MENTAL HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL CONTROL
Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
In the struggle to keep children from having mental health screenings without parental consent, there is a "slight" bit of good news. On July 22, 2005, an 84-page federal document was released, titled "Transforming Mental Health Care in America The Federal Action Agenda: First Steps." This is the "Action Agenda" developed by the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (NFCMH) following its "Achieving the Promise" report of July 22, 2003.
Regarding the "Action Agenda" document released July 22, 2005, the NFCMH states: "Neither 'Achieving the Promise' nor this 'Action Agenda' recommends mandatory and/or universal screening of children. The Commission recognized that parents are the decision-makers in the care for their children and if screening appears to be an appropriate action, parental consent must be obtained before it occurs."
At first glance, this appears to be very good news. However, the reason I said it is a "slight" bit of good news is that bureaucrats have a way of "interpreting" words which must be carefully watched. For example, when the "Action Agenda" refers to "parental consent," is that "opt-in" or "opt-out" consent? The dangers with bureaucrats saying parental consent is "opt-out" are several. First, what if parents are not notified a screening is about to occur? How would they know to "opt-out" of it? Or what if the school sends a notice to parents that their child is going to be screened unless the parents "opt-out," and for some reason the child forgets to give the notice to the parents?
Or what if the child forgets to give the parents' "opt-out" letter to the school? Or what if the mail loses the notice going to the parents or being returned from the parents to the school? Or what if the parents misplace, or forget to respond to, the notice?
The point is there are many things that can go wrong with "opt-out" parental consent. That is why any federal legislation or bureaucratic rules and regulations must define parental consent as meaning "opt-in." This means quite simply that unless a school system has in-hand a signed letter from parents giving their permission ("opt-in") for their child to undergo a specifically designated mental health screening, the school may not conduct such screening.
Perhaps at this point it would be helpful to give a specific example as to why the difference between "opt-out" (passive) parental consent and "opt-in" (active) parental consent is important. According to Evelyn Pringle in "Parental Consent---TeenScheme Sets the Record Wrong" (INDEPENDENT MEDIA TV, July 14, 2005), the Fall 2003 TeenScreen newsletter indicated that "if your local mental health program is approved by the Board of Education as part of the educational program, you are not required to get active parental consent under PPRA (Protection of Pupil Rights Act). Passive consent is sufficient in this circumstance....If the screening will be given to all students, as opposed to some, it becomes part of the curriculum and no longer requires active parental consent."
The power elite want to use "mental health" as one of the tools in pursuing their globalist agenda of population control. And relevant to controlling or managing people, just before former Assistant Secretary of State Adolf Berle's diary entry (see NAVIGATING THE RAPIDS, 1918-1971) regarding his work with Henry Kissinger on a report for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Berle on March 27, 1957 wrote about the Committee on Human Ecology with Cornell Medical College neurologist Harold Wolff as president. Begun in 1955 as the Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology, the Committee was funded and controlled by the CIA for studies and experiments in behavioral sciences. Berle was one of the Committee's board members, and on March 27 wrote that the Committee "is really an attempt to see whether behavior and science can be brought together in economic matters. I am frightened about this one. If the scientists do what they have laid out for themselves, men will become manageable ants."
In a similar view the next decade, Roderick Seidenberg in 1964 wrote ANATOMY OF THE FUTURE, describing 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.
The 1960s was the decade in which one began to hear the term "generation gap." This referred to the gap between the values and views of the young people of the 1960s and their traditional-minded parents. What most people do not realize is that this gap was deliberately created. For example, David Crosby (of Crosby, Stills & Nash) is quoted in ROLLING STONE, vol. 1, as revealing about this period: "I figured the only thing to do was to steal their kids. I still think it's the only thing to do. By saying that, I'm not talking about kidnapping. I'm just talking about changing young people's value systems which removes them from their parents' world effectively."
And in 1968, leading educator Warren Bennis (friend of 1967 Humanist of the Year Abraham Maslow) authored THE TEMPORARY SOCIETY, in which he explained: "One cannot permit submission to parental authority if one wishes to bring about profound social change....In order to effect rapid changes, any such centralized regime must mount a vigorous attack on the family lest the traditions of the present generations be preserved. It is necessary, in other words, artificially to create an experiential chasm between parents and children to insulate the latter in order that they can more easily be indoctrinated with new ideas. The desire may be to cause an even more total submission to the state, but if one wishes to mold children in order to achieve some future goal, one must begin to view them as superior, inasmuch as they are closer to this future goal. One must also study their needs with care in order to achieve this difficult preparation for the future. One must teach them not to respect their tradition-bound elders, who are tied to the past and know only what is irrelevant."
In case you think Bennis was out of the mainstream of American intellectual life, just 3 years after he authored THE TEMPORARY SOCIETY, he became president of the University of Cincinnati (1971-1977). And more recently, Bennis wrote the editor's Preface to MANAGING GLOBALIZATION IN THE AGE OF INTERDEPENDENCE (1995), in which communitarian author George C. Lodge (CFR member and son of Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.) claimed that "the old systems of governance, centered on the nation-state, are inadequate....An erosion of national sovereignty...seems inevitable."
As related in an earlier Part of this series, the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW), in the decade after Bennis' book was published (1970s), tried to develop a model plan for child health services. And shortly thereafter, the State of Maine formed the Governor's Task Force on Maternal and Child Health, which developed a 62-page document of recommendations. It provided for "home health visitors," whose training "would not be overly technical or require an excessive amount of time." These "visitors" would be expected to "bring children into the health system; assess family functions, parent-child relationship and developmental status of the child; provide health education; teach parenting skills; provide primary, home-based preventive mental health services; and act as family advocate within the system." The Maine plan also set up K-12 mandatory Human Sexuality courses in schools.
Of course, for the power elite to control people, they have to identify and obtain information on each of us. Relevant to this, the ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH (July 19, 2005) published "Missouri issues ID numbers to pupils" by Carolyn Bower. The article begins by stating that "Missouri is assigning a 10-digit identification number to its public school students." And then Leigh Ann Grant-Engle, data manager for Missouri's education department, is quoted as saying "All states in the country are in the process of putting in place a student identification system." Information concerning each student can then be connected by computer to her or his identification number, and can be accessed by a variety of people.
Beyond information in school systems, the government is also interested in collecting certain other information about people. For example, several years ago, an FBI agent from Oklahoma called Dr. Stan Monteith of Radio Liberty and asked if Dr. Monteith believed we are living in Biblical End Times. Why would the FBI want to know this about Dr. Monteith or about you or anyone else? Think about the implications of the federal government checking on your religious beliefs!
A favorite tactic of the power elite in getting people to accept being monitored and controlled is to use people's reactions to critical events. For example, after a school shooting, there immediately is a call for more gun control, even though far more children die each year in backyard and other swimming pools than are killed by guns. Have you heard any clamor to ban swimming pools? Similarly, prior to the terrorist attacks of 9-11, people believed surveillance cameras in public places were an invasion of their privacy. However, a poll released by CBS News on July 16, 2005 found that 71% of the public now support such surveillance. Most recently, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 257-171 on July 21, 2005 to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act (H.R. 3199) only hours after members of Congress saw television images of the second terrorist attack on London. H.R. 3199 also includes 10-year extensions allowing roving wiretaps and searches of library and medical records. This comes less than a month after FBI director Robert Mueller and Attorney-General Alberto Gonzalez on June 29 announced the formation of a new domestic intelligence department that will be able, according to NBC (June 29, 2005), to "spy on people in America suspected of terrorism or having critical intelligence information, even if they are not suspected of committing a crime."
Besides using the public's reaction to critical events like school shootings and terrorist attacks to further its agenda, the power elite also uses economic means to stimulate globalization. For example, shipping more and more manufacturing jobs from the U.S. to China (even America's famous Buster Brown socks are now made in China) has helped the Chinese to acquire more than $600 billion in foreign exchange reserves. The Chinese investment in U.S. Treasury bonds has not garnered much in the way of return, so the Chinese are now trying to take over UNOCAL, and on July 18, 2005 NBC News reported they are trying to buy Maytag. In the past, Americans would have objected to having our industries taken over by Communists who torture and kill innocent people. However, NBC News reporter Anne Thompson at the Maytag plant in Newton, Iowa, said the people there are putting "pragmatism over patriotism," caring primarily for a better economic deal for themselves. This is even if the deal comes from the ruthless murderers of babies and others in Beijing.
© 2005 Dennis Cuddy - All Rights Reserved
Order Dennis Cuddy's new book "Cover-Up: Government Spin or Truth?"
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education.
Cuddy has also testified before members of Congress on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or edited twenty books and booklets, and has written hundreds of articles appearing in newspapers around the nation, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a guest on numerous radio talk shows in various parts of the country, such as ABC Radio in New York City, and he has also been a guest on the national television programs USA Today and CBS's Nightwatch.
E-Mail: Not Available
point is there are many things that can go wrong with "opt-out" parental
consent. That is why any federal legislation or bureaucratic rules and
regulations must define parental consent as meaning "opt-in."