How to Help Your Husband Get Ahead
Mrs. Dale Carnegie wrote a book in 1959 called How to Help Your Husband Get Ahead. America has changed drastically since the fifties. Unfortunately now women study Dale Carnegie to achieve in the marketplace. Mrs. Carnegie gives pointers to women to create a home where the man is taken care of and can be nourished physically and spiritually. Her husband's book, How to Win Friends and Influence People, is still a best-seller. Her book is not only out of print but would be seen as a throwback to the dark ages. That is too bad. Instead of women studying him, they should study her. She has a chapter on cooking in which she explains how the wife literally has the power of life and death over her husband: "Many a half-starved Chinese coolie has a greater life expectancy than your husband -- if your husband is overweight." I would add that we know more about nutrition than she did back then and now we know that many people who look thin are sometimes unhealthier than obviously obese people. She goes to quote a doctor saying, "In spite of wars, more white people die by knife and fork than by gun and sword." She says, "We cannot deny responsibility for our husbands waistlines. A man eats what his wife sets before him. The better the cook, the bigger the waistline. When we whip up those super-special desserts and ply him constantly with pecan pies and fluffy cakes, he wouldn't be human if he said 'no.'"
The title of her chapter on health is "His Life Is in Your Hands." She writes, "Want to know how to kill your husband -- and get away with it? Don't bother with cyanide, blunt instruments or revolvers -- just feed him a steady diet of rich pastries ... until he is at least fifteen to twenty-five percent overweight! Then sit back and think what a good-looking widow you'll make -- because it won't be long now."
"According to the experts, between seventy and eighty percent more men than women die in their early fifties."
"The worst of it is, they blame us for it!"
"Listen to Dr. Louis Dublin, of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. In an article entitled, 'Stop Killing Your Husband,' published in Lifetime Living, Dr. Dublin says, 'In forty years as the statistician of a large life-insurance company, I have come to the conclusion that many men who die before their time could have been saved if their wives had taken more seriously a wife's responsibility to watch over her man.'" Who thinks that is the woman's responsibillity today?
In the twentieth century our science increased but our humanity decreased. If women had really seen how important the career in the home is and been professional at being a homemaker, then millions of men would have lived a longer and healthier life. This is one of the many ways feminism has caused suffering and death. Women must go back home and do the job God has assigned them instead of being rebellious and thinking that the home is secondary. God had worked to build the family based on proper roles shortly before the Messiah was born in 1920 but Satan won. With the advance of science the home would have been easier and healthier. Instead, America became a nightmare of obesity, heart disease and cancer -- things unheard of in simple villages around the world.
Wives should be feeding simple foods grown organically to their families. Father says we should eat "fresh, healthy foods .... If we want to stay healthy throughout our life span, we need to eat vegetable fresh from the earth. Agricultural chemicals and radiation are killing people." He says we have to live a life that is "simpler." Several times I've read Father mentioning eating raw food. There are a few people out there who think we should be fruitarians and eat only raw fruits, nuts and vegetables. I think that is going to far, but Father is tuned in to God, and we should eat more raw food.
Women are so disconnected to the home that many do not even breast-feed their babies or do so for only a very short time and go back to work. Father criticizes American women for feeding cow's milk to babies: "American women popularly preserve their breasts -- for what, nobody knows. They give their babies cow's milk and bind up their bosoms. With such mothers, where is people's root of love? Where is their attachment? This is serious, dead serious."
Dr Robert Mendelsohn, M.D is the author of Confessions of a Medical Heretic and many other great books makes the following excellent statement:
Bottle feeding or breast feeding?
Pediatricians are as determined as obstetricians to weaken the family. They start by making the new mother feel absolutely unequal to the task of looking after the welfare of her baby. Before the doctor even appears on the scene, the stage for submission is set by a platoon of pediatric nurses who incessantly badger the mother with dos and don'ts regarding every aspect of the baby's care. Of course, they're only following orders.
The first broadside the pediatrician delivers to the new mother-child relationship is his "advice" regarding the feeding of the infant. As if God made a mistake in not filling her breasts with Similac, the new mother is told that man-made formula is every bit as good for the baby as her own breast milk. Early in my own pediatric training I was taught that if a mother questioned whether she should breastfeed or bottlefeed, the proper answer is: "The decision is strictly up to you; I will assist you in whatever method you decide to use.
Of course, that answer is an outright lie. Bottlefeeding, the grandaddy of all junk food, wasn't then, isn't now, and never will be "as good as " breastfeeding. Human milk is designed for human babies, cow's milk for calves. The structure and composition of each is suited to the particular needs of the intended recipient. Among animals, switching milk sources, say, for example, giving a calf sow's milk, results in sickness and, often, death for the newborn.
The bottlefed human baby is substantially more likely to suffer a whole nightmare of illnesses: diarrhea, colic, gastrointestinal and respiratory infections, meningitis, asthma, hives, other allergies, pneumonia, eczema, obesity, hypertension, atherosclerosis, dermatitis, growth retardation, hypocalcemic tetany, neonatal hypothyroidism, necrotizing enterocolitis, and sudden infant death syndrome. From a scientific, biological standpoint, formula feeding cannot be considered an acceptable alternative to breastfeeding, especially since more than ninety-nine percent of new mothers are perfectly capable of doing it.
Even premature infants should get breastmilk. When I had my pediatric training more than twenty-five years ago, I was strongly (and thankfully) influenced by one of the great nurses in the field of premature babies, Evelyn Lundeen. Miss Lundeen not only encouraged but insisted that mothers supply breastmilk to their premies even to those who weighed only two pounds. I can remember watching husbands deliver the bottles of milk their wives had pumped. There's no doubt in my mind that the premature infant fed breastmilk does much better than the premature infant fed formula In my own practice I have discharged from the hospital many babies who weighed less than five pounds, all breastfed, of course, since now I won't accept a child as a patient unless the mother is determined to breastfeed.
Telling mothers that breastfeeding is superior to formula feeding is my recipe for eliminating a pediatric practice. If a pediatrician tells a mother the truth that breastfeeding is good and bottlefeeding is dangerous, it will lead to feelings of guilt on the part of the mother who chooses not to breastfeed. The guilty mother then will scurry off to a pediatrician who's willing to relieve that guilt by telling her that it makes no difference whether or not she breast feeds. On the other hand, those women who do breastfeed will have babies that never get sick. There goes the pediatric practice!
You won't find many pediatricians who insist that a woman breastfeed her baby. Instead, you'll find what I call Pediatric doublethink, the statement that breastfeeding is best, but formula is just as good. You'll find pediatricians who hand out free sample six packs of infant formula to new mothers; you'll find pediatricians who insist that newborns waste their sucking reflex and energy on sugar-water bottles; you'll find pediatricians who push free "supplementary formula" kits on mothers who are breastfeeding; and youll find pediatricians who discourage a mother from breastfeeding if her baby doesn't gain as much weight as the manual provided by the formula company says it should. You'll find pediatricians neglecting to inform mothers that infant formula can contain from ten to I000 times as much lead as breastmilk; neglecting to tell a mother that breastfeeding protects her infant from all infectious diseases she has had or fought off through her immune system; neglecting to tell mothers that breastfeeding promotes better bone maturation and intellectual development; and neglecting to tell them that breastfeeding will help protect the mothers themselves from cancer of the breast.
Breastfeeding is better for the family too. The bond between a mother and her child is secure and healthy when the mother breastfeeds. Not only does the sucking of the infant stimulate hormones that reduce postnatal bleeding and discomfort and cause the uterus to shrink back sooner, but it also gives the mother sensual pleasure as well. Bottlefeeding, however, gives the mother no such pleasure. It does make possible-indeed necessary the sacred four-hour feeding schedule, which does untold damage to all involved, in the name of "regularity."
There is a famous passage from the Bible that teaches against eating rich food. It is a story about Daniel who was forced to work in the King's palace. We read that he did not want to be"contaminated" by the royal court. He told his superior that he didn't want to eat the rich food everyone ate in palace. This person told him this might make the king angry if Daniel ate differently. Daniel told him to give him and the other Israelites in the palace a chance to prove he was right. He said," 'Please test your servants for ten days: Give us nothing but vegetables to eat and water to drink. Then compare our appearance with that of the young men who eat the royal food, and treat your servants in accordance with what you see.' So he agreed to this and tested them for ten days."
"At the end of the ten days they looked healthier and better nourished than any of the young men who ate the royal food and the wine they were to drink and gave them vegetables instead" (Daniel 1:12-16).
Immorality Is Unhealthy
Those who live by God's laws, live a longer and richer life than those who live by Satan's idea of happiness. Married people live, on an average, longer, healthier, and happier than single people.
One of the greatest dangers to health is sexual immorality. Mankind has degenerated to the point that immoral sex does not just give VD, but millions are dying from AIDS.