by Jim Marrs
In 1932, when the Congress met in New York, it was the Hamburg America Shipping Line, controlled by Harriman associates George Walker and Prescott Bush, that brought prominent Germans to the meeting. In attendance was Dr. Ernst Rüdin, aforementioned authority behind the Nazi Sterilization Act and member of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Genealogy and Demography in Berlin. Rüdin was unanimously elected president of the International Federation of Eugenics Societies for his work in founding the Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Rassenhygiene, or the German Society for Racial Hygiene, a forerunner of Hitler’s racial institutes. But, as stated previously, the groundwork for eugenics was laid in the United States.
California was considered the epicenter of the American eugenics movement, according to Edwin Black, author of War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race. “During the Twentieth Century’s first decades, California’s eugenicists included potent but little known race scientists, such as Army venereal disease specialist Dr. Paul Popenoe, citrus magnate and Polytechnic benefactor Paul Gosney, Sacramento banker Charles M. Goethe, as well as members of the California State Board of Charities and Corrections and the University of California Board of Regents,” wrote Black.
Black said that within the first twenty-five years of eugenics legislation, California sterilized 9,782 individuals, mostly women, many of whom were classified as “bad girls,” or diagnosed as “passionate,” “oversexed,” or “sexually wayward.” Some women were sterilized because of what was deemed an abnormally large clitoris or labia. In 1933 alone, Black found at least 1,278 compulsory sterilizations were performed, 700 of which were on women. He said California’s two leading “sterilization mills” in 1933 were Sonoma State Home with 388 operations and Patton State Hospital with 363 operations. Other sterilizations were also performed in centers at Agnews, Mendocino, Napa, Norwalk, Stockton, and Pacific Colony.
Black noted, “Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America’s most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Stanford, Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics’ racist aims.”
He described how the Rockefeller Foundation helped create the German eugenics movement and even funded the program that the infamous Nazi Dr. Josef Mengele worked in before he became the “Angel of Death” at Auschwitz.
“The grand plan was to literally wipe away the reproductive capability of those deemed weak and inferior—the so-called ‘unfit,’” said Black.
“The eugenicists hoped to neutralize the viability of 10 percent of the population at a sweep, until none were left except themselves. One solution offered was simply execution or euthanasia, as listed in a 1911 study funded by the Carnegies entitled ‘Preliminary Report of the Committee of the Eugenic Section of the American Breeder’s Association to Study and to Report on the Best Practical Means for Cutting Off the Defective Germ-Plasm in the Human Population.’” Interestingly enough, the most popular idea for euthanasia in the United States at that time was the employment of gas chambers.
Black concluded, “Hitler studied American eugenics laws. He tried to legitimize his anti-Semitism by medicalizing it, and wrapping it in the more palatable pseudoscientific facade of eugenics. Hitler was able to recruit more followers among reasonable Germans by claiming that science was on his side. While Hitler’s race hatred sprung from his own mind, the intellectual outlines of the eugenics Hitler adopted in 1924 were made in America.”
Despite much public renunciation of eugenics following the revelations of the Nazi racial extermination programs at the Nuremburg trials, work on population control continues right up to today under more politically correct names. Some conspiracy-oriented researchers see the fingerprints of eugenics theology in today’s efforts to reduce the human population as previously discussed. Many of the same families and foundations that support birth-control organizations today were connected to the eugenics movement of the past. According to its Summary of Financial Activities ending in June 2008, Planned Parenthood ended the year with $966.7 million in revenues. Of this amount, $349.6 million came from unspecified government grants and contracts compared to $374.7 million from its health-care centers and $186 million in private contributions and bequests.
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CONSERVATISM
IN AUGUST 2003, THE National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) announced the results of a $1.2 million taxpayer-funded study. The conclusion was that people who believe in traditional values—such as monogamous marriage, balanced budgets, strict interpretation of the Constitution—are mentally disturbed. In studying what they called “the psychology of conservatism,” the researchers wrote that the core of political conservatism is a resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality that promote fear and uncertainty. This results in psychological factors commonly linked to conservatism, such as “fear and aggression, dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, uncertainty avoidance, a need for cognitive closure and terror management.” In their paper entitled “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition,” the authors concluded that political conservatism stems from the need to satisfy various psychological needs, but admitted that it is unlikely that conservative ideology can be ascribed to a “single motivational syndrome.”
The researchers also admit in the paper that their term “motivated social cognition” refers to “a number of assumptions about the relationship between people’s belief and their motivational underpinnings.” They compared Hitler, Mussolini, and President Ronald W. Reagan as “right-wing conservatives,” saying they all shared a resistance to change and the acceptance of inequality.
So, in addition to being identified in FEMA materials as potential terrorists, thanks to psychobabble funded by NIMH and the NSF, constitutionalists are now in danger of being diagnosed with a mental disorder.
And what should be done with political conservatives suffering from “motivated social cognition”? Dr. José M. R. Delgado, a former professor of neuropsychiatry at Yale University Medical School and a man who has been connected with the CIA’s MK-Ultra mind-control experiments, has recommended, “We need a program of psychosurgery for political control of our society. The purpose is physical control of the mind. Everyone who deviates from the given norm can be surgically mutilated. The individual may think that the most important reality is his own existence, but this is only his personal point of view…. Man does not have the right to develop his own mind…. We must electronically control the brain. Someday armies and generals will be controlled by electronic stimulation of the brain.” Dr. Delgado will enjoy living in the Orwellian digitally controlled New World Order.
DRUG THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST
IT IS VERY POSSIBLE that the globalists are now trying to control the minds of American citizens by funding research facilities and by supporting specific legislation. The U.S. Preventative Services Task Force has urged routine screening of all American teenagers for depression, and politicians were ready to step up to the plate. Just three months into 2009, Congress was introduced to eight bills on widespread mental health screening.
In 2007, legislation entitled the Postpartum Mood Disorders Prevention Act was introduced; it called for the mental screening of mothers for signs of depression. Such screening for depression may soon become state law in Illinois. Similar legislation has already been adopted or at least introduced in several other states. In 2009, this mass screening scheme was brought up again as the Melanie Blocker Stokes Mom’s Opportunity to Access Health, Education, Research, and Support for Postpartum Depression Act of 2009, otherwise known simply as the Mother’s Act. This law was reintroduced into both bodies of the new Congress in January 2009, after the 2007 bill died in th
e Senate in 2008.
Critics see the Mother’s Act as an insidious plan that essentially would allow for infants, pregnant women, and nursing mothers to be drugged even more than usual. The legislation would also allow Child Protective Services to take children from parents with fewer restrictions. This legislation is similar to bills Congress has declined to pass for eight years.
“The true goal of the promoters of this act is to transform women of child bearing age into life-long consumers of psychiatric treatment by screening women for a whole list of ‘mood’ and ‘anxiety’ disorders and not simply postpartum depression,” stated investigative journalist Evelyn Pringle writing for the political newsletter Counterpunch. “Enough cannot be said about the ability of anyone with a white coat and a medical title to convince vulnerable pregnant women and new mothers that the thoughts and feelings they experience on any given day might be abnormal.”
Any woman who has gone through pregnancy knows that there are accompanying periods of ups and downs. Moods swings while carrying a child have been part of the experience since the beginning of time. Except for the few exceptional cases of true clinical depression, to many it appeared unnecessary to subject normal healthy women to a regimen of psychiatric drugs at the first sign of a bad day.
Another concern for parents is autism. A recent U.S. government study stemming from the 2007 National Survey of Children’s Health reported that autism rates climbed 200 percent between 2001 and 2009. This new estimate indicated about 673,000 American children have autism.
“This is an alarming increase in a disease that many ill-informed doctors and scientists still brush off as being genetic in origin,” said Mike Adams, editor of NaturalNews, a widely read natural-health source. “But genes can’t explain such a rapid increase in the number of children being diagnosed with the disease. Clearly, some other factor is at work, and many parents suspect vaccines are one of the primary contributing factors.”
In 1998, the Dawbarns Law Firm of Norfolk, England, along with Freeth Cartwright of Nottingham, filed lawsuits against three manufacturers of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine after parents reported more than fifteen hundred instances of perceived side effects following the administration of MMR vaccines, introduced there in 1988. The firms succeeded in obtaining legal aid for the children, and management of the cases was transferred ultimately to Alexander Harris solicitors of London in 1999. Despite assurances from British health officials denying any connection between side effects and the vaccines, cases were set for trial in the High Court to decide the preliminary issue of whether the vaccine caused symptoms of autism and bowel problems among the claimants. The cases were funded under the English legal aid system and supported by twenty-seven experts who prepared reports supporting the children’s case. The parents believed their children were normal before being vaccinated, and saw nothing but the vaccinations to account for the changes in their children. The cases stalled and have not proceeded after legal aid was withdrawn in August 2003.
The June 2009 issue of Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry included a paper that concluded the routine administering of childhood vaccines containing a mercury substance called thimerosal could cause “significant cellular toxicity in human neuronal and fetal cells.”
“This latest study confirms that damage [from the mercury-based preservative thimerosal] does occur in human neuronal and fetal cells, even at low concentrations,” wrote Dr. Joseph Mercola, in the comments sections of his natural health newsletter. Mercola, owner of the Illinois Natural Health Center, said, “[R]ates of autism in the U.S. have increased nearly 60-fold since the late 1970s, rising right along with the increasing number of vaccinations added to the childhood vaccination schedule. Although autism may be apparent soon after birth, most autistic children experience at least several months, or even a year or more of normal development—followed by regression, defined as loss of function or failure to progress. Typically, by the age of three, at which time the child has received at least 24 of their scheduled vaccinations, symptoms of autism are fully apparent, affecting their communication and social skills, and impairing the child’s ability to play, speak and relate to the world.”
Many people feel the drugs and vaccines being administered to children are not fully tested or guaranteed safe. They feel children are being used as guinea pigs for Big Pharm.
Mike Adams also spoke out against the exploitation of young children for drug testing and claimed that it amounts to nothing less than chemical child abuse. “So-called ‘bi-polar disorder’ was wholly invented by psychiatrists with strong financial ties to drug companies,” Adams wrote on his website. “The purpose of this disease is not to help children, but to sell drugs to anyone and everyone, including toddlers.”
He added, “I often wonder when the rest of the country will wake up and notice that the mass-drugging of our nation’s children has gone too far. Why isn’t the mainstream media giving this front-page coverage? Why aren’t lawmakers demanding an end to the chemical abuse of our children? Why isn’t the FDA halting these trials on toddlers out of plain decency? You already know the answer: Because they’re all making money from this chemical assault on our nation’s children. The doctors, hospitals, drug companies, psychiatrists and mainstream media all profit handsomely from the sales of mind-altering drugs to children. Ethics will never get in the way of old-fashioned greed.”
Adams said children should be given “some sunshine, play time and some time with nature” instead of drugs. “[You then] get balanced, healthy children. It’s no secret, it’s just common sense.
“But psychiatry has no common sense,” argued Adams, “and no one in the industry dares mention that most so-called mental disorders are really just caused by nutritional imbalances. Because to admit to the truth about the mental health of children would be to render their careers irrelevant. And no psychiatrist is going to commit career suicide by admitting that bipolar disorder was just made up, or that toddlers need good food, not expensive drugs. Just like conventional doctors, psychiatrists have to protect their egos and revenue streams, and that means convincing parents that little Johnny has a brain chemistry imbalance and he’ll have to take psychotropic drugs for life. The parents, as gullible as ever, naively go along with the scam, usually after being frightened into compliance by a psychiatrist who warns them what might happen to little Johnny if they don’t [original emphasis] drug him. ‘He might commit suicide,’ they’re sternly warned.”
Bipolar disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis describing persons, usually children, who display a wide range of emotions, who experience exuberant highs and depressing lows. Other do not see such behavior as a disorder, but rather the normal ups and downs of the growth process. There is no scientific means to confirm a diagnosis of bipolar disorder.
David Healy, a former secretary of the British Association for Psycho-pharmacology and author of Mania, a book on bipolar disorder, said this disorder is somewhat of a mythical entity. “The problems that currently are grouped under the heading ‘bipolar disorder’ are akin to problems that, in the 1960s and 1970s, would have been called ‘anxiety’ and treated with tranquilizers or, during the 1990s, would have been labeled ‘depression’ and treated with antidepressants,” said Healy in a 2009 interview in Psychology Today. Referring to what he described as “biobabble,” Healy said this refers to “things like the supposed lowering of serotonin levels and the chemical imbalance that are said to lie at the heart of mood disorders…. This is as mythical as the supposed alterations of libido that Freudian theory says are at the heart of psychodynamic disorders. While libido and serotonin are real things, the way these terms were once used by psychoanalysts and by psychopharmacologists now—especially in the way they have seeped into popular culture—bears no relationship to any underlying serotonin level or measurable chemical imbalance or disorder of libido. What’s astonishing is how quickly these terms were taken up by popular culture, and how widely, with so many people now routinely referr
ing to their serotonin levels being out of whack when they are feeling wrong or unwell.
“In the case of bipolar disorder the biomyths center on ideas of mood stabilization. But there is no evidence that the drugs stabilize moods. In fact, it is not even clear that it makes sense to talk about a mood center in the brain. A further piece of mythology aimed at keeping people on the drugs is that these are neuroprotective—but there’s no evidence that this is the case and in fact these drugs can lead to brain damage.”
Some historians believe Vincent Van Gogh suffered from bipolar disorder. Fortunately, there were no synthetic psychiatric drugs available in his day to dull him down and prevent him from completing his works of art, today considered masterpieces.
FLU AND OTHER SWINISH IDEAS
I’m going to get [the swine flu vaccination] if that helps at all. But I’ll tell you, my wife is not going to immunize our kids.
—DR. MEHMET OZ, vice chair and professor of surgery At Columbia University and Host of the Doctors, When Asked on CNN If His Family Would be Inoculated with the Swine Flu Vaccine
THE UNITED STATES WAS once an industrial fountainhead, spewing forth streams of consumer goods such as automobiles, televisions, and refrigerators in international trade. Now, America is merely a nation of zombies working in the service industry.
Today, America’s largest consumer goods industries are health care and legal drugs.
Not feeling well?
Just take a pill, even if you think you don’t need one.