guy de Rothschild

Cecile Richards, head of Planned Parenthood

Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League

Michael Caine (actor)

Hilton Paris (celebrity)

Katy Perry - celebrity

Woody Allen - movie star - sexual pervert

Michelle Obama/Michael - ex first "lady" - transsexual

Bob Costas - sportscaster

Russell Crowe - actor

Andy Cohen - Watch What Happens Live host

Monday, October 16, 2017


For those ready to understand the prenatal origins of disease and how ultrasound is HUGELY contributing to the deterioration of our children, please listen!

9-27-17 Sofia Smallstorm interviews Jeanice Barcelo about her forthcoming book, "The Dark Side of Prenatal Ultrasound." This conversation goes deep into the EMF weaponized grid that now surrounds us and of which manmade ultrasound frequencies are a part. The list of potential damage to developing babies is basically endless and includes infertility, DNA damage, growth retardation, hearing loss, birth defects, neurological damage, autism, heart defects and much much more. To understand the nature of this assault, it is beneficial to listen to the wisdom and information being presented here. This interview goes deeper than any of the others that have come before and the video includes a few important slides that people will benefit from seeing.


Wednesday, October 11, 2017


That's right folks! Columbus was a JEW looking for a safe haven for jew who were being kicked out of yet another country because of their jewish atrocities and so forced to begin looking for another place to invade and destroy. And this is why the jew who wrote one of the articles below thinks that, even though Americans now know what a scumbag Columbus was, he should nevertheless be celebrated by jews because, after all, he was a jew too! Never mind the fact that Columbus was a violent, murdering, sadistic, land stealing, genocidal sociopath! This is not a problem! The fact that he was a jew engaged in jewish atrocities and attempting to make the world a better place for other sociopathic jews is enough cause for jewish celebration!

So party down my friends and rest in the knowing that the true history of this "once great nation" is actually based on yet another jewish genocide -- this time of the Native American population that existed here for thousands of years in harmony with Creation.

See Also:


"...After all, if you reframe Columbus to see him not as a brutal colonialist, but as a visionary looking for a safe home for the Jewish people, he’s not all that ideologically different from Herzl and Israel’s founding fathers, is he?..."

Source Article:
Why Columbus Day Should Be A Jewish Holiday

“Why do we still celebrate Columbus Day? For Jews, at least, there may be a little-known reason to keep on marking this day: Columbus was Jewish. Not only that, but he was basically the Theodor Herzl of the 15th century.”


THE FORWARD – John Oliver’s “Last Week Tonight” asked a really simple yet poignant question: How is Columbus Day still a thing?

At this point, the American education system has modified textbooks to indicate that no, in fact, Christopher Columbus didn’t discover America. In fact, as Slate points out, the Italian explorer who set sail to bring wealth and glory to the Spanish monarchy was actually a colonizer whose arrival on the American continent brought misery and death to millions of Native Americans through slavery, disease and warfare.

So why do we still celebrate Columbus Day?

For Jews, at least, there may be a little-known reason to keep on marking this day: Columbus was Jewish. Not only that, but he was basically the Theodor Herzl of the 15th century.

Charles Garcia outlined all of this in an article for CNN back in 2012:

Over the course of the last decade, Spanish academics and historians (including Jose Eruogo, Celso Garcia de la Riega, Otero Sanchez and Nicholas Dias Perez) have concluded that Columbus was a Marrano, a crypto-Jew, whose survival depended on keeping his Jewish identity sealed and hidden in the face of anti-Semitic ethnic cleansing.

Known as Cristóbal Colón in Spain, Columbus didn’t even speak Italian. His last will and testament, written in Spanish, made some rather unique provisions, which have tipped off historians about his religious background.

On the date of his death, May 19, 1506, his Jewish roots started poking out. Two of his last wishes — tithing one tenth of his income to poor people and providing an anonymous dowry for poor girls — are part of Jewish tradition. He also explicitly decreed giving money to a poor Jewish man living in the Jewish Quarter of Lisbon, Portugal.

In his will there is a subtle yet noticeable symbol — a triangular signature of dots and letters — that is distinctly similar to a symbol found on Jewish tombstones in Spanish cemeteries. He requested that his heirs always use this symbol as well.

October 12, 1492, “Columbus sailed the ocean blue,” Winifred Sackville Stoner, Jr.’s famous poem reads. But another significant event happened that day, further alluding to Columbus’ Jewish heritage. October 12, 1492 was the same day that King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella issued a decree giving Jews the choice of being forced to convert to Christianity, leaving Spain, or, if they remained in Spain as Jews, being subject to torture and murder by decree of the crown.

Simon Weisenthal argues in his book “Sails of Hope” that the date of Columbus’ voyage was no accident. The date was, in fact, chosen in the hopes of finding Jews a safe haven from the crown. What’s more, recently discovered evidence indicates that the Spanish monarchy’s deep pockets did not fund Columbus’ expedition — instead, two Jewish conversos did. Garcia reported for CNN that “Louis de Santangel and Gabriel Sanchez advanced an interest-free loan of 17,000 ducats from their own pockets to help pay for the voyage, as did Don Isaac Abrabanel, rabbi and Jewish statesman.”

So, even though Americans are over Columbus Day — he didn’t really discover America, and his expedition brought nothing but misfortune and suffering to the indigenous Americans — Jews shouldn’t be. After all, if you reframe Columbus to see him not as a brutal colonialist, but as a visionary looking for a safe home for the Jewish people, he’s not all that ideologically different from Herzl and Israel’s founding fathers, is he?

Source Article:
Columbus, Greed, Slavery, And Genocide. What Really Happened To The American Indians.

First published in The Daily Telegraph 2 September 2014

1492. The arrival of Columbus in the Caribbean changed everything for the people already living there (State Archives of Florida)

Given the conquests and consequences we see unfolding every day in the Middle East, now is a good time to look at the timeless reality of what happens to people who are in the way.

Christopher Columbus never set foot in the land that would become the United States of America. In fact, he never even saw it.

His four voyages took him to the Caribbean, a small detour to Central America, and a hop to the north-east coast of Venezuela. He had no idea the continent of North America existed, or that he had even stumbled into a “New World”. He thought he had found China, Japan, and the region of King Solomon’s fabled gold mines.

What he had categorically not done was “discover” anything, as somewhere between 50 to 100 million people already lived there quite happily, just as they had done for tens of thousands of years. On the other hand, what he did was to start a brutal slave trade in American Indians, and usher in four centuries of genocide that culled them to virtual extinction. Within a generation of Columbus landing, perhaps only 5-10 per cent of the entire American Indian population remained.

People can argue the semantics of what genocide means, and whether it is applicable in this context. But if it sounds fanciful, consider the UN’s Genocide Convention, passed by the General Assembly in December 1948. Although President Harry S Truman handed it to the U.S. Senate the following year, the U.S. only finally ratified it in 1986, along with a “Sovereignty Package” requiring U.S. consent for any actions brought against the U.S.. The key reason for the delay and conditional ratification was the senators’ concern that the U.S. could be pursued in connection with its treatment of the American Indians (and also African Americans).

It should come as no surprise that the term “genocide” is highly controversial in the context of the American Indians. Nevertheless, this article will tell the story of the destruction of the indigenous peoples of the Americas — predominantly by the Spanish conquistadores, British Puritans, and finally the American settlers — and you can make up your own mind. To start, here are two definitions:

genocide. The deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group. 1940s: from Greek genos ‘race’ + -cide (Oxford English Dictionary)


Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group: (a) killing; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm; (c) deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births; (e) forcibly transferring children (Article 2, UN Genocide Convention, abbreviated)

On the 3rd of August 1492, Columbus slipped out of Palos de la Frontera on board his flagship, the carrack Santa María. Along with him were two nippier caravels, the Pinta and the Niña. Exactly 10 weeks later, on the 12th of October, he landed on “San Salvador” — a still unidentified island in the Bahamas. By late October he was in Cuba, and on the 6th of December he had landed on the island of Haiti, which he renamed La Spañola (Hispaniola).

He described the islands as “very fertile to an excessive degree”, “beyond comparison”, “most beautiful”, “filled with trees of a thousand kinds and tall, and they seem to touch the sky”. In addition he found: “nightingale and other little birds of a thousand kinds”, “honey”, “a great variety of fruits”, “many mines of metals”, and “rivers, many and great, the most of which bear gold”.

He also described the “innumerable” native Indians who greeted him:

They have no iron or steel or weapons, nor are they capable of using them, although they are well-built people of handsome stature, because they are wondrous timid. … They are so artless and free with all they possess, that no one would believe it without having seen it. Of anything they have, if you ask them for it, they never say no; rather they invite the person to share it, and show as much love as if they were giving their hearts; and whether the thing be of value or of small price,

However, power and greed soon took over. On the first voyage, Columbus seized men, women, and children to take back to Spain and parade like circus animals. Most died on the voyage, and all were dead within six months.

This spurred him to be more ambitious on his second voyage, in which he selected 550 of the best specimens he could find, and allowed his men to take whoever else they wanted, which turned out to be another 600. The journey back to Europe was so debilitating for the captives that Columbus ended up throwing over 200 corpses overboard. There are no records of what happened to the 600 taken by his men.

Columbus’s second voyage had been on an altogether different scale to the first. Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain had kitted him out with 17 ships and 1,200 men, principally soldiers, including a cavalry troop of lancers. When they arrived at Hispaniola, the natives came out to meet them with fish and fruit “as if we had been their brothers”. In return, Columbus dispatched his troops to the island’s interior and the nearby islands to plunder the gold mines.

Columbus never found North America, from J Cohen, Christopher Columbus: The Four Voyages. 1969

Armed with the latest weaponry and armoured mastiffs trained to rip people apart, the Spanish tortured, maimed, raped, slaughtered, and burned the inhabitants in search of gold. Bartolomé de Las Casas, an eyewitness who eventually became a Dominican friar and fought for the Indians’ rights, left a harrowing description:

… whenever the Spaniards found them, they pitilessly slaughtered everyone like sheep in a corral. It was a general rule among Spaniards to be cruel; not just cruel, but extraordinarily cruel so that harsh and bitter treatment would prevent Indians from daring to think of themselves as human beings or having a minute to think at all. So they would cut an Indian’s hands and leave them dangling by a shred of skin and they would send him on saying “Go now, spread the news to your chiefs.” They would test their swords and their manly strength on captured Indians and place bets on the slicing off of heads or the cutting of bodies in half with one blow. They burned or hanged captured chiefs.

It was an orgy of looting and butchery, faithfully recorded by eyewitnesses. The accounts are too graphic to quote, but they detail the widespread massacres, including of children, dashing out their brains, and even feeding them to the armoured attack dogs. This senseless savagery was described as “pacification”.

Theodor de Bry, illustration for Bartolomé de las Casas, A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies (1552)

Wherever Columbus’s men landed, they seized the land outright. His letter back to Ferdinand and Isabella is crystal clear:

… and of them all have I taken possession for Their Highnesses, by proclamation and with the royal standard displayed, and nobody objected.

The physical taking of new territories was farcical. The Indians were summoned, often manacled, and a proclamation called the requermiento was read to them. They spoke over 2,000 languages, but Spanish was naturally not one of them, so the ceremony was meaningless to them. Nevertheless, it stated that if they did not acknowledge Ferdinand and Isabella as their just sovereigns, all men, women, and children would be enslaved, and their possessions taken by force. In fact, the proclamation was actually meaningless for everyone — Columbus was there to enslave them and loot their property whatever.

The early records of kind and generous natives were soon replaced by descriptions of them as backwards savages and wild animals, who could therefore be treated as such. (This process of dehumanisation is seen throughout history when one people settles on the land of another.) As a direct result, native blood flowed freely, and within 21 years — and four voyages by Columbus — Hispaniola was a ghost-island. The tropical abundance had been destroyed, and all its inhabitants were dead.

The Indians had originally moved into the Americas across the Bering Straits from Asia perhaps around 40,000 BC (some say as early as 70,000 BC). They had crossed between the eastern tip of Russia (the Chukchi Peninsula) and the westerly part of Alaska (Cape Prince of Wales) using the “Bering land bridge”, a vast slab of land now submerged under the Bering Straits leaving only a few rocky mountain tops poking out of the icy waters. The new land the people moved into — the Americas — was immense, covering a quarter of the earth’s land mass.

There, entirely cut off from the rest of the world’s history — unaware of ancient Egypt, China, Greece, Rome, Europe, or the rise of Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam — the American Indians simultaneously developed their own civilisations.

When the Spanish finally saw the cities of the New World, they found themselves gazing on the stuff of fantasy — like in Aztec Mexico, where they came across the great cities around the Lake of the Moon, with Tenochtitlán rising mystically out of the centre of the water. The conquistador Bernal Díaz del Castillo wrote:

… when we saw so many cities and villages built in the water and other great towns on dry land … we were amazed and said that it was like the enchantments they tell of … . And some of our soldiers even asked whether the things that we saw were not a dream? … I do not know how to describe it, seeing things as we did that had never been heard of or seen before, not even dreamed about.

Another marvel was the exuberant artwork they found everywhere. The conquistador Hernan Cortés brought some of it home to Europe, where the great Albrecht Dürer’s reaction was rapture. He said he had:

… never seen in all my days what so rejoiced my heart, as these things. For I saw among them amazing artistic objects, and I marveled over the subtle ingenuity of the men in these distant lands. Indeed, I cannot say enough about the things that were brought before me.

The culture of the Indians throughout the Americas varied enormously, as would be expected for such a vast area. But the Spanish were nevertheless amazed to discover that many of the tribes were peaceful, harmonious, and egalitarian, with little sense of greed, crime, or warfare. This was naturally not true of all, but the passivity, hospitality, and community demonstrated by tribe after tribe fills the eyewitness Spanish accounts, which also note their frequently calm and respectful manner of exercising authority, and even unheard of social systems like the cultural, spiritual, and economic matriarchy within the Iroquois.

As the Spanish seized ever more land, Columbus implemented the repartimiento (or encomienda), which gave each of the conquerors a number of Indians to enslave, turning the natives’ previously peaceful way of life into a nightmare of unending brutality and violence as they were forced to mine precious metals and work plantations in sub-human conditions.

This subjugation was repeated throughout the Caribbean, before the conquistadores turned to the mainland, and wreaked the same carnage on the Aztecs of Mexico, the Maya of Central America, the Incas of Peru and Chile, and the other Indians they found.

Unlike the Caribbean Indians, the Aztecs in Mexico were familiar with warfare, although they had formal rules. A declaration of intention to declare war was required, along with the opportunity for the other side to make reparations to avert the conflict. The attacker might also supply the defender with weapons and food, as there was no honour in defeating the unarmed or weak.

However, Hernan Cortés, the conquistador who led the advance into Mexico, had no intention of observing these formalities. Having been welcomed by Montezuma into the great city of Tenochtitlán (now ruins within Mexico City), Cortés set about starving and slaughtering its people, before eventually levelling the city, burning all books, and feeding its priests to his war dogs.

This same pattern of annihilation and conquest was repeated throughout Central and South America. Tens of millions of Indians were rounded up and used as slaves on the coca plantations, or as labour down the gold and silver mines, where they worked and slept without ever seeing the light of day, constantly exposed to highly toxic cinnabar, arsenic, and mercury. Life expectancy was brutally low. The conquistadores calculated that with such an abundant slave workforce, it was cheaper to let them die of starvation and exhaustion than waste time and money providing food or survivable conditions. One conquistador recalled, “If twenty healthy Indians enter on Monday, half may emerge crippled on Saturday”.

As the conquerors moved south, the strongest resistance came from the Maya, whose empire extended across southern Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, western Honduras, and northern El Salvador. But even they were ultimately no match for the fanatical invaders, and the same fate befell them as everyone else.

In shockingly few generations, European greed, savagery, and disease had exterminated all but a handful of the citizens of the millennia-old American Indian civilisations. On average, the tribes’ populations were reduced to around 5 per cent of the size they had been before Columbus arrived.

So much for Central and South America. Further north, in what is now the USA, the Spanish, French, and British pillaged the Atlantic coast for slaves, raiding today’s Florida, Georgia, and Carolina. Finally, in 1607, the British settled permanently, initially at Jamestown, Virginia, where one of the British troops wrote they had found:

a lande that promises more than the Lande of promisse: In steed of mylke we fynde pearl. / & golde Inn steede of honye.

However, the question of how to deal with the Indians was never far away. For instance, William Berkeley, one of Virginia’s early governors, came up with the idea of massacring all the men, then selling all the women and children into slavery to cover the costs of the exterminations.

A particularly shocking episode involving the British Puritan settlers was the Pequot War (Southern New England, 1634–8). Following several tit-for-tat skirmishes, the British resolved to respond with crushing force.

The Indians spying of us came running in multitudes along the water side, crying, what cheere, Englishmen, what cheere, what doe you come for: They not thinking we intended warre, went on cheerefully untill they come to Pequeat river.

The British then went on a village burning spree, in response to which the Indians marched on Fort Saybrook. After a few opening gambits by either side, the Indians sent a message to ask the British commander if he felt they had all “fought enough”. Lt Lion Gardiner avoided a direct answer, prompting the Indians to ask if the British meant to kill their women and children. Gardiner replied “they should see that thereafter”. Under cover of night, the British then attacked the Indian encampment at the Mystic River. Shouting “we must burn them”, Capt. John Mason torched the site, and shot or cut down anyone who tried to escape. He left a description of the massacre:

And indeed such a dreadful Terror did the Almighty let fall upon their Spirits, that they would fly from us and run into the very Flames, where many of them perished. … [And] God was above them, who laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven: Thus were the Stout Hearted spoiled, having slept their last Sleep … . Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies!

As feared, the majority of the 600 to 700 slain were women and children. But as John Underhill, Mason’s co-commander, noted:

… sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents.

To finish the job, the river Pequot was renamed the Thames, and the town of Pequot was made New London — to ensure that the Pequot people would be wiped from the map and forgotten.

It was also under the British that one of the few recorded cases of intentional biological warfare occurred. In 1763, General (later Baron) Jeffrey Amherst, governor of Virginia and commander-in-chief of British forces in North America, sanctioned the purposeful spread of lethal disease. In a set of orders given to Col. Henry Bouquet at Fort Pitt, he commanded:

You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians [with smallpox] by means of blankets, as well as to try every other method, that can serve to extirpate this execrable race.

Despite the relentless hostility of most senior European settlers towards the Indians, some of the less powerful saw things differently. As we have seen, Columbus’s companion, Bartolomé de Las Casas, ended his days fighting for the proper treatment of Indians. And under subsequent British and then American rule, we know that Indian culture was not universally abominated. No less a figure than the Founding Father Benjamin Franklin explained:

When an Indian child has been brought up among us, taught our language and habituated to our Customs, yet if he goes to see his relations and make one Indian Ramble with them, there is no perswading him ever to return. [But] when white persons of either sex have been taken prisoners young by the Indians, and lived a while among them, tho’ ransomed by their Friends, and treated with all imaginable tenderness to prevail with them to stay among the English, yet in a Short time they become disgusted with our manner of life, and the care and pains that are necessary to support it, and take the first good Opportunity of escaping again into the Woods, from whence there is no reclaiming them.

Penalties for this type of racial disloyalty were harsh. In 1612, Thomas Dayle, Marshall of Virginia, captured some young English settlers who had run away to live with the Indians. His retribution was swift and brutal:

Some he apointed to be hanged Some burned Some to be broken upon wheles, others to be staked and some to be shott to deathe.

So far the focus of the story has been the settlers’ violence. But the biggest killer of the American Indians was undoubtedly the arsenal of diseases brought by the Europeans. The role of disease in this context remains a hotly debated issue. However, it is wholly misleading to think — as many now do — that the Indian deaths caused by these invisible microbial killers were unforeseeable, accidental, inadvertent, or otherwise an unintended consequence of peaceful contact between the Europeans and the Indians. The volumes filled with eyewitness accounts of settler savagery leave no one in any doubt that the conquerors of the New World wanted land, and were pleased by all opportunities to take it. The British Puritans viewed the decimation of tribe after tribe from disease as being an integral part of God’s active support for their new colonies. For instance, the governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony noted after an epidemic of smallpox in 1634 that the British settlers had been largely unharmed, but:

… for the natives, they are near all dead of the smallpox, so as the Lord hath cleared our title to what we possess.

The human devastation wrought by the diseases carried by Columbus’s men and everyone who followed was cataclysmic: a rolling cocktail of diphtheria, influenza, measles, mumps, typhus, scarlet fever, smallpox, syphilis — the list is endless. Not only did these pathogens cull whole native populations, but they kept on killing, even once individual outbreaks had abated, because there was no one left strong enough to bury the dead or gather food.

In 1793, once the American War of Independence had concluded with the Treaty of Paris, the “Indian Question” became a domestic matter for the new American administration.

Alongside growth in the African slave trade, the slavery of Indians continued undiminished right up to the general abolition of slavery in 1865. For instance, in 1861, in Colusa County, California, Indian boys and girls of three and four years old were still being sold for small sums. Such child slaves were often kidnapped and sold by traders, secure in the knowledge that the parents could do nothing, as Indians could not give testimony in court against whites.

As the settlers pushed across the Plains and the West, tales of whooping, tomahawk-wielding, Indians slaughtering whites became ever more widespread. But it is noteworthy that, pre-colonisation, many of the Indians in the area did not have violent cultures. Among some tribes, sneaking up on an enemy and touching him with a weapon, stick, or even a hand was traditionally deemed the highest form of bravery. However, in the face of continual attacks, the Indians learned to respond with violence.

As alien as it may seem now, by the late 1700s, many American leaders were openly advocating the destruction and extermination of the encampments and tribes. For instance, in 1779, a decade before he became first president of the U.S., General George Washington told the military commander attacking the Iroquois to:

… lay waste all the settlements around … that the country may not be merely overrun but destroyed

and not to:

… listen to any overture of peace before the total ruin of their settlements is effected.

He insisted upon the military need to fill the Indians with a:

… terror with which the severity of the chastisement they receive will inspire them.

Other presidents were more explicit still. In 1807, President Thomas Jefferson told his Secretary of State for War to use “the hatchet” and that:

… we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated or is driven beyond the Mississippi … in war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of them.

It was a theme Jefferson was to return to several times, freely using words like “exterminate” and “extirpate”.

Several decades later, in 1829, Andrew Jackson was elected president, although few now remember he had sacked Indian villages of “savage dogs”, made bridle reins of their flayed skin, sent souvenirs of corpses to the ladies of Tennessee, and claimed, “I have on all occasions preserved the scalps of my killed”.

President Andrew Jackson scalped his Indian victims

At the same time as the state-orchestrated wars of annihilation, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 required the resettlement of entire populations of Indians to new territories west of the Mississippi. When the Indians of Georgia won a ruling from Chief Justice John Marshall saying, effectively, they could stay, President Jackson ignored the Supreme Court and had the Indians sent on a death march anyway — the Trail of Tears. One former Civil War soldier said he had seen a great deal of brutality in his life, but nothing on the scale of the cruelty of the Indian death marches. Later forced relocations of Indians, like the Navajo Long Walk and the Pomo Death March in California, followed the same pattern.

The language of extermination coming from the top was also mirrored at state level. For example, Governor Peter Burnett of California stated in 1851 that war would:

… continue to be waged between the races until the Indian becomes extinct.

And the following year his successor, Governor John McDougal, reiterated the sentiment, urging that the whites’ war against the Indians:

… must of necessity be one of extermination to many of the tribes.

All the while, elements within the press supported the incitement to mass murder. L Frank Baum (most famous as the author of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz) was editor of the Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer in South Dakota. In it, he wrote:

The Whites, by law of conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American continent, and the best safety of the frontier settlements will be secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians. Why not annihilation? Their glory has fled, their spirit broken, their manhood effaced; better that they die than live the miserable wretches that they are. (20 December 1890)

He returned to the same theme the following week:

The Pioneer has before declared that our only safety depends upon the total extirmination [sic] of the Indians. Having wronged them for centuries we had better, in order to protect our civilization, follow it up by one more wrong and wipe these untamed and untamable creatures from the face of the earth. (29 December 1890)

These seem to have been fairly standard and established views among sections of the population. A generation earlier, in 1864, the Rev. William Crawford had written of the prevailing opinion in Colorado:

There is but one sentiment in regard to the final disposition which shall be made of the Indians: ‘Let them be exterminated — men, women, and children together’.

And, sure enough, one of the worst atrocities of the 1800s soon followed — the infamous November 1864 massacre at Sand Creek, familiar to anyone who has seen the 1970 film Soldier Blue, groundbreaking for its graphic depictions of the slaughter.

The Cheyenne and Arapaho men of Sand Creek were away on a buffalo hunt, leaving around 600 women and children together with some 35 braves and 25 old men. When the American cavalry approached, the elderly chief, Black Kettle, emerged with his family. He waved a white flag and an American flag, and explained that the village had already voluntarily surrendered all its weapons to prove they were peaceful. All the while, he reassured his people not to be afraid. However, the Cavalry commander, the Rev. Col. John Milton Chivington, a devout Methodist pastor and elder, was an extremist in no mood for peace. “I long to be wading in gore”, he had announced a few days earlier:

Damn any man who sympathizes with Indians! … I have come to kill Indians, and believe it is right and honorable to use any means under God’s heaven to kill Indians. … Kill and scalp all, big and little; nits make lice.

The stomach-turning notion that “nits make lice” was one of his favourite justifications for the wholesale butchery of Indian children. Accordingly, at Sand Creek he sent in his 700 troops, who slaughtered the entire village, including a six-year-old girl waving a white flag. When they were done, they scalped the bodies, hacked off fingers and ears for jewellery, and sexually mutilated a number of the corpses.

Soldier Blue was released at the height of the Vietnam War, and attracted some criticism for its timing. But it was a tearaway international box office success, chiefly remembered for introducing an audience weaned on films of spectacular and heroic cowboy derring-do to a far more shocking and sobering view of how the West was won.

“The order was massacre, and good soldiers follow orders. These soldiers were the best.” Strapline to original 1970 movie poster of Soldier Blue.

Perhaps equally as shocking is that Chivington was never disciplined for the atrocity, and President Theodore Roosevelt (1901–9) declared the Sand Creek massacre was:

… as righteous and beneficial a deed as ever took place on the frontier.

He later went on to say:

I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe 9 out of 10 are, and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth.

Five years later, on the 15th of January 1891, the Sioux chief, Kicking Bear, finally surrendered. The wars were effectively over. By 1900, a people which once represented a hundred percent of the population of the USA, was reduced to a third of one per cent.
So what does this all tell us, apart from, as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld put it, “war is hell”. And so was four centuries of genocide against the American Indians. In 2000, the U.S. government’s Bureau of Indian Affairs apologised with the full support of the Clinton administration:

As the nation looked to the West for more land, this agency participated in the ethnic cleansing that befell the western tribes. … it must be acknowledged that the deliberate spread of disease, the decimation of the mighty bison herds, the use of the poison alcohol to destroy mind and body, and the cowardly killing of women and children made for tragedy on a scale so ghastly that it cannot be dismissed as merely the inevitable consequence of the clash of competing ways of life. … We accept this inheritance, this legacy of racism and inhumanity. (Kevin Gover, Bureau of Indian Affairs)

Perhaps one thing it all suggests is that the U.S. celebration of Christopher Columbus Day on the second Monday in October every year is outdated and increasingly unacceptable to a growing number of those who have understood the man’s motivations and his legacy of slavery, violence, and destruction.

Today, fanatics across the Middle East continue to bomb, shoot, or hack their way through non-combatant populations of men, women, and children for no more reason than the race or religion they were born into, or the land they were born onto. As the American Indians so tragically discovered, the world has become good at turning a blind eye to the genocides it prefers not to see.

At the start of this piece I suggested that readers could form their own view whether the American Indians had been the victims of genocide. Perhaps the final words on this should go to The New York Times.

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow retired as Smith Professor of Modern Languages at Harvard in 1854. The following year, he published his epic poem about the Indian chief, Hiawatha. On the 28th of December 1855, page 2 of The New York Times carried a review of the poem, which described it as:

… embalming pleasantly enough the monstrous traditions of an uninteresting and, one may almost say, a justly exterminated race.