We have seen how perpetual wars in the Middle East have been a bad omen for America. But how do these endless and useless wars affect our schools precious children and decent teachers?
In many parts of the country, public schools are overcrowded with students because there are not enough teachers in those schools.
One fourth-grade class has thirty students, and some of those students “sit halfway into a coat closet. Across town at Rainbow Elementary School, the 36 third graders in Kristen Pleasanton’s gym class rotate on and off the bench during 25 minutes of seven-a-side soccer games, because she cannot supervise all of them playing at once.
“And during social studies class at Scott Middle School, Keith Lilienfeld tries to keep control of a class of 25 students, 10 who need special education services, four who know little or no English, and others who need more challenging work than he has time to give.”[1]
The report continues…
“Across the country, public schools employ about 250,000 fewer people than before the recession, according to figures from the Labor Department. Enrollment in public schools, meanwhile, has increased by more than 800,000 students.
“To maintain pre-recession staffing ratios, public school employment should have actually grown by about 132,000 jobs in the past four years, in addition to replacing those that were lost, said Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington.
“Coatesville, a diminished steel town with 7,200 students, used to employ more than 600 teachers, psychologists, reading and math specialists, and other certified personnel. Since 2008, the district has cut close to one-fifth of that staff.”[2]
In 2011, State education officials asked the financial manager to shut down half of the Detroit Public Schools.[3]
Meanwhile, tuition keeps increasing and class sizes keep growing at major universities.[4] And young people are still drowning in the abyss of student loans (one of my best friends and colleagues has a $100,000 student loan on his shoulder from two major institutions).
New York City officials also did plan to shut down three charter high schools that have had a long history of financial mismanagement.[5] On top of that, young people with college degrees find it hard to get a decent job.[6]
In short, in a neoconservative system, where trillions of U.S. tax dollars are being spent on wars in the Middle East, the average man simply doesn’t have a chance.
And neoconservative talking heads like Charles Murray can speculate about “real education”[7]at neoconservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), but they will never address these central issues because the AEI is essentially Jewish in its political and ideological orientation.
Murray, like Ann Coulter and others, is also intellectually and politically disingenuous. He has recently written about America “coming apart”[8] but he could never seriously examine the ideological forces that have torn America apart because that would implicate the AEI as one of the culprits.
Didn’t AEI scholars push for an invasion in Iraq and Afghanistan, which led to trillions upon trillions of dollars in debt? Shouldn’t that be included in Murray’s book Coming Apart?
Doesn’t Murray know that wars are the biggest expense in a country? Doesn’t he know that a six-trillion-dollar war is much more expensive than the welfare state? Why doesn’t he deal with that problem first and take care of the welfare state later?
Doesn’t he know that James Madison himself warned that “the testimony of all the ages forces us to admit that war is among the most dangerous of all enemies of liberty”?[9]
Doesn’t he know that Madison continues to warn the American people that “good citizens” must
“keep a watchful, tho’ not censorious eye, over that branch of the government which derives the greatest accession of power and importance from the armies, offices, and expenses, which compose the equipage of war”?[10]
Doesn’t he know that Madison even went further to say that those who advocate “the terror of the sword…under the apparent liberty of the many” are real enemies of good citizens?
Doesn’t he know that, according to Madison’s principle here, the AEI is demonstrably dangerous to the United States? Didn’t the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan alone create economic and educational chaos?[11]
Isn’t Washington still spending $2.7 million a year per detainee at Guantanamo[12]—people who have yet to be charged for alleged crimes? Doesn’t he know that Guantanamo has also plenty of men who have been proven innocent?[13]
Doesn’t he know that this project has been going on for at least 12 years? Doesn’t he know that $4.7 billion has already been wasted at Guantanamo alone?[14] Doesn’t he know that Michael Lehnet, who helped establish the facility, asked the government to shut it down?[15]
Aren’t decent people like Robert Freniere (a 30-year veteran at the Air Force who used to be a top assistant to General Stanley McChrystal and who has three graduate degrees) now homeless and sleeping in their van in the Philadelphia suburbs?[16]
Isn’t the AEI pushing for an American invasion in Syria?[17] How can Murray expect us to take him seriously when he never addresses those demonstrably neoconservative ideologies?
Doesn’t Murray know that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have also destroyed families and ruined the lives of children fathers and mothers in the Middle East and in America?[18]
Doesn’t he know that the government is using millions upon millions of dollars on an Israeli-run program at the expense of the average American?
How does Murray expect “Three hundred thousand U.S. troops [who] are suffering from major depression or post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of serving in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 320,000 [who] received brain injuries”[19] to have a stable life and family?
How does Murray expect thousands upon thousands of other soldiers who have been sexually humiliated and sodomized to have a normal life?[20]
Doesn’t he know that neoconservative hawks want to use taxpayers’ money to support both the Syrian rebels/jihadists and terrorist states such as Saudi Arabia,[21] a nation that has been implicated in the 9/11 attack?[22]
Doesn’t Murray know that you cannot talk about limited government without shutting down the Federal Reserve? Doesn’t he know that Andrew Jackson did something similar in order to bring economic balance to the nation?
Doesn’t he know that usury has played a major role in bringing down economic equilibrium? Doesn’t he know that democracy and usury are two different animals? Doesn’t he know that the AEI advocates usury?
Didn’t Paul Craig Roberts say that “Bush has destroyed Iraq and America” and that “Every American who voted Republican shares responsibility for the great evil America has brought to the Middle East”?[23]
Roberts is not a crack-pot theorist out there. He is an economist who served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration. He also was a columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, etc. But he got the nerve to say the unthinkable:
“The evil that America brought to Iraq transcends the tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who have been killed and maimed in the conflict.
“The evil goes beyond the destruction of ancient historical artifacts and the civilian infrastructure of a secular state and the decimation of the lives, careers and families of millions of Iraqis.
“The violence and killing that Bush brought to Iraq has spread antagonism between Sunni and Shiite throughout the Middle East, with potentially draconian consequences.
“Bush’s war has turned Muslim hearts and minds against America and made terrorism an acceptable means to resist American hegemony. With his mindless war, Bush has created more terrorism than the world has ever seen.
“The reasons given for the American invasion of Iraq have been exposed as lies, revealing America as either a country of fools and idiots or of war criminals…
“The 2003 American invasion of Iraq is a war crime under international law. The invasion caused sectarian violence far beyond anything Iraq had ever experienced under Saddam Hussein.
“The American people have never been told the real reasons that Bush-Cheney and the Republican Party rushed us to war in Iraq. Americans have only been fed a pack of transparent lies.
“The war has brought no honor, no glory and no tangible benefit. The war has brought shame upon America for the routine torture of Iraqi detainees and for the routine slaughter of unarmed Iraqi civilians — mothers, fathers, children, grandparents — by trigger-happy American troops. There are even reports of U.S. mercenaries having fun riding around taking potshots at Iraqi civilians…
“Billions of dollars in ‘aid’ are missing. The stench of corruption is heavy in the air.”[24]
Right after 9/11, Roberts realized that the neoconservatives were up to something, and it was at that moment that he knew the U.S. government and the vast majority of Americans were being used for Israel. He wrote then,
“The neocons are using the war to achieve their agenda of Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. Police agencies are using the war to remove constraints on their powers and to make themselves less accountable.”[25]
Roberts continued,
“There’s no money for California, or for Americans’ health care, or for the several million Americans who have lost their homes and are homeless, because Israel needs it.
“Israel needs the American’ taxpayers’ money so that it can create even more enemies, and, therefore, needs more American money to spend with the American armament industries to oppress more Palestinians and to make more enemies, requiring more American money to protect Israel from its folly and its evil. And the brainwashed American public goes along year after year.”[26]
I always wonder what Murray would say to Roberts if he happened to have dinner with him.
It gets even more interesting. Murray writes:
“Whether television was portraying loving traditional families or pointing with alarm to the perils of breaking the code, television was a team player.
“It was taken for granted that television programs were supposed to validate the standards that were commonly accepted as part of ‘the American way of life’—a phrase that was still in common use in 1963…
“If filmmakers in 1963 wanted the approval of the Production Code of the Motion Picture Association of America, which almost all of them still did, the dialogue could not include any profanity stronger than hell or damn, and there had better be good dramatic justification even for them.
“Characters couldn’t take the Lord’s name in vain, or ridicule religion, or use any form of obscenity—meaning just about anything related to sex act. Actors couldn’t be seen naked or even near naked, nor could they dance in a way that bore any resemblance to a sexual action.”[27]
So far, so good. But throughout his analysis, Murray never addressed the fact that it was the Jews who broke the Production Code and who literally flooded Hollywood with pornography, obscenity, and any sexual act ever imagined.
Too bad that Murray didn’t mention Neal Gabler’s An Empire of their Own, in which we learn that Communist Jews essentially wanted to cross the sexual rubicon in Hollywood.
Sex, Gabler tells us,
“was a symbol of power, which may be why so many of the Hollywood Jews behaved with such little discretion…The most notorious and insatiable sexual predator was Harry Cohn [founder of Columbia Pictures].”[28]
Right after the stock market went bust in 1929, the Jews began to produce sex in movies such as Diamond Lil to make money. Catholics such as A. H. Giannini, who headed Bank of America, responded by saying that he would no longer support films “‘prostituting the youth of America.’
“One year later, Dennis Cardinal Dougherty of Philadelphia announced a Catholic boycott of that city’s movie theaters, most of which were owned by Warner Brothers. Warner Brothers was losing $175,000 a week at the height of the depression.”[29]
Harry Warner himself was literally in tears because the Catholics would not let the industry “off the hook.” When the Production Code was finally out of the equation, all hell broke loose. Joe Breen, a Catholic who headed the Production Code in 1934, wrote,
“They are simply a rotten bunch of vile people with no respect for anything beyond the making of money…Sexual perversion is rampant…any number of our directors and stars are perverts…
“These Jews seem to think of nothing but moneymaking and sexual indulgence…Ninety-five percent of these folks are Jews of an Eastern European lineage.”[30]
Breen has been viewed as an anti-Semite,[31] but biographers, as one observer put it, never get to tell us that
“Joe Breen, who had railed against the immorality of the Hollywood Jews, had learned from them, and they from him. They would not have asked him to run RKO Pictures if he had been truly anti-Semitic.
“They would not have flown him here and there. They would not have invited him to their homes. And they certainly would not have given him an Academy Award. He had convictions. He was a fighter, and he didn’t hate.”[32]
Perhaps Murray should get a copy of E. Michael Jones’ The Slaughter of Cities. Murray will do either two things if he happens to stumble upon that book: he will attack the archival sources which are thoroughly genuine, or he will leave AEI as soon as he is done reading the last page.
One of the key issues in The Slaughter of Cities is that if America is “coming apart,” it is because the WASP ruling class and Jewish revolutionaries such as Louis Wirth made an implicit alliance in the twentieth century to ideologically vaporize Catholic neighborhoods, and poor blacks did not even know that they were being juiced in the Jewish factory.
Decent Polish folks who came to America in the 1920s did not even know that they were “white”[33] because as Catholics they saw people as human beings—and in Poland, they could never call themselves “white.”
It was until they began to see that they were being experimented in an ideological laboratory that some started to identify themselves as “white.” Some scholars simply do not have the backbone to tell the true story and continue to leave their readers in the dark. For example, in Polish Americans and Their History, we are told that
“The civil rights movements sparked tensions between blacks and the Poles, and abortive dialogues in the 1960s and 1970s, drawing Polish Americans into the whirlpool of racial politics.”[34]
That is as far as the book goes. It never mentions that the Poles were not racist or that they largely viewed the issue in essentially religious terms.[35] Moreover, the book never tells us who was pushing the button.
Those Poles were specifically “anti-materialist”[36] and posed a huge threat to the materialist worldview which came to dominate the WASP ruling class such as the Rockefeller family.
Racism was not even a vocabulary for the Poles precisely because as Catholics, racism is against the implicit teachings of the Church.
Perhaps what made the Poles real enemies of the WASP ruling class was that they were against Corporate America and Mass Culture—and the WASP ruling class was pushing both.
As sociologist and Polish-American Leonard Chrobot put it in 1971, Polish immigrants, because they were essentially Catholic, were against
“Mass Culture and its atomization of the individual, and the Corporate State, with its assumption that the Gross National Product is more important than the quality of human life.”[37]
In a capitalist and usurious system, money comes first and people are an afterthought. If you can make money at the expense of human life, then welcome to the ideology of the rich and powerful.
It was one reason why the WASP ruling class such as John D. Rockefeller would send letters to the pope saying that the Church must change its views on abortion and contraception. He wrote,
“As I see it, if the Church does not supply this leadership, there will be two consequences: one, the present accelerating pace toward population stabilization will proceed, country by country, without overall guidance or direction, particularly on the moral side: on the other hand, if I may speak perfectly frankly, the Church will be bypassed on an issue of fundamental importance to its people and to the well-being of all mankind.
“The flooding tide cannot be stopped or even slowed, but it can be guided. Because I believe so keenly in the importance of the role which your church has to play in our troubled world of today, I am deeply concerned to see a situation developing which in the long run, it seems to me, inevitably will be harmful to the Church’s position around the world.”[38]
It was inevitable that the Poles would pose a threat to the WASP ruling class, which had already embraced sexual liberation in the form of abortion and contraception.
You simply cannot embrace abortion and contraception without consequences. And you simply cannot abort your own children and sterilize women and expect to have a bright future.[39] That ain’t gonna happen.
But by standing against “Mass Culture and its atomization of the individual,” obviously Capitalism, it was inevitable that the WASP ruling class would strike a deal with Jewish revolutionaries to destroy the political power and structure of those Polish immigrants.
Now the WASP has to beg the big boss to make a living in Hollywood.
“Bill Stadiem, a former Harvard-educated Wall Street lawyer who is now a screenwriter in LA, told me [William Cash] that he recently came across an old WASP friend in an LA restaurant who had been president of the Porcellian at Harvard—the most exclusive undergraduate dinning-club.
“His friend—a would-be producer- was dressed in a black nylon tracksuit and had gold chains on his wrist; dangling around his neck was a chunky Star of David. Stadiem asked, ‘Why the hell are you dressed like that?’ the WASP replied: ‘I’m trying to look Jewish.’”[40]
Charles Murray is a product of the old alliance between the WASP ruling class and Jewish revolutionaries, and this is one reason why he can never have enough intellectual honesty to tell the whole truth. He is still blinded by the neoconservative ideology, and that certainly stops him from reaching his full potential as a serious writer. After all, the AEI pays him well enough to pursue Jewish ideology at the expense of other goyim.
A few years ago, E. Michael Jones said, “When I hear an American talk about the dangers of ‘Islamofascism,’ I think it’s an infallible sign that I am in the presence of either a propagandist, an intellectual coward or a useful idiot.”[41]
Whenever you hear a neoconservative at a major neoconservative think tank talk about America “coming apart,” it’s an infallible sign that you are in the presence of a propagandist, an intellectual coward, or a useful idiot.
Going back to our discussion. How do you keep students in line in America when classes are packed, particularly when family education is lacking and when television is taking all the family time? How do you teach in a class when some students can only remember the last blockbuster film?
How do you teach when some parents, born and raised in Hollywood pop culture, care more about getting a grade than actual education?
Didn’t lead singer Perry Farrell (born Perry Bernstein) of Jane’s Addiction assert, “To the mosquitoes [parents], we have more influence over your kids than you do”?
Don’t philosophical and scientific studies tell us that television and films affect the young and the innocent in a subtle way?[42] As Neil Postman of New York University put it a few years ago,
“Who writes the songs that young girls sing? Or the tales that old men tell? Who creates the myths that bind a nation and give purpose and meaning to the idea of public education?
“In America, it is the advertisers and, of course, the popular musicians and filmmakers; maybe even the hollow men gathered around swimming pools in Beverly Hills, inventing stories we call television sitcoms.”[43]
So how do schools keep up with much of the school behavior? Well, you apply the pop psychology solution: medication. Your kids can’t behave in class? He can’t focus? Well, He or she’s got ADD or ADHD.[44]
The stunning fact is that in many cases this “ADHD” mantra is not an unbiased opinion, but one motivated by collaboration with the pharmaceutical industry. In fact, pharmaceutical companies have been creating “new diseases” so that they can sell more pills.
In their devastating book Selling Sickness, Ray Moynihan and Alan Cassels write:
“Working from his midtown Manhattan office in New York City, Vince Parry represents the cutting edge of [the] global marketing. An expert in advertising, Parry now specializes in the most sophisticated form of selling medicines: he works with drug companies to help create new diseases.
“In an astonishing article titled, ‘The art of branding a condition,’ Parry recently revealed the ways in which companies are involved in “fostering the creation” of medical disorders.
“Sometimes a little-known condition is given renewed attention, sometimes an old disease is redefined and renamed, and sometimes a whole new dysfunction is created.
“Parry’s personal favorites include erectile dysfunction, adult attention deficit disorder, and premenstrual dysphoric disorder—a disorder so controversial some researchers say it doesn’t exist.
“With rare candor, Parry has explained how pharmaceutical companies now take the lead, not just in branding their blockbuster pills like Prozac and Viagra, but also in branding the conditions that create the markets for those pills.
“Working under the leadership of the drug marketers, Madison Avenue gurus like Parry get together with medical experts to ‘create new ideas about illnesses and conditions.’
“The goal, he says, is to give drug company customers around the world ‘a new way to think about things…’A recent Reuters Business Insight report designed for drug company executives argued that the ability to ‘create new disease markets’ is bringing untold billions in soaring drug sales.”[45]
The authors go on to say that pharmaceutical companies, with the help of greedy doctors,
“helped instill and reinforce the notion that depression is a widespread psychiatric disease most likely due to a chemical imbalance in the brain, best fixed with a modern group of drugs called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, that includes Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft.
“Their work has paid off handsomely: in some countries prescriptions for these pills more than tripled through the 1900s, making antidepressants one of the top-selling categories of drugs, and generating combined sales of more than $20 billion for their markets.”[46]
And then this:
“The Harvard-trained psychiatrist Dr. Loren Mosher caused a stir a few years ago when he quit his professional association in disgust. An APA member for nearly three decades, Mosher said at the time that in his view, ‘psychiatry has been almost completely bought out by the drug companies’ and that he, for one, did not want to be a ‘drug company patsy.’
“He counseled that the APA and other groups like it around the world were doing a serious disservice to human health care and urged them to ‘get real about money, politics, and science. Label each for what it is…that is, be honest.’
“What irked Loren Mosher most was not the unholy alliance per se, but the corrosive effect he believed this alliance was having on the practice of psychiatry. He was horrified by what he saw as the narrowing focus on drug therapies, making physicians everywhere less able to “understand whole persons in their social contexts.
“Because he saw a more noble cause for psychiatry, beyond the mere technical role of realigning patients’ neurotransmitters—including serotonin—he said he could no longer stand by while his profession condoned the ‘widespread use and misuse of toxic chemicals.’”[47]
Moynihan and Cassels are far from alone. Stephen Ray Flora of Youngstown State University writes in an article in Skeptical Inquirer titled “The Bipolar Bamboozle”:
“In the study ‘The Impact of Mood Stabilizers on Bipolar Disorder: The 1890s and 1990s Compared,’ North Wales researchers found that despite the wide-spread use of mood stabilizers, rates of readmission for bipolar patients is higher now (77 percent) than it was one hundred years ago (8 percent). In the 1890s, 81 percent of the discharges were recovered, but only 17 percent in the 1990s were recovered.
“These findings forced the researchers to conclude: ‘These data are incompatible with simple claims that mood stabilizing drugs ‘work.’ Indeed, these findings indicate that not receiving treatment works better than pharmaceutical intervention.’
“Similarly, University of Illinois researchers recently found that only 5 percent of medicated schizophrenia patients recover, but 40 percent of non-medicated patients recover. In other words, schizophrenia patients are eight times more likely to recover if they are not on medications!
“In the last decade, rates of children being diagnosed with bipolar disorder have increased by forty times, and the rates of diagnosis for adults almost doubled! Nothing overtly changed in American culture—not dietary practices, there was no mass exposure to toxic waste, and neither parenting nor educational practices were overhauled.
“Instead a culmination of less than scientifically justified factors resulted in the current explosion of people, many of them children as young as four years old, being diagnosed and misdiagnosed as ‘bipolar’…As if ‘softening’ the diagnoses of bipolar to cast a wider net for paying clients wasn’t questionable enough, psychiatrists have been ‘upcoding’ individuals, particularly children, to more severe ‘bipolar’ diagnoses to get greater insurance reimbursement.
“State University of New York psychiatrists Joseph Blader and Gabrielle A. Carlson found that from 1996-2004 rates of bipolar diagnoses among adults increased 56 percent, increased 296.4 percent among adolescents, and increased 438.6 percent among children!’”[48]
Writers such as Stephen Fried document the same thing.[49] What does all this mean? It means that the idea that drugs will cure anxiety and depression is not supported by the medical evidence.
Yes, drugs may help individuals feel better for a while (and here we are mainly talking about things like antidepressant drugs). But will that cure the ultimate problem?
For example, anxiety is not a physiological problem, and trying to make drugs the cure is not only nonsensical and illogical, but unwise and sometimes even dangerous.
A classic example would be Johnny Edwards, who committed suicide six months after he was prescribed antidepressant medications at Harvard University Health Services.[50]
Flora tells us:
“Medicating people for happiness and sadness is not without consequence. Antipsychotics used to treat bipolar [disorder] work by interfering with the body’s dopamine and serotonin systems. These neurotransmitters are known to be involved in one’s ability to feel pleasure and initiate activities.
“Interfering with these abilities are likely reasons why up to 75 percent of patients refuse to take prescribed antipsychotics. Common side effects of Seroquel include dry mouth (44 percent), drowsiness (34 percent), high triglycerides (23 percent) headaches (21 percent), agitation (20 percent) dizziness (18 percent), high cholesterol (16 percent), weakness (10 percent).
“Common side effects of Ability include headaches (30 percent) anxiety (20 percent), insomnia (19 percent), nausea (16 percent), constipation (13 percent), vomiting (12 percent), and dizziness (11 percent)…
“In conclusion, the broadening and softening of the criteria necessary to label one with bipolar disorder coupled with aggressive campaigns by pharmaceutical companies results in millions of people being told they have a severe psychiatric disorder.
“These misled patients are being prescribed powerful antipsychotic medications when in fact they are normal people dealing normally with ordinary life issues.”[51]
In a nutshell, drug companies do not want many doctors to find the cure for some “disease” because that would prevent those companies from making millions upon millions of dollars every year. It is almost the same thing with cancer.
Devra Davis, director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and Professor, the Department of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, laments in her devastating work The Secret History of the War on Cancer that
“Scientists who tackled industrial causes of cancer often found themselves facing subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle warnings. Those who resisted pressure to back off often found their funding cut. In some cases, scientific research was stopped in its tracks, and many careers were derailed.”[52]
This was what happened to Doctor Max Gerson, who happened to treat cancer without “permission.” His story is told in Censured for Curing Cancer: The American Experience of Dr. Max Gerson.
As G. Edward Griffin writes in World Without Cancer, cancer
“can be stopped now entirely on the basis of existing scientific knowledge…Early in 1974, the California Medical Board brought formal charges against Stewart M. Jones, M.D., for using Laetrile in the treatment of cancer patients.
“It was learned later, however, that Dr. Julius Levine, one of the members of that board, himself had been using Laetrile in the treatment of his own cancer.
“When Dr. Jones’ case came up for review, the political pressures were so great that Dr. Levine felt compelled to resign from his post rather than come out openly in support of Dr. Jones and his patients.”[53]
Griffin again writes,
“Between 1977 and 1980, it was discovered that 62 doctors had submitted clinical data to the FDA which was manipulated or completely falsified. In one study conducted by the FDA itself, it was discovered that one in every five doctors investigated—doctors researching the effects of new drugs—had invented the data they reported and pocketed the fees…
“The incentive for clinical investigators to fabricate data is enormous. American drug companies pay as much as $1,000 per patient, which enables some doctors to collect over $1 million per year from drug research—all the easier if the treatments are imaginary.
“Even if the tests are not fabricated, there is still the effect of subconscious bias. These doctors know that if they don’t produce the results the drug companies are seeking, the likelihood of their receiving future work is greatly diminished.”[54]
It seems these people are so blinded by the love of money (1 Timothy 6:10) that they are willing to do and say anything. Consider Dr. Ian MacDonald. In a desperate attempt to defend smoking, the good doctor went so far as to say that “A pack a day keeps lung cancer away.”[55]
MacDonald, along with his colleague Henry Garland, fought tooth and nail to promote the idea that smoking cigarettes is harmless. Here’s what happened to them both:
“MacDonald was burned to death in bed a few years later in a fire started by his cigarette. Dr. Garland, who had boasted of chain-smoking since early childhood and who claimed to be living proof that cigarettes are harmless, a few years later died of lung cancer.”[56]
In contrast to these self-serving medical professionals, there have been many honest doctors and psychiatrists who want to confront the real issues facing our society.
Renowned Jewish psychiatrist Peter R. Breggin has been very honest about medicating children, and indeed society, through drugs. In fact, he titled one of his books Your Drug May Be Your Problem. In his work Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry, he writes:
“To claim that an irrational or emotionally distressed state in itself amounts to impaired brain function is simply false. An analogy to television may illustrate why this is so.
“If a TV program is offensive or irrational, it does not indicate that anything is wrong with the hardware or electronics of the television set. It makes no sense to attribute the bad programming to bad wiring.
“Similarly, a person can be very disturbed psychologically without any corresponding defect in the ‘wiring’ of the brain…
“We blindly inflict toxic substances on a brain that is far more subtle and vulnerable to harm than a television set. We even shock or mutilate the brain in ways that would appall TV repair persons or their customers, while ruining their television set.”[57]
Elliot S. Valenstein is another individual who has tried to deal with these issues in a serious manner.[58]
The idea that drugs were the best solution to solve children’s problems was sadly introduced by Jewish psychiatrist Harold Koplewicz. He was introduced in the media by the Clinton administration, particularly Hillary as the nation’s expert on child-rearing.
Koplewicz is not alone. Peter Kramer was also a big proponent of this idea, and he advanced that thesis in his book Listening to Prozac.
In short, Freud was right: modern psychology—with its heavy emphasis that man is just matter and chemistry—would be at war with not only Christianity but with the edifice of Western culture and traditional family, and children happen to be in the middle of the conflict.
If man is just matter and chemistry, as the Enlightenment thinkers proposed, then things such as depression, anxiety, and any issue that revolves around morality have to be solved according to matter and chemistry.
If Daniel Dennett is right, that human beings “are made of mindless robots and nothing else, no non-physical, non-robotic ingredients at all,”[59] then the logical vector is that anxiety is a physical entity that must be cured with chemistry, which in this case is drugs.
Keep also in mind that Robots, by definition, do not have a conscience and do not act as free agents. External entities always tell them what to do and they act on those orders.
This was again a thesis that was widely trotted out by the philosophes. La Mettrie’s title, Man: A Machine, said it all. Whoever controls that machine controls the universe, and whoever controls the universe can dictate what ought and ought not to be done in the name of “scientific” theories.
Right after the French Revolution, writers such as Shelley, Byron, and Godwin, among others, flirted with those ideas and moved them to the sexual realm. If man is just a machine and nothing more, then sexual morality and responsibility are illusions that other forces such as religion have inflicted upon mankind.
If morality can be dismissed, impossibility becomes a possibility, irrationalism becomes logical, and immorality becomes morality. In short, morality had to go. For Shelley, that moral force was Christianity. He put it quite bluntly:
“Yet here I swear, and as I break my oath may Infinite Eternity blast me, here I swear that never will I forgive Christianity!… Oh, how I wish I were the Antichrist, that it was mine to crush the Demon, to hurl him to his native Hell never to rise again.
“Oh! I burn with impatience for the moment of Xtianity’s dissolution; it has injured me; I swear on the altar of perjured love to revenge myself on the hated cause of the effect which even now I can scarcely help deploring.
“ Indeed I think I it is to the benefit of society to destroy the opinions which can annihilate the dearest of its ties…Let us hope that the wound which we inflict tho’ the dagger be concealed, will rankle in the heart of our adversary.”[60]
Shelley was indirectly following Diderot’s aspiration. “I would sacrifice myself, perhaps, if I could annihilate forever the notion of God,” Diderot declared.[61]
It was inevitable that Shelley would flirt with the occult, most specifically with the Illuminati and Masonry. Scholar Richard Holmes writes,
“Shelley secretly turned to the Masonic conception of revolutionary brotherhood as a viable form of reform organization. He was attracted especially by its occultism, its tight communal solidarity, and ‘seeding’ of subversive political ideas. He never wrote of Illuminism to Godwin, who would have been appalled…”[62]
Paul Johnson recounted the same thing, but Johnson plays down the issue by calling Abbe Barruel’s Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism a “repellent book, which [Shelley] often recommended to friends (it was used by his second wife Mary when she was writing Frankenstein in 1818).” Shelley’s gothic novel at Oxford was entitled St. Irvyne or the Rosicrucian.
It was inevitable that he would invite Byron to have sex with his two wives, and Byron was more than happy to expand his sexual horizon. After all, Byron would brag about sleeping with at least two hundred women.[63] As the saying goes, when the floodgate is open, you simply cannot tell the water where to go.
As we shall see in a future article, this sexual sharing was congruent with the Sabbatean rite, a Jewish cult movement that indirectly ended up laying the Masonic groundwork for the French Revolution.
In short, whenever man is reduced to simply physics and chemistry, whoever can manipulate the laws of physics and chemistry can manipulate man—and modern psychology, which is essentially Jewish, is based on that false assumption.
This is why we have books such as How the Mind Works, an implicit presupposition that says that the mind works mechanically.
If that is the case, then a mother and father can deliver their baby in a motel room kill him, and leave the body in a Dumpster; an 18-year-old girl can lock herself in a bathroom stall, give birth to a boy and leave him dead in a garbage can (both events actually happened).[64]
According to the principle that man is just a machine, conscious creatures like you and me are not in a position to say that those acts are morally wrong, as Steven Pinker argued a few years ago. Pinker declared,
“The right to life must come, the moral philosophers say, from morally significant traits that we humans happen to possess. One such trait is having a unique sequence of experiences that defines us as individuals and connects us to other people.
“Other traits include an ability to reflect upon ourselves as a continuous locus of consciousness, to form and savor plans for the future, to dread death, and to express the choice not to die. And there’s the rub: our immature neonates [newborns] don’t possess these traits any more than mice do.”[65]
If they don’t possess those traits any more than mice do, then why not treat them as mice? Why not chop their heads and feed them to cats and dogs? And if babies can be categorized that way, why not expand that ideological weltanschauung to a five-year-old who cannot savor plans for the future? Pinker continued,
“Several moral philosophers have concluded that neonates are not persons, and thus neonaticide should not be classified as murder. Michael Tooley has gone so far as to say that neonaticide ought to be permitted during an interval after birth.”[66]
Pinker is in good company with the Enlightenment thinkers, whose principles were based on essentially Masonic metaphysics. Modern psychology is largely an extension of the principle that man is a machine, and children and the family happen to be in the middle of that cosmic war.
For example, basing her theory on modern psychology, Judith Harris has written her book The Nurture Assumption (the book is endorsed by Pinker), assuming that parents play little role in child development. Building on a straw man, she writes that
“the nurture assumption implies that children are born with empty brains which their parents are responsible for filling up. Obviously, children do learn from their parents. But they do not learn only from their parents.”[67]
Harris could not tell us anyone who believes children learn only from their parents. Nor could she name a single serious scholar who believes this nonsense.
Parents in general do not teach their children vices such as lying and cheating. Everyone intuitively knows how to do this because we are not a blank slate. This is why we need moral order and practical reason to keep us all in check—and perhaps redemption from the cross.
This is also why parents play a major role in teaching moral law and practical reason to their children. This is Psychology 101. Thomas Lickona, a professor of developmental psychology at the State University of New York, acknowledges:
“Common sense tells us that the family is the primary moral educator of the child. Parents are their children’s first moral teachers. They can also have the most enduring influence: children change teachers every year but typically have at least the same parents all through their growing years.
“The parent-child relationship is also laden with special emotional significance, causing children to feel either loved and worthwhile or unloved and unimportant. Finally, parents are in a position to teach morality as part of a larger worldview that offers a vision of life’s meaning and ultimate reasons for leading a moral life.”[68]
But since modern psychology seeks to alienate the family and its essential role in society at large, it is not easy to find books such as Toxic Parents on the market.[69]
In a nutshell, modern/pop psychology elevates modern drugs, and modern drugs cannot function without the pharmaceutical industry. The industry, in order to make money and commit wicked acts, has to put a label on children.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold—and nearly all the teenagers who have committed terrorist acts in schools around the country—were taking antidepressant drugs.[70] Steven Kazmierczak, the student who killed five people and wounded several others in 2008 at Northern Illinois University, was taking Prozac.[71]
David Healy, one of the foremost medical authorities and academics on this issue, has argued that drugs such as Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil, actually increase the likelihood of children being depressed.[72]
Citations
[3] “Detroit Schools Closing: Michigan Officials Order Robert Bobb To Shut Half The City’s Schools,” Huffington Post, February 21, 2011.
[4] Jennifer Medina, “California Cuts Threaten the Status of Universities,” NY Times, June 1, 2012.
[5] Anna M. Phillips, “City and State Move to Shut Down Brooklyn Charter Network,” NY Times, January 10, 2012.
[6] “The Class of 2012,” NY Times, June 4, 2012.
[7] Charles Murray, Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America’s Schools Back to Reality (New York: Crown Forum, 2008).
[8] Charles Murray, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 (New York: Crown Forum, 2013).
[9] James Madison, Madison: Writings, 1772-1836 (New York: Library Classics of the United States, 1999), 605
[10] Ibid.
[11] See for example John J. Mearsheimer, “America Unhinged,” National Interest, January 2, 2014.
[12] Robert Golan-Vilella, “Closing Time?: The Shifting Politics of Guantanamo,” National Interest, December 23, 2013.
[13] Charlie Savage, “U.S. Frees Last of the Chinese Uighur Detainees from Guantanamo Bay,” NY Times, December 31, 2013.
[14] Molly Crabapple, “Today Marks the 12th Anniversary of America’s Guantanamo Prison Disgrace,” Guardian, January 11, 2014.
[15] Michael Lehnet, “Here’s Why It’s Long Past Time That We Close Guantanamo,” Detroit Free Press, December 12, 2013.
[16] Adam Edelman, “Former Aide to Top General Is Now Homeless,” NY Daily News, January 6, 2014; “From commanding the skies to sleeping in a minivan: Homeless veteran USAF colonel now lives in his car because he can’t find a job,” Daily Mail, January 8, 2014.
[17] http://www.aei.org/events/2012/06/18/getting-serious-on-syria-can-we-close-the-assad-era-without-opening-a-can-of-worms/.
[18] See for example Andrew J. Bacevich, Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2013); “High Price of Iraq War: Lost Love Ones, Ruined Country, Broken Dreams,” Russia Today, March 19, 2013; Ann Jones, They Were Soldiers: How the Wounded Return from America’s Wars: The Untold Story (Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books, 2013).
[19] Pauline Jelinek, “Study: 300,000 Vets Have Depression or PTSD,” Army Times, April 17, 2008.
[20] https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2013/12/31/the-prosecution-of-bush-obama-and-the-neoconservatives-for-murder-torture-and-sodomy/.
[21] Paul Sperry, “Do the Saudis Really Control the Terrorists They Court?,” NY Post, December 23, 2013.
[22] See for example Paul Sperry, “Inside the Saudi 9/11 Cover Up,” NY Post, December 15, 2013; “9/11 Victims’ Case Against Saudi Arabia Restored,” NY Post, December 19, 2013.
[23] http://www.creators.com/opinion/paul-craig-roberts/bush-has-destroyed-iraq-and-america.html.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Paul Craig Roberts, “Who Will Save America?: My Epiphany,” Counterpunch, February 6, 2006.
[26] Paul Craig Roberts, “Pirates of the Mediterranean,” Counterpunch, July 1, 2009.
[27] Murray, Coming Apart, 5.
[28] Neal Gabler, An Empire of their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood (New York: Doubleday, 1989), 246.
[29] Quoted in E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2008), 775.
[30] Ibid., 776.
[31] Mick LaSalle, Complicated Women: Sex and Power in Pre-Code Hollywood (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000), 191-192.
[32] Cited in Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 776.
[33] See for example David R. Roediger, Working Toward Whiteness: How America’s Immigrants Became White (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2005).
[34] John J. Bukowczyk, ed., Polish Americans and their History, Community, Culture, and Politics (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1996), 138.
[35] Even neoconservatives such as Nathan Glazer and others argued in the 1960s that after several generations, a person in America essentially is a Protestant, Catholic, or Jew. Nathan Glazer and Daniel P. Moynihan, Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians, and Irish of New York City (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1963).
[36] Bukowczyk, Polish Americans and their History, Community, Culture, and Politics, 28.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Quoted in Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2000), 436.
[39] Joseph Epstein, “The Late, Great American WASP,” Wall Street Journal, December 23, 2013.
[40] E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2008), 1035.
[41] http://www.culturewars.com/2008/JRSInterview.htm.
[42] See for example Colin McGinn, The Power of Movies: How Screen and Mind Interact (New York: Vintage Books, 2005); Stanley Cavell, The World Viewed: Reflections on the Ontology of Film (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979); Roy F. Fox, Harvesting Minds: How TV Commercials Control Kids (Westport: Praeger, 2000).
[43] Neil Postman, The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995), 59.
[44] For a good resource on this issue, see for example Thomas Armstrong, The Myth of the A.D.D. Child: 50 Ways to Improve Your Child’s Behavior and Attention Span Without Drugs, Labels, or Coercion (New York: Plume, 1997).
[45] Moynihan and Cassels, Selling Sickness, xi-xii.
[46] Ibid., 23.
[47] Ibid., 27.
[48] Stephen Ray Flora, “Bipolar Bamboozle,” Skeptical Inquirer, Sept/Oct 2008, 42-44.
[49] Stephen Fried, Bitter Pills: Inside the Hazardous World of Legal Drugs (New York: Bantam Books, 1999).
[50] Alan Schwarz, “Harvard Student’s Suicide as a Case Study,” NY Times, April 30, 2013.
[51] Ibid., 45.
[52] Devra Davis, The Secret History of the War on Cancer (New York: Basic Books, 2007), xiv.
[53] G. Edward Griffin, World Without Cancer (Westlake Village, CA: American Media, 2003), 21-22.
[54] Ibid., 24-25.
[55] Ibid., 29.
[56] Ibid., 31.
[57] Peter R. Breggin, Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry: Drugs, Electroshock, and the Role of the FDA (New York: Springer Publishing Company, 1997), 6.
[58] Elliot S. Valenstein, Blaming the Brain: The Truth About Drugs and Mental Health (New York: The Free Press, 1998); for other studies, see also Katharine Greiger, The Big Fix: How the Pharmaceutical Industry Rips off American Consumers (New York: Public Affairs, 2003); Jerome Kassirer, On the Take: How Medicine’s Complicity With Big Business Can Endanger Your Health (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).
[59] Daniel Dennett, Freedom Evolves (New York: Penguin, 2003), 2-3
[60] Quoted in E. Michael Jones, Monsters from the Id: The Rise of Horror in Fiction and Film (Dallas: Spence Publishing, 2000), 32.
[61] Quoted in Will Durant, The Story of Civilization: The Age of Voltaire (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1965), 655-56.
[62] Quoted in Jones, Monsters from the Id, 58.
[63] Paul Johnson, Intellectuals (New York: Harper & Row, 1988), 44.
[64] See for example Robert Hanley, “New Jersey Charges Woman, 18, With Killing Baby Born at Prom,” NY Times, June 25, 1997.
[65] Steven Pinker, “Why They Kill Their Newborns,” NY Times, November 2, 1997.
[66] Ibid.
[67] Judith Harris, The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do (New York: Free Press, 2009), 111.
[68] Thomas Lickona, Educating for Character: How Our Schools Can Teach Respect and Responsibility (New York: Bantam Books, 1991), 30.
[69] Susan Forward and Craig Buck, Toxic Parents: Overcoming Their Hurtful Legacy and Reclaiming Your Life (New York: Bantam, 2002).
[70] See for example Kelly Patricia O’Meara, Psyched Out: How Psychiatry Sells Mental Illness and Pushes Pills that Kill (Bloomington: Author House, 2006), chapter five; For a great essay on Adam Lanza, see E. Michael Jones, “Drugs and Mass Murder,” Culture Wars, February 2013
[71] http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/13/niu.shooting.investigation/index.html#cnnSTCVideo.
[72] See for example David Healy, Let Them Eat Prozac: The Unhealthy Relationship between the Pharmaceutical Industry and Depression (New York: New York University Press, 2004).
Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.
ATTENTION READERS
We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully InformedIn fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.
About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy
