MENTAL HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL CONTROL
Part 13

 

 

 

By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
May 31, 2005
NewsWithViews.com

In Part 2 of my series on "Mental Health, Education and Social Control," I referred to Edgar C. Bundy's COLLECTIVISM IN THE CHURCH. Bundy was General Chairman of the Church League of America, and in January 1958 produced a 2-part series in his periodical NEWS AND VIEWS titled "Is Everybody Crazy?" Part 1 of his 2-part series began with a list of statements such as the following: "If you believe that parents should teach their children right and wrong, then you are mentally ill....If you believe in the great doctrines of the Christian Church as contained in the Bible, then you are mentally ill. If you prefer American Sovereignty to World Government, then you are mentally ill." Regarding these statements, Bundy said: "So say the various self-appointed guardians of the world's health, the Mental Health fanatics....This group constitutes one of the most dangerous universal brain-washing brigades which has yet appeared on the scene of human activity."

Bundy then quoted from a series of lectures by psychiatrist Brock Chisholm (head of the World Health Organization), delivered in October 1945 and reprinted in PSYCHIATRY (February 1946): "For many generations we have bowed our necks to the yoke of the conviction of sin....Misguided by authoritarian dogma, bound by exclusive faith, stunted by inculcated loyalty....The results, the inevitable results, are frustration, inferiority, neurosis....It has long been generally accepted that parents have a perfect right to impose any points of view, any idea or fears, superstitions, prejudices, hates or faiths on their defenseless children. It is, however, only relatively recently that it has become a matter of certain knowledge that these things cause neuroses, behavior disorders, emotional disabilities, and failure to develop to a state of emotional maturity....The mental health service should include provision for prophylaxis of mental disorders over the widest field....Everything we think, and do and believe should be looked at....We need fear no sacredness...." Then Chisholm in one of the lectures says something that reads like a question that would be posed by today's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, when he asks: "Should attempts be made by the profession to induce governments to institute compulsory treatment for the neuroses as for other infectious diseases?" At this point, we should remember Thomas Jefferson's warning from 200 years ago when he said, "If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."

Toward the end of Part 1 of his 2-part series, Bundy included a quote by Chisholm that appeared in the "Weekend" magazine of the TORONTO TELEGRAM (vol. V, no. 10, 1955), where Chisholm declared: "A few courageous people have organized an International Planned Parenthood Association to spread the gospel of birth control. In the United States, a new foundation to deal with population problems is beginning to function with funds from the Rockefeller Foundation."

Relevant to the Rockefeller Foundation, the second part of Bundy's 2-part series, "Is Everybody Crazy?", began with an announcement that the 38th Annual Meeting of the National Committee for Mental Hygiene (now National Association for Mental Health) was held in 1948, and was addressed by Allan Gregg of the Rockefeller Foundation. It was a 2-day program and was devoted to "Preparing for World Citizenship," with the topic of the first session being "Constructing the Forces that Mold Minds." Bundy then referrred to a speech by Dr. Bethuel G. Gross, Division 1 Vocational Guidance Chairman for Kiwanis in Illinois, in which Gross pronounced: "Anyone with a brain cell must recognize that the only way to prevent a child from becoming infected by the psycho-emotional cesspools of the parents is to fumigate Mom and Dad psychologically." Bundy later in Part 2 referred to questions on sex relations, parental problems, etc., that were published under such titles as CHILD GUIDANCE, which was distributed by the National Association for Mental Health.

Just prior to the 2-part series by Bundy, former FBI agent Dan Smoot in THE DAN SMOOT REPORT (February 17, 1956) gave special attention to the subject of "Mental Health" in describing a Congressional bill (H.R. 6376, passed by the U.S. House on January 18, 1956) that would authorize $12.5 million for a mental hospital and mental health program in Alaska that would make an outright gift of one million acres of the United States owned land to the Territory of Alaska. Noting that there were only about 400 mentally ill people in Alaska at the time, Smoot suspected that there was more to this bill than met the eye, and he indicated there was a provision in the Alaska Mental Health Act whereby other states could send their mentally ill residents to Alaska. Smoot remarked, "This is the provision that has some patriotic groups calling the Alaska Mental Health Act the beginning of an American Siberia." Smoot went on to say that "throughout the Union, there is a strong, well-organized, drive for mental health legislation---most of which would permit seizure, incarceration, and treatment of 'mentally ill' people without trial by jury and without the due process of law prescribed by our Constitution."

In his report, Smoot then surmised that if the government "wanted to put someone out of the way for good,...government-appointed and government-paid psychiatrists could work him over....They could administer treatment that would drive him insane. There are 56 different drugs which they could administer (under the pretext of treatment) which would produce amnesia and mental disorientation. There are 44 drugs which would produce delirium, associated with hallucinations, imaginary voices, and so on." He next offered the 2 examples of Lucille Miller in Vermont, who protested the compulsory peacetime draft, and the Finn twins in California, who objected to governmental seizure of private property. Smoot informed that "in both cases,...the government finally hustled them off to distant lunatic asylums in an effort to get rid of them."

Similarly, Smoot related the case of Ron B. Ramsey, a 16-year-old high school boy in Compton, California, who wrote letters to the editor which were strongly anti-United Nations, and someone had him committed to a county institution as a mental case. Smoot then wrote that "Paul G. Hoffman's son---Halleck---diagnoses the mental illness of all who oppose the U.N. and UNESCO in these words: 'The super-patriots are clearly afraid....They see a threat to the Nation in the U.N. and UNESCO,'" and Hoffman refers to them as having a paranoid delusion. But Smoot did not see these people as paranoid because, he said, "Article 4 of the United Nations Covenant on Human Rights (states) 'No one shall be subjected against his will to medical or scientific experimentation involving risk, where such is not required by his state of physical or mental health.' This, of course, leaves government with unhampered 'rights' to make any kind of brainwashing experiment on a citizen---if the state of his mental health requires it. It is up to government, naturally, to decide what to do about it."

For Big Brother government to identify those it deems to have "mental health problems," everyone will have to be monitored. Relevant to this, I mentioned in Part 12 of this series that Congress had just passed "The Real ID Act." U.S. Rep. David Dreier has indicated that's a good first step, but more is needed. On January 4, 2005, he introduced H.R. 98 "Illegal Immigration Enforcement and Social Security Protection Act of 2005." And on his website, one sees that this legislation would require all workers to have a Social Security card with their picture on it, and the card would "contain an electronic signature strip that contains an encrypted electronic identification strip, unique to that individual." About this, former U.S. Rep. Barry Goldwater, Jr., exclaimed, "It scares the h___ out of me. I've always been concerned about a universal ID card or system, somewhat like in Nazi Germany. That's scary. We value our privacy and freedom and are very concerned about the power of the U.S. government. A universal ID number is easy to track and record." (See "Republican David Dreier Introduces National ID Card Legislation," VALLEY MORNING STAR, September 27, 2004.)

Also relevant to government monitoring everyone, Audrey Hudson in "Counterterror grants fund city cameras, data mining" (THE WASHINGTON TIMES, May 19, 2005) reports that millions of federal dollars have been allocated to municipalities for camera surveillance systems, data-mining programs, etc., to use against terrorism. However, she quotes former Republican Congressman and U.S. Attorney Bob Barr as saying about this: "Big Brother is using his extended family as surrogates to develop and implement technology that is very invasive on privacy. This is not legitimate anti-terrorism law enforcement. It's not the responsibility of the local government to be doing this. It's naive to think the information will be kept local. Government at every level cannot seem to resist the urge to surveil and accumulate data. It's frightening what they are doing; it's truly frightening." And in case you think the term "Big Brother" here is overly alarmist, just remember that Hillary Clinton is being primed to run for the presidency 3 years from now and the book she said most affected her was George Orwell's 1984, which is about Big Brother. The second book she mentioned was Aldous Huxley's BRAVE NEW WORLD, in which government also controls people and their thinking. Also don't forget that Hillary's special area of concern is health, including mental health. And don't forget that according to button baron Mort Berkowitz, Hillary's favorite button (mentioned on page 375 of her book LIVING HISTORY) is his button with basketball player Dennis Rodman hair on Hillary's head under the slogan "Hillary Rodman Clinton: As Bad as She Wants To Be."

When George W. Bush succeeded the Clintons in the White House, it was not very long before he, too, developed his own health initiative (The New Freedom Initiative) including appointment of a New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (NFCMH). On July 22, 2003, the NFCMH recommended redesigning the mental health systems in every state, and one of the models used was the Texas Children's Medication Algorithm Project (TCMAP) rushed through in that state by then Governor George W. Bush. In an article, "Bush Texas 2 Step---TeenScreen & TMAP" (INDEPENDENT MEDIA TV, May 23, 2005) by investigative reporter Evelyn Pringle, one learns that TCMAP "allows kids under states' care to be drugged and is still causing headaches for lawmakers today. According to an article by the Associated Press on February 9, 2005, 'As lawmakers work to revampt Texas' foster care system, they also are reviewing the use of mind-altering drugs by foster children.' In October 2004, the Texas inspector general for the Health and Human Services Commission said his office interviewed staff at three state licensed wilderness camps, which provide care for some foster children, and found that the average child arrives on four or five psychotropic drugs....Some child advocates say that kids are being too heavily medicated once they get in the Texas foster care system. The children go into the system neurologically normal but leave neurologically damaged, Austin psychologist John Breeding said....'Children are not just placed on one drug. Typically, they're placed on two or three or we've seen literally up to 17 different drugs for the same child in foster care,' Breeding said. 'These drugs are used as a chemical restraint.'...The MIAMI HERALD reported that one in three Florida children in state care were prescribed psychotropic drugs....The files also showed that child protective service caseworkers routinely were allowed to provide consent for treatment and psychotropic drug use for children in their care, which violates Florida state law....Paxil was one of the wonder drugs recommended by the TCMAP panel and was prescribed to children when the drug was new and relatively untested....Lawsuits have named Paxil as the culprit in cases of murder, suicide, debilitating disease and school shootings. In June 2003, the FDA issued a warning that Paxil should not be prescribed to persons under 18 due to an alarming number of suicides by kids on this drug. In Ohio, the Medication Algorithm Project is called OMAP and just like in other states, it contains all of the most expensive psychotropic medications, and they are selling like hot cakes to children....An investigation (by the COLUMBUS DISPATCH) found that nearly 40,000 Ohio children on Medicaid were taking drugs for anxiety, depression, delusions, hyperactivity and violent behavior as of July 2004....Psychiatrists interviewed by the DISPATCH warned that less than 25% of these drugs have been adequately tested on children....There are reports that people are also being overmedicated for profit in Pennsylvania as well....Adderall is the most popular ADHD drug and its sales in 2004 rose 28%, capturing one-fourth of the U.S. market." Remember here that in Part 12 of this series, I said that in February 2005, Adderall was taken off the market in Canada because it was linked to 20 sudden deaths (14 were children) and a dozen strokes.

Concerning the mental health screenings recommended by the NFCMH, most people believe that such screenings are only designed to find people (especially children) who have serious mental health problems such as psychosis. Therefore, most people are disinterested in the issue because they believe it will not effect them. In the hope of alerting Americans to the far broader applications of such screenings than most realize, the example of what happened to a 13-year-old girl in Texas is instructive.

According to Rob Waters' "Medicating Aliah" (MOTHER JONES, May/June 2005), Aliah Gleason lived in an Austin, TX, suburb and got in trouble in school for running her mouth. School officials believed she had "oppositional disorder," and one day psychologists from the University of Texas conducted a mental health screening of children at Aliah's school. About 2 months later (January 2004), according to Waters, "a child-protection worker went to Aliah's school, interviewed her, then summoned Calvin Gleason (Aliah's father) to the school and told him to take Aliah to Austin State Hospital, a state mental facility. He refused, and after a heated conversation, she placed Aliah in emergency custody and had a police officer drive her to the hospital. The Gleasons would not be allowed to see or even speak to their daughter for the next five months, and Aliah would spend a total of nine months in a state psychiatric hospital and residential treatment facilities. While in the hospital, she was placed in restraints more than 26 times and medicated---against her will and without her parents' consent---with at least 12 different psychiatric drugs, many of them simultaneously....Because Aliah lives in Texas, and because her commitment was involuntary, she became vulnerable to an even further hazard: aggressive regimens that feature new and controversial drugs---regimens that are promoted by drug companies, mandated by state governments, and imposed on captive patient populations with no say over what's prescribed to them." In a new book, ONE NATION UNDER THERAPY: HOW THE HELPING CULTURE IS ERODING SELF-RELIANCE, by Christina Hoff Sommers (former philosophy professor) and Sally Satel (psychiatrist and lecturer at the Yale School of Medicine), the authors expose the plague of "therapism," where mental health practitioners have been telling us that more than a few children and adults who are normal and well-adjusted are really mentally ill and in need of treatment.

By defining "mental health problems" in ever broader terms, the power elite will be able to include ever increasing numbers of Americans as in need of "mental health care." This will provide the power elite with grounds for limiting such people's freedom, thus enabling the power elite to mute opposition to their goal of a one-world government. The American people must resist the movement toward a one-world government and remember the admonition of Somerset Maugham: "If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too." In Americans' pursuit of money, they have allowed our government to make deals with Communist China that will threaten our freedom. In an article, "Magnet Consolidation Threatens Both U.S. Jobs and Security" (IN THESE TIMES, January 23, 2004) by David Moburg, he relates that late in the summer of 2003, "160 high-tech magnet workers lost their jobs at Magnequench, Inc. When the seven remaining workers are laid off it will mark the end of U.S. production of the world's most advanced permanent magnets, tiny but crucial components in computers, automobiles and consumer electronic products---as well as cruise missiles and the Joint Direct Attack Munition bomb. Over the past few years Magnequench moved virtually all its U.S. production operations---and soon its headquarters and research facilities---to Mexico, Singapore and, most importantly, China....Believing that government shouldn't tinker with the market, U.S. officials surrendered a growth industry and good jobs, while making the United States dependent on China for critical military and commercial technology."

Most Americans don't realize that our government actually supported the Communist Chinese rise to power over the Nationalist Chinese in the late 1940s. Those who do know this rationalize that the Truman administration and General George Marshall simply wanted Communist China to serve as a buffer to Soviet expansion in the East much like Tito in Yugoslavia was in the Balkans. But if our leaders really didn't believe Communism was monolithic, then what was the problem with supporting Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam as a buffer to possible Communist Chinese expansion in Southeast Asia? Could it be that the real reason the Communist Chinese received our support was that the power elite wanted to bring about the exact situation we have today---unlimited cheap Chinese labor producing unlimited cheap products?

Why else do you think that even knowing Communist Chinese chairman Mao slaughtered millions of his own people, David Rockefeller could write the following in "From a China Traveller" (THE NEW YORK TIMES, August 10, 1973): "One is impressed immediately by the sense of national harmony....There is a very real and pervasive dedication to Chairman Mao and Maoist principles. Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community purpose. General social and economic progress is no less impressive....The enormous social advances of China have benefitted greatly from the singleness of ideology and purpose....The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in history"? At the time Rockefeller wrote this, he was chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and he was forming the Trilateral Commission (begun in 1973). More recently, you haven't heard the current President Bush refer to Communist Chinese leaders as brutal dictators (which they are) who have abused and killed (e.g., Tiananmen Square, etc.) their own people, even though he repeatedly referred to Saddam Hussein in those terms. And, of course, the American people have been co-opted into not protesting trade relations with Communist China because their 401Ks are in pension plans heavily invested in transnational corporations which are heavily invested in Communist China.

But what about the threat to our security posed by a Communist China growing in military strength because of the economic benefits we have provided them? That, too, is part of the power elite's plan for world government. Remember Study Memorandum No.7, "A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations," written by Lincoln Bloomfield for the Institute for Defense Analysis in 1962 under contract SCC 28270 with the State Department, in which Bloomfield stated: "A world effectively controlled by the United Nations is one in which 'world government' would come about through the establishment of supranational institutions, characterized by mandatory universal membership and some ability to employ physical force....(But) if the communist dynamic was greatly abated, the West might lose whatever incentive it has for world government." Is this why Peter W. Rodman, assistant defense secretary for international security affairs in the current Bush administration, said what he did on April 14, 2005 at a joint hearing by the U.S. House International Relations and Armed Services committees? Rodman declared: "The United States seeks a strong, prosperous and transforming China, and we support strong economic and political ties between the EU and China. Fueled by an impressive record of economic growth, China has been able to devote even greater national resources to defense modernization. This has translated into double-digit percent annual increases in Beijing's officially announced defense budget almost every year for the past 15 years." Commenting on this attitude, William R. Hawkins in "Who wants a strong China?" (THE WASHINGTON TIMES, May 4, 2005) warned that "shifts in trade and investment flows are one of history's most critical factors in determining the global balance of power. It is perilous for national leaders to ignore the geopolitics of economic activity."

The effort for "A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations" began with the planning for that organization. Leo Pasvolsky was a special assistant to the Secretary of State during World War II, and he was known as the "architect" of the U.N. Charter. According to L. V. Horner (author of THE UNITED NATIONS: A THREAT TO OUR SECURITY) in a speech on June 17, 1963 in Oklahoma City, Pasvolsky issued a departmental memorandum regarding the objectives of his department, which were "to survey the basic principles which should underlie a desirable world order to be evolved after the termination of hostilities...and to devise a means of limitation of national sovereignty." One means of accomplishing Pasvolsky's goal was to create a common and receptive mindset among the people. In that regard, the UNESCO General Conference Report of 1946 revealed the following strategy: "We are assigned the positive function of building peace in the minds of men through science, education and culture. The Executive Secretary's report gives us the blueprints for the development of what one may call a world brain, a world mind, or a world culture, which alone can be the basis of a world authority or a world government."

As usual, the U.N. has never come up with anything original on its own, and its references to a "world brain" and "world culture" probably came from the famous author H. G. Wells. In 1938, his WORLD BRAIN was published, in which he referred to "a ruling World Brain" which would be "operating by an enhanced educational system through the whole body of mankind." Wells wrote: "Some favour the idea of a gradual supersession of the political forms and methods of mass democracy by government through some sort of elite....The general projection is in the form of a sort of modern priesthood, an oligarchy of professors and exceptionally competent people. Like Plato they would make the philosopher king....I want to suggest something---a new social organ, a new institution---which for a time I shall call 'World Encyclopaedia.'...This World Encyclopaedia would be the mental background of every intelligent man in the world....Such an Encyclopaedia would play the role of an undogmatic Bible to a world culture....It would hold the world together mentally....It is a super university I am thinking of, a world brain....Ultimately if our dream is realized it must exert a very great influence upon everyone who controls administrations, makes wars, directs mass behaviour, feeds, moves, starves and kills populations....You see how such an Encyclopaedic organization could spread like a nervous network, a system of mental control about the globe....I believe that in some such way as I have sketched, the mental forces...could be drawn together in a real directive world intelligence."

The "world government" to which the 1946 UNESCO report referred could be a "federation of the world," about which Lord Alfred Tennyson wrote in "Locksley Hall" (Robin Hood was known as the Earl of Locksley). And the ruling "elite" to which H.G. Wells referred could have included individuals like Lord Tennyson, who was a member of the Society for Psychical Research (SPR) mentioned in Part 11 of this series. Twentieth-century members of the American Society for Psychical Research included its founder William James (father of American psychology, who received his Ph.D. at Leipzig University from Wilhelm Wundt, whose grandfather was code-named "Raphael" with the Illuminati), book publisher and SPR trustee and counselor Henry Holt (James Brandt, former president of Henry Holt & Co., and G. D. Gosling, former associate editor, were both Rhodes scholars), and anthropologist Margaret Mead (whose husband Gregory Bateson led the CIA's MK-Ultra project). Mead's father-in-law, William Bateson, was a member of the SPR. And Mead's daughter, Mary Catherine Bateson, accompanied New Ager and SPR member Jean Houston to Camp David, and they helped Hillary Clinton write IT TAKES A VILLAGE.

To combat the power elite's plan for a one-world government, Americans should promote patriotism and respect for our flag beginning at an early age. One way to foster this is to contact the National Flag Foundation (one of the foremost leaders in patriotic education) at flag@americanflags.org (or call 1-800-615-1776) and ask for information on "Flag Facts" and "Young Patriots Education Initiatives" (more than 4000 schools have asked the foundation to find sponsors for them for the Young Patriots program).

Before it is too late, we should heed the advice of our second U.S. president, John Adams. For the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the 91-year-old founding father Adams offered his final public toast: "Independence forever." And if he were alive today, he might add: "World government never." Americans should also remember the warning of Adams' son (and future President) John Quincy Adams, when as U.S. Secretary of State he addressed the U.S. House of Representatives on July 4, 1821 and pronounced: "America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force." America today is not heeding John Quincy Adams' warning.

� 2005 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