MENTAL HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL CONTROL
Part 5

 

 

 

By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
December 15, 2004
NewsWithViews.com

In April 2002, President George W. Bush established the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health to conduct a "comprehensive study of the United States mental health service delivery system." Now, late in 2004, there are about 27 sites around the country piloting various aspects of the President's New Freedom Initiative, which provides for mental health screening for everyone, and provides for strong antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs as treatment for many mental health problems detected.

Perhaps the most powerful force behind this initiative is the pharmaceutical industry, including Eli Lilly & Co. (which manufactures Prozac) whose top selling drug is the antipsychotic Olanzapine. Is it merely a coincidence that President George H. W. Bush has been on the board of directors of Lilly, that Lilly made over $1 million in contributions to George W. Bush and the Republican Party in the campaign of 2000, and that Lilly's CEO Sidney Taurel was appointed by the current President Bush to the Homeland Security Council? In July 1945, Lilly chemist Ervin Kleiderer led a research team to an I. G. Farben pharmaceutical plant in Germany. I. G. Farben had produced Zyklon B gas used in the Nazi prison camps (remember that both the Nazis and Communists used mental health screenings to indentify their adversaries). Kleiderer returned to the U.S. with the formula for Dolophine (named in honor of Adolph Hitler), now marketed as methadone. And don't forget that it was Eli Lilly & Co. in 1953 that made up a batch of LSD for the CIA, according to John Marks in THE SEARCH FOR THE "MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE": THE CIA AND MIND CONTROL (N.Y. Times Books, 1979). Lilly over the years has given a great deal of money to Planned Parenthood and to the Center for Population Options.

In case you think you will only be affected by the New Freedom Initiative if you have some extreme form of psychosis or neurosis, you need to look at whom the leaders in the field consider mentally disturbed. In B. K. Eakman's "What? Are You Crazy? The Screening of America" (CHRONICLES, October 2004), she reveals that "in August 2003, the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Science Foundation announced the results of their $1.2 million taxpayer-funded study. It stated, essentially, that traditionalists are mentally disturbed. Scholars from the University of Maryland, California at Berkeley, and Stanford had determined that social conservatives, in particular, suffer from 'mental rigidity,' 'dogmatism,' and 'uncertainty avoidance,' together with associated indicators of mental illness."

The ultimate goal of the power elite, as I have written before, is to have a world government with social control of the populace. In 1919, the American Baptist Publication Society published Samuel Zane Batten's THE NEW WORLD ORDER, in which he pronounced: "We have vindicated the right of social control....The state must socialize every group....Men must learn to have world patriotism. World patriotism must be a faith." Batten then called for a World Federation of nations, and said that men "must see and affirm that above the nation is humanity. Internationalism must first be a religion before it can be a reality and a system."

Because education has been an important vehicle for this movement, a little over a decade after Batten's book was published, the National Education Association's Department of Superintendence in 1932 published its TENTH YEARBOOK subtitled CHARACTER EDUCATION. This document presented their plans to use America's schools to undermine traditional values in pursuit of the goal of world government, and see that "the citizen of the future must be a citizen of the world." (Remember that I earlier quoted U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige on October 3, 2003 as saying that he was proud the U.S. was rejoining UNESCO and educating our children to be "citizens of the world." Since "citizens" of states have to obey the states' laws, supposedly "citizens of the world" will have to obey World Law. President Clinton also referred to himself as "a citizen of the world" in a speech in Shanghai on July 1, 1998.)

In an earlier part to this series on mental health, education and social control, I referred to the head of the Rockefeller Foundation, Max Mason, on April 11, 1933 stating that their goal was social control, the control of human behavior. The next year, in a February 1934 "progress report" by one of the Rockefeller Foundation's division heads, one finds the following: "Can we develop so sound and extensive a genetics that we can hope to breed, in the future, superior men?" (See THE CIRCUIT RIDERS: ROCKEFELLER MONEY AND THE RISE OF MODERN SCIENCE by Gerald Jones, 1989.) In 1941, the infamous Alfred Kinsey began to receive money for his notorious sex research from Alan Gregg, Rockefeller Foundation medical director, who would also fund the establishment of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations.

The decade of the 1930s with the Great Depression provided a major impetus for the power elite's goal of social control, and in Bronislaw Malinowski's 1937 conference paper, "Culture as a Determinant Behavior," was mentioned that there was "only one way out" of the current cultural crisis, and that was "the establishment of a scientific control of human affairs." And in that same year, in the July-October 1937 edition of J. L. Moreno's SOCIOMETRY, one reads about the federal government Resettlement Administration's "Centreville Project," which was an experiment in assigning housing for families based upon certain characteristics (e.g., whether they were religious) to see how they inter-related. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had told Moreno in Hyde Park one day that he would see how Moreno's sociometric principles could be put to use. Perhaps the "Centreville Project" was one such example.

The ultimate goal of the power elite is a World Socialist Government, a synthesis of Western Capitalism and Eastern Communism. A consultant to the Resettlement Administration during this period of the 1930s was Stuart Chase, who in 1932 had authored A NEW DEAL, boldly proclaiming: "I am not seriously alarmed by the sufferings of the creditor class, the troubles which the church is bound to encounter, the restrictions of certain kinds of freedom which must result, nor even by the bloodshed of the transition period. A better economic order is worth a little bloodshed....Revolution can give what no other road promises to give so directly and forcibly---a new religion....It will be materialistic....We need a new religion."

With this kind of attitude, one can only wonder why Chase was not only a consultant to the federal Resettlement Administration, but also to UNESCO in 1949. But then perhaps the answer lies in UNESCO's first director-general's emphasis (mentioned earlier) on eugenics. This first director-general, Fabian Socialist Sir Julian Huxley, also advocated a world government, which was perfectly in line with Milton Eisenhower's comment at the closing session of the first day's conference on UNESCO at Wichita, Kansas, December 12, 1947. There, this brother of President Dwight Eisenhower stated that "one can truly understand UNESCO only if one views it in its historical context (and) reviewed in this way it reveals itself as one more step in our halting, painful, but I think very real progress toward a genuine world government." This quote can be found in a speech by U.S. Rep. Paul W. Shafer on March 21, 1952 (later published in his and John Howland Snow's THE TURNING OF THE TIDES).

An ally of Rep. Shafer in Congress was Rep. John Ashbrook, who would severely criticize UNESCO and on October 10, 1962 introduced HR 10508 which would ban psychological testing of students. As support for his legislation, Rep. Ashbrook quoted from a "moral value" exam that had been given to students, asking such things as whether spitting on the Bible or spitting on the flag was worse. Students' values were in the process of being changed, as leading educator Theodore Sizer, writing with his wife in FIVE LECTURES...ON MORAL EDUCATION, declared in 1970: "Moral autonomy...is the 'new morality' toward which we are to guide ourselves and other people....Clearly the strict adherence to a 'code' is out of date." This was a clear example of the humanist influence that was growing in American education (there are 4 million members of the International Humanist and Ethical Union).

Three years later, the second Humanist Manifesto was written in 1973, and one of its signers was the infamous sexologist Sol Gordon, who referred to himself as "polymorphous perverse." Gordon has been on the board of directors of SIECUS (Sex Information and Education Council of the United States), has been affiliated with Ortho Pharmaceuticals (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, which is connected with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation), has produced the infamous Zing Sex Comix, and has called many of those disagreeing with him "Bible Bigots." And in case you think this represents only an isolated extreme example of humanistic attitudes about people who believe in THE HOLY BIBLE, look at the following quote from a prize-winning essay by John Dunphy in THE HUMANIST (January-February 1983): "The battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom...between the rotting corpse of Christianity...and the new faith of humanism....Humanism will emerge triumphant."

Psychologically, this was all part of a programming process that would culminate in a "brave new world," and how it would be administered was explained in Roderick Seidenberg's 1964 book, ANATOMY OF THE FUTURE, in which he showed how a master race of "administrators" controls the masses of human beings "by the ever increasing techniques and refined arts of mental coercion" to the level of mindless guinea pigs.

Similarly, Zbigniew Brzezinski in BETWEEN TWO AGES: AMERICA'S ROLE IN THE TECHNETRONIC ERA (1970) referred to "the ruling elite" and said that "Society would be dominated by an elite...(which) would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control." He also forecast "difficult problems in determining the legitimate scope of human control. The possibility of extensive chemical mind control, the danger of loss of individuality....Man is increasingly acquiring the capacity to...affect through drugs the extent of (children's) intelligence, and to modify and control their personalities." And he furthered indicated that "in the technetronic society the trend seems to be toward...effectively exploiting the latest communication techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason." Mika Brzezinski, one of the people to whom the book is dedicated, is now a correspondent with CBS News.

Along the lines of this same concept that our planet needs to be managed, in 1971 New Age networker Donald Keys co-founded Planetary Citizens (which, in addition to Global Education Associates and others, wants to "redesign education"), and in a later (November 11, 1984) symposium, "Toward a Global Society," stated: "We're at a stage now of pulling it all together. It's a new religion called 'networking.'...When it comes to running a world or taking people into a New Age,...don't anyone think for a moment that you can run a planet without a head....This planet has to be managed." And Keys is not without influence, as he has been a speechwriter for U.N. Secretary-General U Thant as well as for foreign ministers and ambassadors. In this capacity, he has been responsible for starting many trends at the U.N. Keys has also been with Lucis Trust (formerly Lucifer Publishing), on the board of directors of United World Federalists, and a member of the advisory council of the London Institute of Psychosynthesis. An apparent volunteer for managing people, future Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger, six years after Keys' 1984 statement, said: "My relationship to power and authority is that I'm all for it....People need somebody to watch over them....Ninety-five percent of the people of the world need to be told what to do and how to behave." (U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, November 26, 1990)

In order to "manage" people, the power elite logically would have to know what we are doing. In that regard, when I was a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education, one of my jobs was to monitor the federally funded Center for the Social Organization of Schools (CSOS) at Johns Hopkins University. And on December 30, 1985, I wrote a memo to Chester Finn, the head of my division, warning that the CSOS was asking students whether their parents had gotten in trouble with the police, and whether the students themselves would acknowledge being involved in criminal activities.

Also while I was with the U.S. Department of Education, on July 27, 1984, Utah Superintendent of Public Instruction, G. Leland Burningham, wrote a letter to U.S. Secretary of Education Terrel Bell stating: "I am forwarding this letter to accompany the proposal which you recommended Bill Spady and I prepare in connection with Outcome-Based Education. This proposal centers around the detailed process by which we will work together to implement Outcome-Based Education using research verified programs. This will make it possible to put Outcome-Based Education in place, not only in Utah but in all schools of the nation." William Spady is the "father" of Outcome-Based Education (OBE), and he would write in "Future Trends: Considerations in Developing Exit Outcomes" (September 1987) that "Despite the historical trend toward intellectual enlightenment and cultural pluralism, there has been a major rise in religious and political orthodoxy, intolerance, fundamentalism, and conservatism with which young people will have to be prepared to deal." OBE emphasizes the "group" over the individual student, and therefore fits perfectly in the movement toward socialism. Note the following words of American Communist Party chief Gus Hall: "The battle will be lost, not when freedom of speech is finally taken away, but when Americans become so 'adjusted or conditioned' to getting along with the 'group' that when they finally see the threat, they will say, 'I can't afford to be controversial.'"

Thus, the power elite now apparently believes the public has been conditioned into complacency when forced to submit to such things as mandatory mental health screenings. Alexis De Tocqueville in DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA in 1840 warned of this when he explained: "Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent....It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry....After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform....The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided....It does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd....It is vain to summon a people who have been rendered so dependent on the central power to choose from time to time the representatives of that power; this rare and brief exercise of their free choice...will not prevent them from gradually losing the faculties of thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves, and thus gradually falling below the level of humanity."

Commenting on Illinois' Children's Mental Health Act of 2003, which has flowed from The New Freedom Initiative's initial impetus, Laura Dawn Lewis has described the reasons we all should be concerned. She believes that this Act, which requires all children through age 18 years and all pregnant women to be tested for mental health needs, is wrong because it is profiling, compulsory, a violation of privacy, and unconstitutional.

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul attempted to stop the federal government from mandatory mental health screenings, but he failed. On November 20, 2004 Congress passed the omnibus spending bill without Rep. Paul's amendment, which provided that "None of the funds made available for the State Incentive Grants for Transformation should be used for any programs of mandatory or universal mental-health screening that performs mental-health screening on anyone under 18 years of age without the express, written permission of the parents or legal guardians of each individual involved." Kent Snyder, executive director of the Liberty Committee (founded by Rep. Paul), remarked: "We believe the drug companies and the psychiatric establishment convinced Senators Arlen Specter and Bill Frist to block it." Apparently, the U.S. Senate does not care about parental rights when it comes to something as psychologically invasive as the forced mental health screening of children.

Perhaps even worse, the government also apparently believes we can be subjected to government rules we are not even allowed to see! On October 10, 2004, THE IDAHO STATESMAN published "Chenoweth-Hage right to challenge pat-downs," which described how former member of Congress Helen Chenoweth-Hage at an airport requested to see the rules that mandate patting down anyone selected for secondary screening. She was informed that she would not be allowed to see them!

Clearly, the government is seeking more and more power over us, and desires the ability to track us wherever we go. Three days before THE IDAHO STATESMAN article, WorldNetDaily (WND) on October 7 published "Life With Big Brother: Feds plan to track every car," detailing how the federal Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office will not only track (using Global Positioning Satellite, GPS, technology) the movement of every vehicle in the nation, but it will also archive this information in massive databases for future use. The first models of vehicles with transceivers, or "onboard units," that will transmit data will be unveiled in 2005, with the goal of equipping 57 million vehicles by 2015. According to the WND article, John Worthington, president and CEO of TransCore (one of the campanies currently under contract to develop the onboard units for cars), described the system as "kind of an Orwellian all-singing, all-dancing collector/aggregator/disseminator of transportation information." And three days after THE IDAHO STATESMAN article, the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on October 13 approved an implantable computer chip containing hospital patients' medical information.

Of course, best of all from the power elite's perspective would be if every American had a national ID card. In that regard, WND on December 8 published "Intel bill to institute national ID system?" which began with the words: "A Republican congressman is decrying the intelligence reform bill set to pass Congress today, saying it creates a de facto national ID-card system. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, says by establishing standards for state drivers' licenses on a federal level, the government is setting up a national system that's 'not proper in a free society'." He further stated that "a national identification card, in whatever form it may take, will allow the federal government to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every American. History shows that governments inevitably use such power in harmful ways. The 9-11 commission, whose recommendations underlie this bill, has called for INTERNAL screening points where identification will be demanded. Domestic travel restrictions are the hallmark of authoritarian states, not free nations. It is just a matter of time until those who refuse to carry the new licenses will be denied the ability to drive or board an airplane. Nationalizing standards for drivers licenses and birth certificates, and linking them together via a national database, creates a national ID system pure and simple. This legislation imposes federal standards in a federal bill, and it creates a federalized ID regardless of whether the ID itself is still stamped with the name of your state." Rep. Paul likened an internal checkpoint plan to a "Soviet-style internal passport system."

In an earlier part of this series on "Mental Health, Education and Social Control," I had mentioned that Ford Foundation president H. Rowan Gaither in the Fall of 1953 told the Congressional Reece Committee staff director Norman Dodd: "Of course, you know that we at the executive level here were, at one time or another, active in either the OSS, the State Department, or the European Economic Administration. During those times, and without exception, we operated under directives issued by the White House. We are continuing to be guided by just such directives....The substance (of these directives) was to the effect that we should make every effort to so alter life in the United States as to make possible a comfortable merger with the Soviet Union."

Fulfilling the power elite's dialectical plan of synthesizing Western Capitalism and Eastern Communisn into a World Socialist Government, it clearly looks like we are moving in that direction with more and more government control being exercised over Americans' lives.

� 2004 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