Strategic Child Mind Control


The entirety of psychological and psychiatric programs for children are founded on the tacit assumptions that mental health “experts” know all about the mind and mental phenomena, know a better way of life, a better value system and how to improve the lives of children beyond the understanding and capability of not only parents, but everyone else in society.

The reality is that all child mental health programs are designed to control the lives of children towards specific ideological objectives at the expense of not only the children’s sanity and well-being, but also that of their parents and of society itself.

In the words of Dr. Thomas Szasz, professor of psychiatry emeritus, “I have long maintained that the child psychiatrist is one of the most dangerous enemies, not only of children, but also of adults who care for the two most precious and most vulnerable things in life – children and liberty.”

The Perils of Self-Esteem

Instead of pushing children toward genuine achievement so they know they are competent and capable and are thus properly proud of themselves, the psychiatric concept is to tell the child he has accomplished something whether he has or not. According to this view, he must be shielded from failure or any awareness of failure so his fragile sense of self can be preserved.

Professor of sociology Frank Furedi refutes this: “According to many leading educationalists, the challenge facing schools is to raise children’s self-esteem.” Yet, “there is not even any evidence that such ‘solutions’ work … there seems to be no attempt to measure or account for the resources spent on efforts to raise people’s self-esteem and ‘empower’ them. What the therapeutic approach does is encourage a mood of emotionalism, where everyone is always stressed, bullied or traumatized.”

Educator Alan Larson tells us, “Children who are told they made it when they didn’t absolutely despise adults. They think they are total fools. And when their whole life is like that, they become apathetic about it, because the whole world is crazy. They feel bad about hiding the truth (that they didn’t make it) and they withdraw from the area and it produces a complete disassociation of the kid from the subject of education because it is a lie. And kids know that the only thing that causes self-esteem is confidence and production.”


“Depression” Screening

Psychiatrists and psychologists advise that the worsening state of our youth provides justification for “mandatory, universal behavioral” or “mental illness” screening. With this license to inspect every child from preschool to college and university, they fraudulently claim they can identify those “at risk” of becoming unstable, anti-social and even violent.

Beverly Eakman warns, “The term ‘screening’ takes on new meaning as children, and by extension, their families, today are assessed for supposed ‘markers’ of psychological disorders … with the results of such analyses going into cross-referenced electronic transfer systems.” In other words, the child once “assessed” by the mental health industry will have this information permanently in his school and medical records.

The TeenScreen® program in the United States claims that identifying and “treating” “at risk” children can prevent suicide. Yet a 2003 Nevada report noted that 31% of the students that had been screened “are in therapy; 9% are seeing a psychiatrist and are on … medication, and 1% have already made suicide attempts.” Panama, Guam and Canada also deliver Teen Screen.

The program’s “health” survey asks students questions such as, “Has there been a time when nothing was fun for you and you just weren’t interested in anything?” and “Has there been a time when you felt you couldn’t do anything well or that you weren’t as good-looking or as smart as other people?”  With enough checks against the questions, the next questionnaire, called the “Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children” (DISC), purportedly checks for 18 psychiatric disorders. The child is then referred to a psychologist or psychiatrist and, usually, prescribed drugs.

Joseph Glenmullen of Harvard Medical School says the questionnaires used to diagnose depression “may look scientific,” but “when one examines the questions asked and the scales used, they are utterly subjective measures.”

Dr. Julian Whitaker, a respected U.S. physician and founder of the Whitaker Wellness Center, tells this story: “I took one [depression] test, entitled the Zung Assessment Tool, at the Prozac website. You respond to 20 phrases with one of the following: not often, sometimes, often, or all the time. Phrases include, ‘I feel downhearted, blue, and sad.’ ‘I have trouble sleeping through the night.’ ‘I eat as much as I used to.’ ‘I have trouble with constipation.’ ‘My mind is as clear as it used to be.’ ‘I am more irritable than usual.’ ‘I find it easy to make decisions.’ (As you see, some of these questions are confusing, if not irrational.)

“I selected ‘sometimes’ for every phrase, as a normal, healthy person would. My score was 50, and I was advised to show this test to my doctor and ‘ask him or her to evaluate you for depression.’”

Not surprising, obtaining parental consent through the schools has been a problem. One newsletter reports, “As many of our community partners know, getting signed consent forms back to participate in a TeenScreen Program is no simple task. We urge sites to be creative regarding this first step of the program – for example, coming up with unique incentives that appeal to the students, such as movie rentals or fast food coupons.” Other incentives include $5 cash, gift certificates, food vouchers, a pizza party, pens and offering extra school credit to students who return the forms signed by their parents by the end of the school week.

“Depression screening” in the general community has influenced the 60 million prescriptions for antidepressants written in the United States – about 10% of the American population, including 1.5 million children. England’s “Defeat Depression Campaign” resulted in the “prescribing of antidepressants by general practitioners rising substantially.” As later discussed, these drugs cause or increase violent and suicidal behavior. The “teen screen” and other “depression screening” programs are thereby potential causes of greatly increased youth suicides when drugs are prescribed to supposedly “at risk” children.

In 2001, a Minnesota bill which would have mandated mental health screening in public schools was defeated. Discussing his testimony against the bill, psychologist Bill Harley stated, “I asked the members how they would feel about a legislature-wide screening (of politicians) for mental health disorders along with early intervention. Those doing the screening would be paid by the legislature to provide extensive therapy, if a potential problem were found to exist in any of them. And, of course, the results of the screening would be available to a host of individuals, along with the therapeutic plan and their willingness to cooperate with that plan.

“Then, I mentioned that I could easily identify in every legislator an emotional predisposition that could possibly create problems for them in the future, and design a lengthy treatment plan as an early intervention. … Screening and early intervention sounds like a great idea until you turn out to be the one being screened. Then the problems with that approach become much easier to see.”

Loosening Morals, Creating Promiscuity

A source of parental tension in education today is the amount and type of attention being given to sex education programs. Mandatory in schools in many countries, most of them start with children 12 years of age, although in some countries, sex education begins in kindergarten.

Who can argue against the merits of sex education at some point in a child’s life? The legitimate questions for parents to ask here are: at what point, by whom and how? However, psychiatry and psychology have dictated the answers while progressively disenfranchising parents.

A controversial British sex education program called “A Pause” is used in about 150 secondary schools. Lynda Brine, an advanced skills science teacher, writing in the Times Educational Supplement, said the program that she attended did not make children aware that sexual intercourse under the age of 16 is illegal. She also expressed concern about how teachers are expected to respond to “frequently asked questions.” Brine wrote: “Examples included when a 14-year-old girl asks: ‘What does semen taste like?’ I ask myself why children of this age ask such things. A course such as this gives children information they do not or should not know.”

In Mainz, Germany, the Health Ministry produced a booklet called, “Let’s Talk About Sex” in which a youth asks the question: “How long should a couple be together before you start becoming intimate?” The answer given is: “There is no rule, nothing you have to do. Do what you like and when you want. Your emotions (feelings) are what count.”

A 1993 German report called: “Perversion statt Auflkärung” (Perversion Instead of the Birds and the Bees), exposed how millions of Deutsche marks had been spent on an AIDS Help Center that provided pornography and sexually stimulating propaganda for teachers to use to conduct sex education classes. Nothing less than brainwashing, the programs for 12-year-olds and above called for a child to pick a card that displayed the subject for open group discussion. Some of the topics include: “Have you ever seen a pornographic film?” (There are multiple answers to choose from ranging from thinking it stupid to feeling excited by it.) “Have you ever fondled someone in a car?” “How important is sexuality in your life?”

Under a nationwide U.S. lesson called “Pornography Debate,” students are asked to research and debate the pros and cons of pornography and the law in relation to “limiting or broadening their First Amendment right (freedom of speech).”

In 2003, Minnesota parent Denise Walker testified before the State legislature that schools should require students to be taught abstinence as part of sex education: “My life was a living hell as a result of a curriculum that basically said, ‘Do what you want to, but use a condom.’” Jennifer Beecher, a high school senior testifying on the same issue said that sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy are a problem in her school and that abstinence is not given much attention in the classroom. “They never really gave any time on it. … They basically taught us how to have safe sex.”

Kay Fradenecks, a pupil of values clarification, explained the devastating effects: “As a result of the indoctrination I received as a student, I began abusing drugs and became sexually promiscuous. I became pregnant twice, and twice aborted my babies, the effects of which are still evident with me today. I was applauded … for my decision to abort and encouraged to share my experience with my peers.”

The ‘Life Boat’ Exercise – Education or Indoctrination?

One of the ways that Nazi psychiatrists were able to indoctrinate the population about racial hygiene and “inferior races” was through the education system, where students were a captive audience. In 1936, schoolbook texts asked students to calculate the costs of maintaining the frail and invalid, aimed at showing they were a financial burden on the country. “Problem No. 95” asked, “The construction of an insane asylum requires 6 million RM [Reichsmarks]. How many housing units @ 15,000 RM could be built for the amount spent on insane asylums?” One high school mathematics textbook asked students if 100 RMs are spent on the “mentally ill” in various institutions, what is the average cost to the state per inhabitant per year? Using the results, how much does it cost the state for patients who stay longer than 10, 20 and 25 years?

Compare this to a lesson taught in English and American schools: “A passenger liner is wrecked at sea and 15 people find themselves together in a lifeboat. The lifeboat however, can only support 9 people. If 6 are not eliminated everyone will die. If you were in command of the lifeboat, whom would you choose to survive? … You are required in groups of 2 to reach a joint decision as to which passengers will be eliminated.”

The list includes: a doctor; African American minister; a prostitute with no parents but who makes an excellent nurse; a male criminal; a mentally disturbed man; a salesman; a crippled boy paralyzed since birth; a married couple – the husband is a construction worker who drinks a lot and the wife is a housewife with two children at home; a Jewish restaurant owner married with three children at home; a teacher; a Catholic nun; an unemployed man, formerly a professor of literature and a survivor of a concentration camp; and another married Irish couple, deeply in love but with no children.

In 1999, Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the parents group Eagle Forum, wrote: “The most frequently used classroom dilemma is the ‘lifeboat game’ (and its numerous variations, such as the fallout shelter). … The student is vested with the authority to decide who lives and who dies. Shall it be the famous author, or the pregnant woman, or the rabbi, or the Hollywood dancer, or the policeman? Any answer is acceptable – whatever each student feels comfortable with is OK, and the students can all choose different drowning targets because there are no right or wrong answers. No wrong answers, that is, except one. One mother told our … Parents Advisory Center that her child answered the question by saying, ‘Jesus brought another boat and nobody had to drown.’ That child got an ‘F’ for giving an unacceptable answer.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s