by Jim Marrs
This growth of an immense and well-funded field of psychiatry is worrisome to those who recall that in both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, the incarcerations and, ultimately, the genocides practiced there all began innocuously as mental health programs. Persons who were considered defective, either physically or mentally, were the first victims of the Nazis, long before they turned to the Jews.
“Today, though psychiatry may still be suspect among the public, it has won over both government and the media. The profession and its treatments inundate talk shows, magazines and the front pages of our news papers,” wrote Bruce Wiseman, the U.S. national president of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights and former chairman of the history department at John F. Kennedy University.
Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) was initially studied as an antipsychotic and antidepressant as well as a truth drug by the military. When LSD was outlawed in 1968 for its dangerous side effects, drug companies sought substitutes. They developed the antidepressant Prozac (fluoxetine), then Zoloft (sertraline), Effexor (venlafaxine), and Paxil (paroxetine).
These companies also developed the drug Ritalin. Long after the war, Dr. Helmut Remschmidt proposed “a genetic answer” to hyperactivity and was a leading proponent of the use of drugs such as Ritalin. Remschmidt was the director of the Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and studied under Dr. Hermann Stutte, a man associated with Nazi psychiatrists involved in the German euthanasia program. Remschmidt received his doctorate from Robert Sommer, director of the Deutscher Verband fur Psychische Hygiene, or the German Association for Mental Hygiene, the institution that in the late 1920s laid the psychiatric groundwork for the idea of “mental hygiene.” The end result of this attempt at eugenics was the hands-on Nazi sterilization and euthanasia programs that led to the Holocaust. Long after the war, Remschmidt still proposed “a genetic answer” to hyperactivity and was a leading proponent of the use of drugs such as Ritalin.
Could it be that Ritalin is doing more harm than good? A 1986 edition of the International Journal of the Addictions listed 105 adverse reactions to Ritalin, including serious ones such as dangerously high blood pressure, aggressiveness, restlessness, hallucinations, unusual behavior, and suicidal tendencies. Investigative reporter Kelly Patricia O’Meara spent sixteen years working as a congressional staffer before writing investigative articles for Insight Magazine. Her reports on child vaccines and mood-altering drugs prompted congressional hearings. She wrote: “Thirty years ago the World Health Organization (WHO) concluded that Ritalin was pharmacologically similar to cocaine in the pattern of abuse it fostered and cited it as a Schedule II drug—the most addictive in medical use. The Department of Justice also cited Ritalin as a Schedule II drug under the Controlled Substances Act, and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) warned that ‘Ritalin substitutes for cocaine and d-amphetamine in a number of behavioral paradigms.’” O’Meara referenced a 2001 study at the Brookhaven National Laboratory that confirmed the similarities between cocaine and Ritalin, but found that Ritalin is more potent than cocaine in its effect on the dopamine system, an area of the brain many doctors believe is most affected by such narcotics.
Although Americans wonder why there has been a rash of school shootings and teen suicides in recent years, few take into account that virtually all of these killings have involved a student who was on—or was just coming off—mood-altering drugs. In five cases of school shootings between March 1998 and May 1999—including the tragedy at Columbine High School—the students involved with the shootings were medicated. Though it was downplayed by the media, Seung-Hui Cho, the gunman in the Virginia Tech shootings in April 2007, had been undergoing psychological counseling and possessed prescription psychoactive drugs.
In his book Reclaiming Our Children, psychiatrist and drug critic Dr. Peter Breggin argued that Eric Harris’s violence at Columbine was caused by the prescription drug Luvox. “I also warned that stopping antidepressants can be as dangerous as starting them, since they can cause very disturbing and painful withdrawal reactions,” said Dr. Breggin.
The claim that drugs are behind school shootings was echoed as far back as a 1999 article in Health and Healing, written by Dr. Julian Whitaker: “[V]irtually all of the gun-related massacres that have made headlines over the past decade have had one thing in common: they were perpetrated by people taking Prozac, Zoloft, Luvox, Paxil or a related anti-depressant drug.”
A website called TeenScreenTruth.com is dedicated to gathering information off the Internet to help teens “connect the dots to see the revealing connections” between mood-altering drugs and teen violence. The site compiled a list of violent episodes dating as far back as 1985 when Steven W. Brownlee, an Atlanta postal worker on psychotropic drugs, killed two coworkers. Despite sealed medical records, the sheer totality of evidence pointing to psychiatric drugs as the culprit behind most school shootings, teen suicides, and other violent behavior is most compelling, if not overwhelming.
It would appear from the evidence that German drug science and German psychiatry have provided the foundation for today’s schools where children increasingly are being steered to drugs for any complaint—from true antisocial behavior to merely daydreaming.
The effort by Big Pharm to mold education, physicians, politicians, and even health care in general to its will requires massive amounts of money. Such great sums are only available to the globalists with Nazi roots and well beyond the reach of even well-off Americans, thanks to a crumbling economy and never-before-seen debt.
PSYCHIATRY AND EUGENICS
BY APPLYING PSYCHOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES developed by the Germans, Big Pharm, the corporate mass media, and even education have been turned into tools for mind control. But before examining how this has occurred, one must first understand the history of psychology and psychiatry.
HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRY
PRIOR TO THE LATE 1800s, the mentally ill were treated little better than torture victims—chained to the walls of basements, cages, or dungeons; beaten; and subjected to “therapies” such as bloodletting, partial drowning, and primitive shock treatments. A change to these treatment methods came when, in the 1860s, German medical doctor Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt proposed the idea that man is simply a higher-order animal and that feeling and emotions may be studied and altered scientifically rather than through physical punishment. Wundt’s work emphasized the physiological relationship of the brain and the mind. He explored the nature of religious beliefs, denied the human soul, and began to identify mental disorders and abnormal behavior, which led to the creation of the field of psychology. His Lectures on the Mind of Humans and Animals was published in 1863, and a year later, he was promoted to assistant professor of physiology at Heidelberg University. There his work continued and, with the support of German militarists and aristocrats, he became known as the “father of experimental psychology.” Wundt, who found studies of the human soul incompatible with scientific empirical investigation, set out to explain what had previously been metaphysical matters in terms of mere animalistic and body chemical reactions.
Many believe that Wundt’s studies, as well as other European studies of the human mind, were major influences on the Nazi eugenics programs, which ultimately led to some of the greatest horrors of the twentieth century. Thus, some of Germany’s most learned men provided justification for Nazi euthanasia and extermination programs. “Hitler’s philosophy and his concept of man in general was shaped to a decisive degree by psychiatry…an influential cluster of psychiatrists and their frightening theories and methods collectively form the missing piece of the puzzle of Hitler, the Third Reich, the atrocities and their dreadful legacy. It is the overlooked yet utterly central piece of the puzzle,” wrote Dr. Thomas Röder and his coauthors, Volker Kubillus and Anthony Burwell, in their 1995 book Psychiatrists—The Men Behind Hitler.
Psychology, the scientific study of the human mind, and psychiatry, the study and treatment of mental disorders, go hand in hand and led to a viewpoint that certa
in people, endowed with better education, and presumably understanding, were more competent to judge the behavior of others.
As the field of psychiatry grew, so did its definitions, often to the point of absurdity. In 1871, a paper was published entitled “Psychical Degeneration of the French People,” which purported that simply being French constituted a mental illness. “One of psychiatry’s leading figures, Richard von Krafft-Ebing, added to his list of varieties of mental disorders ‘political and reformatory insanity’—meaning any inclination to form a different opinion from that of the masses,” stated Röder, Kubillus, and Burwell.
At the time of World War I, the attempt to bring respectability to the emerging psychiatric profession resulted in a certain bond that had been created between psychiatry and the aristocratic German government. The German military was particularly impressed with the “treatment” of Fritz Kaufmann’s electroshock “therapy” because it helped minimize war neurosis or shell shock and quickly returned disturbed soldiers to the front. It was more of a disciplinary measure than true medical therapy. After being electrically shocked, most soldiers quickly agreed to return to service.
Psychiatry continued to grow in power even as its agenda continued to widen. Psychiatrist P. J. Möbius, who had lectured on the “psychological feeble-mindedness of the woman,” pronounced, “The psychiatrist should be the judge about mental health, because only he knows what ill means.”
The rush to isolate and “cure” mental defectives in Nazi Germany quickly was interpreted to include malcontents and dissidents opposed to Hitler’s regime. This concept resulted in the Nazi Sterilization Act, which went into effect in July 1933, just six months after Hitler’s ascension to power. This law provided for the compulsory sterilization of anyone deemed defective, deficient, or undesirable by the State. One of the leading and articulate authorities behind this act was Dr. Ernst Rüdin, a psychiatrist who in 1930 had traveled to Washington, D.C., to present a paper on “The Importance of Eugenics and Genetics in Mental Hygiene.” It was well received by many Americans, especially among the globalists, who had come to embrace the racist and elitist views of the German philosophers, such as Georg Hegel, Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, and Rudolf Steiner. Just after Hitler took office in 1933, Rüdin, by then director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, supported the Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Children, the initial step toward the sterilization of those deemed “unworthy of life.” Rüdin continued to be acknowledged as a leader in psychiatry. In 1992, the prestigious Max Planck Institute praised Rüdin for “following his own convictions in ‘racial hygiene’ measures, cooperating with the Nazis as a psychiatrist and helping them legitimize their aims through pertinent legislation.”
Prescott Bush, the father and grandfather of two U.S. presidents, along with being a member of the secretive Skull and Bones fraternity, was among those Yale activists promoting the Mental Hygiene Society. This organization evolved into the World Federation of Mental Health, which included the prominent Montagu Norman, a former partner of Brown Brothers, governor of the Bank of England (1920–1944), and godfather to Nazi banker Hjalmar Schacht’s grandson. Norman, himself a mental patient, appointed Brigadier General John Rawlings Rees, the former chief psychiatrist and psychological warfare expert for British Intelligence, as the director of the Tavistock Psychiatric Clinic.
Dr. John Rawlings Rees, as a cofounder of the World Federation for Mental Health, spelled out the federation’s agenda before the annual general meeting of the National Council for Mental Hygiene on June 18, 1940: “We can therefore justifiably stress our particular point of view with regard to the proper development of the human psyche, even though our knowledge be incomplete. We must aim to make it permeate every educational activity in our national life…. We have made a useful attack upon a number of professions. The two easiest of them naturally are the teaching profession and the Church: the two most difficult are law and medicine.
“Public life, politics and industry should all of them be within our sphere of influence…. If we are to infiltrate the professional and social activities of other people I think we must imitate the Totalitarians and organize some kind of fifth column activity! If better ideas on mental health are to progress and spread we, as the salesmen, must lose our identity…. Let us all, therefore, very secretly be ‘fifth columnists.’”
Beverly K. Eakman, an author and a commissioner for the Citizens Commission on Rights, wrote, “Colleagues [of Rees] such as Canadian Drs. Brock Chisholm and Ewen Cameron, ‘progressive’ U.S. educators like Edward Thorndike, James Earl Russell, John Dewey and Benjamin Bloom, and [a] bevy of foundations, associations and tax-supported ‘research centers’ became Rees’ enablers. This cadre of like-minded and self-styled ‘experts’ first seized upon Russian Ivan Pavlov’s ‘classic conditioning’ followed that up with German psychologist Kurt Lewin’s ‘group dynamics,’ Russian neuropsychologist Alexander Luria’s ‘disorganization of behavior,’ and the U.S. psychologist B. F. Skinner’s deprivation-based ‘operant conditioning’ coupled with U.S. social psychologist Elliot Aronson’s ‘cognitive dissonance.’ Together, they created Rees’ dream: ‘a controlled psychological environment.’ Today, the Department of Defense (DOD) has a new name for it: ‘perception management’ (PM), and the psychopharmaceutical industry has hit the jackpot.”
Perception management to the Department of Defense simply means getting the public to respond as DOD officials wish without their realizing it, knee-jerk reactions, leaving reason behind much like subliminal advertising. An early yet clear use of this technique was the name change in 1947 from the “War Department” to the “Defense Department.” “In so doing, the subject [of perception management] is thrust unawares into a twisted view of reality. In today’s politically correct environment, this unorthodox technique is sold as intellectual and academic freedom,” explained Beverly Eakman. “Similarly, encounter sessions (or ‘therapy groups’) are predicated on fostering emotional toughness. Facilitators lead participants to accept ideas and deportment they normally would not tolerate. What they actually get is ‘re-education,’ Soviet-style. Schools of behavioral science, such as Esalen Institute and the Western Training Laboratory for Group Development, allude to consensus—group thinking—as being the objective. Encounter groups deliberately heighten peer pressure—isolating holdouts of a viewpoint and intimidating weaker individuals by ridiculing them, cursing at them, yelling at them, and ostracizing them until they ‘cave.’ Some even commit suicide.
“That’s why NTL [the National Training Laboratories Institute], for example, carries a disclaimer which the applicant must sign prior to admission [stating] ‘No person concerned about entering a stress situation should participate in NTL programs…. A small percentage of participants have experienced stress reactions in varying degrees. There is no means of predicting such reactions or screening out or otherwise identifying those predisposed to such reactions.’
“Now any thoughtful person, upon reading this, would realize that the very concept of psychological screening must be a sham. If psychologists are unable to predict or screen out individuals predisposed to become upset by NTL’s daunting program, then how do they expect to ‘screen’ the entire population for mental illness? Yet just such an initiative was funded by Congress in 2002, with copycat bills set for launch in several states. Could our nation’s leaders be looking to avert political dissent under the pretext of preventing emotional ‘diseases’? Wouldn’t be the first time….”
EUGENICS
THE PERCEPTION MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES of twisting semantics and promoting groupthink were psychological methods employed by the German Nazis that resulted in the deaths of millions of innocents as a matter of State policy, a holocaust in anyone’s book. Although most Americans are aware of the horrors inflicted by Hitler’s Nazis on Europe’s citizens in pursuit of their creating a “master race,” and many see eugenics as a racist pseudoscience seeking to eliminate anyone whom a self-proclaimed e
lite views as undesirable, few realize that the theological and scientific basis for the Nazis’ beliefs originated in the United States, particularly in California, long before the Nazis came to power in Germany.
In the late nineteenth century, the United States had joined fourteen other nations in passing various types of eugenics legislation. Thirty states had laws providing for the sterilization of mental patients and imbeciles. At least sixty thousand such “defectives” were legally sterilized.
In 1925, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the majority in a Supreme Court case, stated, “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.”
Sir Francis Galton, English psychologist and father of the eugenics movement, defined eugenics as “the science of improving the stock [to] give more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable….” In order to determine who was dirtying the gene pool requires extensive comprehensive statistics on the population. So in 1910, the Eugenics Records Office was established as a branch of the Galton National Laboratory in London, endowed by Mrs. E. H. Harriman, wife of U.S. railroad magnate Edward Harriman and mother of diplomat and early-day globalist Averell Harriman.
After 1900, the Harrimans, the family that gave Prescott Bush’s family their start, along with the Rockefellers provided more than $11 million to create the privately owned Eugenics Records Office of Charles B. Davenport at Cold Springs Harbor, New York, as well as eugenics studies at Harvard, Columbia, and Cornell. The first International Congress of Eugenics was convened in London in 1912, with Winston Churchill as a director. Clearly, the concept of “bloodlines” was as significant to the British and American elite as it was to Hitler and the Nazis.