MENTAL HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL CONTROL
Part 34

 

 

 

By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
May 21, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

Concerning mental health, on June 13, 2006, the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee passed a spending bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. Included were grants for universal mental health screening programs to be used by the states. Among these were almost $20 million for State Incentive Grants for Transformation which would help implement the recommendations of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (NFCMH).

There was also almost $27 million for suicide prevention including mental health screenings under TeenScreen, a program which I have previously mentioned has serious problems. TeenScreen was developed by Columbia University and is promoted by the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI). One of TeenScreen's main problems is that it has an 84% false identification rate. So why is it pushed so vigorously by NAMI? It's because of the tremendous amount of money given NAMI by Big Pharma, with Eli Lilly contributing $2.87 million of the $11.72 million NAMI received between 1996 and 1999. Also, TeenScreen's current executive director, Lori Flynn, was executive director of NAMI.

Returning to the federal appropriations for mental health screenings, there was $1 million for Foundations for Learning, which is a mental health program for children from birth through age 7 funded via the seriously flawed federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) education program.

"Violence Prevention" grants and "Safe Schools, Healthy Students" grants amounted to over $75 million and included funds for TeenScreen, and mental health screenings even for infants. This money also funds a program under NCLB's Safe and Drug Free Schools program titled "Early Warning, Timely Response" that can label children as potentially unstable based on attitudes, values, and beliefs.

Almost $5 million was appropriated for Mental Health Integration in Schools, and federal money was also appropriated for the State Early Childhood Comprehensive System (SECCS) "to develop mental health early intervention services targeted to infants, toddlers, preschool, and school-aged children."

That SECCS intervenes with school-aged children shows the link between education and mental health. SECCS is promoted by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), which is the primary agency promoting the recommendations of the NFCMH. SECCS funds are already being used in 48 states, with the Minnesota program, for example, described as a "federally-funded grant project to coordinate and integrate early childhood screening systems to assure that all children ages birth to 5 are screened early and continuously for the presence of health, socioemotional or developmental needs. Children and their families should then be linked to mental health services, early care and educarion,...so that all eligible children...enter school ready to learn." Note especially that this applies to "all" children ages birth to age 5, and they will be screened "continuously."

This program is sweeping and all-inclusive, and what will be its result? It's ominously predictable ! A 2005 study by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley found that "attendance in preschool centers, even for short periods of time each week, hinders the rate at which young children develop social skills and display the motivation to engage classroom tasks." In other words, when children receive their mental health screenings, they are virtually guaranteed to have "developmental needs" from the simple fact that they have had "attendance at preschool centers."

Thus, the screening of preschoolers can be a mechanism for claiming the need for mental health interventions early in people's lives, which is a form of social control. Once this is accepted, children in elementary school can be fingerprinted when they buy lunch (see November 5, 2006, Associated Press article "3 Santa Barbara Elementary Schools to Fingerprint Students Before They Buy Cafeteria Food"). Remember where THE HOLY BIBLE refers to a mark without which people will not be able to buy or sell anything?

Then as adults, people will be willing to give up Constitutional rights for security from terrorist attacks. In fact, a September 2006 CBS poll found "68% of Americans understand they 'will' have to trade freedom for security." But remember Ben Franklin's 1759 admonition that "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." The same September 9, 2006, CBS News program also reported that "the government admits it's 'eavesdropped on' thousands of international calls in and out of the U.S....and stored information about millions more in a 'database.' There's surveillance....They've collected information about Americans protesting the Iraq war. The FBI admits it combed through the personal information of college students who applied for loans, looking for terrorists."

And according to Chicago's Mayor Daley: "By 2016, I'll make you a bet. We'll have cameras on almost every block" (CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, October 12, 2006).

You say the courts will not allow our Constitutional rights to be eroded? Guess again ! In March 2007, federal judge Marcia Cooke ruled that alleged terrorist Jose Padilla's right to a "speedy trial" did not apply as long as the Pentagon held him as an "enemy combatant." What's the lesson here? If the government wants to deny Americans' freedom of speech, right to bear arms, etc., just get the Pentagon to do it and our Constitutional rights don't apply. Or take another court case. Several weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of former U.S. Army Specialist Michael New, who refused to wear U.N. insignia over 10 years ago. Basically, a lower court judge decided that the Army acted lawfully and New wasn't even allowed to present any evidence to the contrary. Think about that precedent if you ever have to go to trial.

As I have mentioned several times previously, one of the power elite's favorite mechanisms of social control is coercion. For example, if they want to move us toward a cashless society, just start charging people more to pay for products with cash. Think that won't happen? Just look at the March 11, 2007, INDEPENDENT article "Cashless Society by 2012, Says Visa Chief," in which chief executive of Visa Europe, Peter Ayliffe, said: "Some retailers could soon start surcharging customers if they choose to buy products with cash."

Another mechanism the power elite uses to control populations is debt, and here's how that works. The World Bank or International Monetary Fund loans a certain amount of money to Indonesia, for example, for power plants. However, the plants are not located in the most logical places, but rather where the ruling Suharto family owns land. Also, the plants are not fueled by the abundant oil and gas of Indonesia, but rather by Australian coal in which the Suhartos have an economic interest. While the Suhartos greatly benefit, the overall population of Indonesia has to sacrifice to pay off the debt. In addition, the rulers of some countries often place their money in off-shore banking havens (this is where one-third of the world's wealth is located), which are usually subsidiaries of major New York and London banks. Because these sheltered funds are not taxed, that means the countries' middle class has to bear a greater tax burden, thus keeping their power and influence suppressed.

Finally, the power elite recognizes that religion is an obstacle to their social control over us, and therefore religious or moral absolutes had to be undermined. Modernists within the Catholic Church sought to undermine traditional views, and were finally successful with Vatican II in the 1960s, followed by Cardinal Bernardin's "seamless garment" philosophy. The Catholic Church had strongly opposed abortion, for example, as a moral absolute against killing innocent human beings. This translated into political opposition to "pro-choice" candidates. The power elite did not like this political activism, and the "seamless garment" view was that there are many moral issues (e.g., feeding the poor) which voters should consider. Thus, one could vote for a "pro-choice" candidate if her or his opponent was less concerned about the poor, homeless, AIDS victims, etc. This effectively diluted Catholic voters' opposition to "pro-choice" politicians.

The same tactic has more recently been applied to Protestant evangelicals who have traditionally opposed abortion. You will notice, for example, that purpose-driven church growth leader Rick Warren spends little time preaching against abortion and how it should be politically opposed. Rather, he speaks a great deal of the time emphasizing the need for church members' involvement in social action such as feeding the poor in Third World countries. There is nothing wrong with feeding the poor. However, to the extent evangelical Protestant churches emphasize things like that, then they, like Catholics, spend less time opposing political candidates who ignore the Biblical "Thou Shalt Not Kill" commandment applied to abortion. Instead, the churches (evangelical Protestant, Catholic, and others) increasingly serve the functions of what would be considered a Socialist (social action) government. And that is the power elite's goal.

The power elite's ultimate goal is a World Socialist Government, including population control such as killing by abortion. Leading Socialists like H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw and Bertrand Russell have all expressed the view that killing innocent people will be part of this effort. And in case you don't believe anyone in the U.S. government is capable of killing innocent people, reflect upon the fact that OSS (Office of Strategic Services) agent Douglas Bazata on September 25, 1979 told 450 invited guests at the Hilton Hotel in Washington, DC, that OSS head William Donovan paid him $10,000 to kill Gen. George Patton. Bazata also gave this information to THE WASHINGTON STAR!

Perhaps Patton was killed because he argued that U.S. forces should prevent the Soviets from entering Berlin toward the end of World War II. The power elite, however, wanted to strengthen the Soviets, and in 1953 Ford Foundation president H. Rowan Gaither told Congressional Reece Committee research director Norman Dodd that they were under directives from the White House to so alter American life as to have a "comfortable merger" with the USSR. Remember that on December 1, 1943, FDR had made a secret deal with Stalin to let the Soviets have much of Poland and eventually Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (see David Lawrence's article, "'Official' Teheran Report: 'Secret Deal' Between Stalin, FDR Revealed by State Department," in the June 19, 1961 PHILADELPHIA EVENING BULLETIN).

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! Enter Your E-Mail Address:

The tragedy in all this is that the American people are oblivious to what's happening, and seem perfectly content to remain that way ! At some point, though, they will have to face the consequences of their lack of interest and non-involvement.

What will happen, for example, if there is a conflict between any of the major powers? I am not talking about a nuclear confrontation, but rather the simple fact that internet cables easily can be destroyed, and there's the technological ability to "fry" (destroy) satellites. What would happen not only to the U.S. military, but to business/banking transactions, your own ability to make long-distance calls or use the internet, etc. if this occurred? It would be too late to wake up then, though, wouldn't it?!

� 2007 Dennis Cuddy - All Rights Reserved

Order Dennis Cuddy's new book "Cover-Up: Government Spin or Truth?"

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale