Additional Titles









The Leipzig

Sept. 11: Hold Government

An Economic Assault on
African-Americans and Others in The US

Why The 28-Page Gap?


More Cuddy




Part 7




By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
February 8, 2005

In concluding Part 6 of this series on "Mental Health, Education and Social Control," I mentioned that it was important to raise questions about what the so-called experts will be doing concerning the mental health screenings recommended by the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (NFCMH). Some of these questions have been raised by Dr. Jane Orient (executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons) in her article, "Are Your Children Crazy?" She has asked among many other questions, what are the credentials of the screeners, what are the criteria for possible abnormality, what is the scientific validation, will you be allowed to get a second opinion, can you see the record and enter corrections if indicated, what will happen if your child fails the screen, what sort of treatment will be given, who will supervise it, what if you don't approve of it, can you refuse to participate in the program, and what are the repercussions if you refuse to participate?

In case you don't think you have to raise these questions because you haven't heard anything about the NFCMH recommendations being implemented in your state, think again! On January 21, 2005, Leslie LaPrise (Information Center Manager for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of the federal Department of Health and Human Services) sent an e-mail stating that "all the states are moving toward implementation of the New Freedom Commission report."

In terms of the elite's social control of the populace, what happens to those who resist mental health screenings and the labeling that may ensue is important, given what Erich Fromm wrote in the "Afterword" of the commemorative edition of George Orwell's book, 1984. Fromm explains that "Orwell shows quite clearly that in a system in which the concept of truth as an objective judgment concerning reality is abolished, anyone who is a minority of one must be convinced he is insane." Judgments made from mental health screenings as to whether one is "abnormal" will often be subjective rather than representative of objective "truth." If you complain about such screenings, there may be an attempt to isolate you as someone who overreacts. Have you ever heard of parents who went to school about a problem there only to be told they are the only ones to have complained, even though the "truth" is that other parents have expressed concern about the same problem?

Also, if government officials tell you it is the "truth" that the medical records from mental health screenings will be kept confidential, will we be able to believe them? Not hardly! THE HEALTH FREEDOM WATCH (November/December 2004) reported that on November 15, 2004, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) called for public comments on its plans for a National Health Information Network (NHIN). This would include establishing "interoperable" (easily exchanged) electronic health records for all citizens. One of the main purposes of the network is to "improve advanced bio-surveillance methods." But the effect of the NHIN would be to eliminate individuals' freedom to give or withhold their consent before their health information is released to others.

The goal of the power elite is eventually to be able to track the activities of everyone, and maintain detailed files on them. In this regard, it is worth remembering what Edward Cornish, the president of the World Future Society, said about this. In Jon Van's May 7, 1996 article in the CHICAGO TRIBUNE about microchips implanted under the skin, one reads: "Inevitably, implantable radio locators conjure up visions of Big Brother and unscrupulous scientists abusing such technology to control the masses....Edward Cornish (president of the World Future Society) believes, at least initially, that such chips would be voluntary. But he acknowledges that 'things that are voluntary today have a way of becoming compulsory tomorrow'."

In FRIENDLY FASCISM: THE NEW FACE OF POWER IN AMERICA by Bertram Gross (who helped draft major social legislation during the years of presidents Roosevelt and Truman), there is a section titled, "Womb-to-Tomb Dossiers," in which one reads about "the new statistical data banks being set up in the fields of education, health, and mental health....As of early 1980 detailed plans were worked out to register the country's young people without their knowing through what is known as 'passive' or 'faceless' registration. This would be done by compiling a computerized list of names and addresses by assembling the information from school records, the Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security systems, and state driver's license bureaus....With the growth of a computerized dossier network, and enough R&D investment in its perfection, it will be possible to keep up-to-date inventories on all employees in America....Outcries against misinformation in files could be met by procedures for providing fuller information....The central thrust of those demanding protection of individual rights to privacy and due process could be deflected by developing complicated devices for the purging or destruction of incriminating files---devices that the oligarchs themselves could easily utilize for their own protection and that of their most trustworthy managerial and technical aides." In Gross' book, there is also a section titled, "A Good Neighbor in a New World Order," and in terms of what to look for, Gross warns: "Anyone looking for black shirts, mass parties or men on horseback will miss the telltale clues of this creeping fascism....In America, it would be supermodern and multi-ethnic---as American as Madison Avenue, executive luncheons, credit cards and apple pie. It would be fascism with a smile....One can look forward to improved capabilities...for the use of induced heart failure...induced suicide...and 'accidental' automobile fatalities."

Of course, the government will offer a good reason for having to track everyone, such as the need to avoid future terrorist attacks. Recently, Congress passed a new homeland security measure that requires the federal government to work with states over the next 18 months to devise security standards for identification cards and drivers' licenses. In Ledyard King's Gannett News Service article on December 30, 2004 about this, he related that "Marv Johnson, a lawyer with the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the IDs created under the new law won't make the country any safer. Most countries experiencing a high rate of terrorism have a national ID, and one-third of those use biometric identifiers, according to the ACLU. The new licenses will give the federal government another way to keep track of citizens while creating a false sense of security, Johnson said. 'You're not going to stop counterfeiting and you're not going to stop forgeries,' he said. 'It will cost more, (but) it will be much easier to steal someone's identity.'"

In addition to using drivers' licenses as national IDs, there is within the Department of Transportation the Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office, which is coordinating a plan to track every American driver. According to a "Vision Statement" published by the Federal Highway Administration in 2003, each private "travel customer" by 2022 will have her or his own "user profile" stored in databases.

The federal government is already developing identification card standards for all federal employees, including military personnel. It is called the Personal Identity Verification Project and is the result of an August 27, 2004 presidential directive. It is managed by the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology, and could cause private businesses to develop similar standards for identifying (and tracking) employees.

If the public begins to resist these efforts to monitor their activities, there will probably be a crisis (manufactured or not) which will induce the populace to abandon their resistance. Tavistock senior fellow Fred Emery in FUTURES WE ARE IN notes that he developed a theory of "social turbulence," which explains that many individuals faced with a series of crises will attempt to reduce the tension and stress by adaptation and eventually psychological retreat (similar to Pavlov's protective inhibition response). Thus, what will happen with an upcoming crisis will be similar to what Crassus did during the days of the Roman Empire when he used Spartacus' rebellion to cause Romans to give up some of their rights in their Republic in order to be secure by giving Crassus more power.

Today, we have already given up some of our freedoms under the Patriot Act (2001) and Homeland Security Act (2002) supposedly in order to protect us from terrorists. But remember that famous author C. S. Lewis warned that "of all tyrannies, the tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive." Do you recall when Attorney-General John Ashcroft said the Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act would only be applied to terrorists, so the average American had nothing to worry about? Well, recently an average American was star-gazing with his daughter, pointed a laser beam at an aircraft while doing this, and is now charged with violating the Homeland Security Act.

In President George W. Bush's second inaugural address on January 20, 2005, he said "we have lit...a fire in the minds of men." But why would he say this, given that the phrase "fire in the minds of men" comes from Fedor Dostoevski's THE POSSESSED (later published as THE DEVILS), and Dostoevski wrote an 1873 essay explaining: "In my novel THE POSSESSED, I made the attempt to depict the manifold and heterogeneous motives which may prompt even the purest of heart and the most naive people to take part in the perpetration of so monstrous a villainy. The horror lies precisely in the fact that in our midst the filthiest and most villainous act may be committed by one who is not a villain at all! This, however, happens not only in our midst but throughout the world; it has been so from time immemorial, during transitional epochs, at times of violent commotion in people's lives---doubts, negations, scepticism and vacillation regarding the fundamental social convictions. But in our midst this is more possible than anywhere else, and precisely in our day; this is the most pathological and saddest trait of our present time---the possibility of considering oneself not as a villain, and sometimes almost not being one, while perpetrating a patent and incontestable villainy---therein is our present-day calamity!" Is this revealing about the hubris being exhibited by some top government officials today?

The power elite, which wants to exercise social control over us, plans far in advance. According to Holly Swanson, author of SET UP AND SOLD OUT, she received copies of the incorporation documents for the Gorbachev Foundation at the Presidio from the California Department of State, and found they were filed 6 months BEFORE the so-called collapse of the Soviet Union and Mikhail Gorbachev's resignation as president of the USSR on December 26, 1991. Just before the Gorbachev Foundation's first State of the World Forum (September 27-October 1, 1995), THE WASHINGTON POST published "Global Chic: Gorby's Bash by the Bay" (September 24, 1995) by George Cothran, who wrote that "maybe challenging the powers-that-be isn't Gorbachev's main objective. Rather than disrupting the hide-bound elites that run the world, the former Soviet president seems more intent on rejoining their exclusive club."

From where did the concept of an elite exercising social control over the masses of people come? About 600 years before the birth of Jesus Christ, the priests at the Temple of Isis in Sais, Egypt, told the Greek philosopher Solon about Atlantis, and that only the Aryans survived its destruction. They indicated that the Aryans resided at Shamballa and used the power of the "sun wheel" called the swastika (swastikas have reportedly been found in the vault of the Yale University secret society called Skull & Bones). About 200 years after Solon was told about Atlantis, Plato picked up the story of Atlantis and the Aryans. And in his book, THE REPUBLIC, he described a plan whereby the people would be ruled by an elite. Closer to our own time, Sir Francis Bacon wrote THE NEW ATLANTIS, which he considered to be America. Then, in the mid-1800s, John Ruskin (who has a swastika on his grave) read Plato every day, and became the mentor of Cecil Rhodes (and Gandhi). There were Ruskin colonies in Tennessee and Georgia from 1894 to 1901 (see W. Fitzhugh Brundage's A SOCIALIST UTOPIA IN THE NEW SOUTH). Rhodes in 1891 formed a secret society, "The Society of the Elect," to "take the government of the whole world," in Rhodes' own words. The famous author Rudyard Kipling (who has swastikas on many of his books) became a member of the Rhodes Trust, and in 1902 wrote a letter to the famous Fabian Socialist author H. G. Wells concerning the latter's new book, ANTICIPATIONS (1901). (I have obtained a copy of this letter, and it is reprinted here.)

In ANTICIPATIONS, Wells wrote about a New Republic (just as Bacon had written about a New Atlantis), and said "the men of the new republic...will have an ideal that will make killing worth the while." Wells renamed the New Republic to the "New World Order," which was the title of his 1939 book, in which he stated: "In the great struggle to evoke a Westernized World Socialism, contemporary governments may vanish....Countless people...will hate the new world order...and will die protesting against it." Given what Wells said, why would President George H. W. Bush in 1990 adopt the term "new world order" for his vision for the world?

At the first State of the World Forum hosted by the Gorbachev Foundation mentioned above, speaker Sam Keen evoked loud applause when he remarked, "If we cut the world's population by 90%, there won't be enough people left to do ecological damage." Think what it would take to reduce the world's population by 90%! Wouldn't it be unconscionable for a moral society to just stand by while Sam Keen or any other population controllers carry out their plans?

� 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

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.










At the first State of the World Forum hosted by the Gorbachev Foundation mentioned above, speaker Sam Keen evoked loud applause when he remarked, "If we cut the world's population by 90%, there won't be enough people left to do ecological damage."