The Engineering of Consent: The Mental Health Movement is Linked to Thought Control and Is a Powerful Weapon of Coercion

At the outset, let me make it clear that I speak only for myself and not for any organization. This qualification is necessary since the subject I shall discuss in this article is distinctly controversial.

The necessity for this statement should, in itself, lead thoughtful citizens to ponder what is happening to our inalienable rights of free speech and a free press.

Why should such qualification be necessary? It suggests what is only too clear–that anyone these days who has the temerity to question authority, thereby exposes himself to vindictive attacks on his reputation and personal integrity. He must therefore make it plain that he is not the spokesman for any organization to which he belongs.

It is well to remember that most of the controversial topics which are frowned upon in certain quarters happen to affect vitally the future of our children as well as ourselves.

I am going to present some ideas which will attempt to relate the engineering of consent, Fluoridation propaganda and the Mental Health Movement into an understandable whole.

There are some very strange things going on in this country, partly due to the fact that we now have mass media of communication such as radio, TV, movies, newspapers, books and magazines, which can reach a large part of the population in a very short period of time. Obviously, anyone who has control of these means of communication possesses a tremendous advantage, since most of our citizens depend upon these media for their information.

We have reasons for concern as to whether or not we are getting all sides of every question and as to whether or not the information which we receive is correct or slanted. Let us consider “the engineering of consent.”

This, I believe, was a phrase first coined by Edward L. Bemays, a public relations expert. He has written a number of books and is considered to be an authority on the subject. He has shown that most human beings are influenced not so much by conscious thought as by subconscious word associations and subconscious drives.

Bernays has analyzed these drives by means of questionnaires. His services have been in considerable demand by those industries which wish to persuade people, through advertising, to buy their products.

A quotation from one of his books called Crystallizing Public Opinion gives us a pretty good idea of his thoughts on the subject. In this book Mr. Bemays says, “The subject matter of the propaganda need not necessarily be true….The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses must be done by experts, the public relations counsels. They are the invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions.”

He further says, “The most direct way to reach the mind of the herd is through its leaders, for if the group leaders accept our ideas, the group they dominate will respond.”

It is well to keep this concept in mind when reading newspapers and magazines, listening to the radio, or looking at TV. Ask yourself whether or not subtle propaganda is being used to sway your thoughts. Are the ideas clearly presented and documented, or do they present a slanted, biased, emotional appeal? A thoughtful appraisal is quite rewarding.

The public relations experts are having a field day. They are now taking an important place in most industrial enterprises and their advice is eagerly sought. They work by means of symbols and slogans.

These techniques are based on the work of Ivan Pavlov, a well known Russian physiologist, who more than fifty years ago, discovered the conditioned reflex. He offered food to dogs and at the same time flashed a strong light. The dogs naturally drooled when the tasty food was offered: but the most curious thing was that later on when these combined signals (the flashing light and the food) had been repeated often enough, saliva would drip when only the light was flashed. A conditioned reflex had been set up.

The Russians discovered that conditioned reflexes could also be established in human beings by attaching special significance to repeated words. It does not matter very much what the words are. They may be such words as Peace, Running Dog of the Imperialists, Greedy Capitalist, Progress, Brotherhood, Peaceful Coexistence, Cold War, The Summit–anything of that sort; but certain types of emotions may become attached to these slogans so that every time the words are heard or read, thought processes come to a halt.

Each individual reacts emotionally and always in the same way through repetition of these words. The importance of this type of conditioning is obvious and American troops captured by the Chinese Communists served as guinea pigs in the recent “police action” in Korea.

Many people will remember the Russian purge trials which took place back in 1936. During these trials, former high Russian officials not only confessed their guilt of crimes against the State but even asked and pleaded for punishment.

The world was horrified and upset at this occurrence, since it seemed not only a travesty on justice, but completely incomprehensible from the standpoint of American history. Nevertheless, the actions of these prisoners can best be explained on the basis of conditioning such as I have just described. This is one of the important methods of totalitarian control.

The Mental Health Movement is definitely related both to thought control and to the fluoridation movement.

In 1946 Dr. G. Brock Chisholm, a Canadian psychiatrist, former Director-General of the World Health Organization, and now President of the World Federation for Mental Health, lectured on “The Psychiatry of Enduring Peace.” He feels that another war is inevitable unless people in all parts of the world are mature enough to accept the concept of World Government.

Some of his ideas may be summarized as follows: World peace depends upon emotional maturity. Emotional maturity is impossible in the presence of neurosis. Neurosis is the result of emotional conflict. Conflict arises primarily from the teaching of morality and religion. Therefore, the teaching of such subjects to our children according to Christian ideals should be done away with.

In other words, parents are no longer fit to teach their children and to bring them up according to their beliefs. In fact, Dr. Chisholm goes so far as to say, “We have swallowed all manner of poisonous certainties fed us by our parents, our Sunday and day school teachers, our politicians, our priests, our newspapers and others with a vested interest in controlling us….

“The reinterpretation and eventual eradication of the concept of right and wrong, which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking for faith in the certainties of the old people, these are the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy….There is something to be said for taking charge of our own destiny, for gently putting aside the mistaken old ways of our elders if that is possible: if it cannot be done gently, it may have to be done roughly or even violently–that has happened before.”

Do any of you think that the concepts of Dr. Chisholm, which I have quoted, are compatible with the survival of religion, of moral principles and of a free America?

The essence of a 1948 report to the London Conference which activated the World Federation for Mental Health, lies in this sentence: “Principles of mental health cannot successfully be furthered unless there is a progressive acceptance of the concept of world citizenship. This can be widely extended among all peoples through the application of the principles of mental health.”

Stated more simply, this means that if the Mental Health Movement is powerful enough, it can extend the concept of world citizenship; and world citizenship in turn is probably dependent upon the Mental Health Movement for success. This is the blueprint for world government, which at the present time can only be a world federation of Soviet Republics.

Back in 1946, Congress passed the Mental Health Act. This established a National Institute of Mental Health and among other things, provided for grants-in-aid to states and local communities to help them in the establishment of Mental Health Clinics and other activities. This all sounded as though it were very helpful and certainly humanitarian.

No one will deny that there are mentally ill people and that they are in need of care. However, the need has been grossly exaggerated and with this background we get a better understanding of some of the dangers which may attach to this Mental Health Movement. Do not forget that what the federal government subsidizes, it will eventually control.

Here let us take a look at the “Draft Act.” This act was conceived in 1950 by the Federal Security Agency which is now the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Its full title is “A Draft Act Governing the Hospitalization of the Mentally Ill.” This is a model bill designed for adoption by all states and territories and by the federal government.

The “Draft Act” proposes a new definition of a mentally ill person, namely, “one who is suffering from a psychiatric disease, or other disease that substantially impairs his mental health.” In other words, a man who is mentally ill is mentally ill; and a man who is physically ill may also be mentally ill. It leaves a very, very vague definition of insanity. In fact, the word “insanity” is removed from this bill.

Formerly, we have considered a person to be insane when that person was emotionally disturbed enough to become dangerous to himself, or to others, or to the property of others; and that is a legal definition which is easily understood and which can be quite well defined. Not so this new one. And who is to decide what constitutes mental illness? Dr. Brock Chisholm perhaps?

The Draft Act also abolishes trial by jury, and, at the discretion of a U.S. Commissioner, even the right of the accused to appear at his own hearing. Theoretically, this is all done for humanitarian purposes so that the allegedly ill person, may not be further harmed emotionally or put to any more strain than is necessary.

However, the usual rules of evidence need not apply and there would be no appeal. Treatment could be instituted before the hearing had taken place; and we know that lysergic acid diamide and mescaline–two of the newer drugs which have recently been investigated to help us understand mental illness–will produce, when they are given to a normal person, hallucinations and all the appearance of insanity–particularly that of schizophrenia. If such drugs should be administered before a hearing, even though the person did appear before a judge, he might give all the appearance at that time of insanity and be committed for life.

Shock treatment might also be administered, under our present laws, before the accused had the right to be heard. Naturally, such abuses are exceedingly unlikely at the present time, but we cannot afford to leave such serious threats to freedom in our legal machinery. Treatment before a hearing should be limited to the use of physical restraint, warm baths, and a specified list of time-tested sedatives.

With such a loose definition of insanity and no recourse through the courts, who can think of a more effective political weapon for silencing all opposition?

In a recent episode at Atascadero, California, an elderly citizen differed with the Board of Supervisors, with a resultant verbal battle. This citizen was certified as emotionally disturbed by one of the supervisors and transferred to a mental institution. At his trial several weeks later–since we still have the right of trial by jury under our present California laws–a psychiatrist, who had examined the defendant, said that the reason he considered Mr. Fitzpatrick to be emotionally disturbed and paranoiac, was that Mr. Fitzpatrick did not in his thinking reach the conclusions held by the majority in his community.

Regardless of other factors involved in the case, this conclusion alone is enough to provide much food for thought.

For more examples of propaganda and how this engineering of consent can be used to influence the thinking of the public, let us take a look at fluoridation.

Before so doing, however, I will say that I believe fluoridation to be completely unscientific, unnecessary and ineffectual as well as dangerous; it is not the answer to the problem of tooth decay and it is a complete violation of personal freedom.

There are numerous other cogent arguments against it, but I will not relate them, since these have been covered thoroughly by competent men. I will simply say that the primary cause of tooth decay, which has been stated many times by the American Dental Association, is the excessive consumption of fermentable carbohydrates such as sugar and white flour. (Editor’s note: principally candies, soft drinks and pastries, etc.)

Let me give you several examples of propaganda directed against those who have the temerity to question the wisdom of artificial fluoridation.

An article in Science News Letter of January 17, 1959, entitled “Agree On Fluoridation” apparently is a release of the Public Health Service. In this article is repeated the misleading statement–which has been disproved by several independent statisticians–that fluoridation is effective in preventing 60 to 70% of new tooth decay.

This erroneous statement appears in practically every release on the subject of fluoridation. Its repetition, particularly by those in authority, whether or not it can be substantiated, eventually tends to become associated with the truth in the minds of the listeners or the readers.

Once again this article mentions the many scientific and professional organizations that have approved fluoridation and this quoting of authorities is another of the typical propaganda techniques. In addition, the U.S. Public Health Service lists three separate groups who oppose fluoridation: 1. Those who oppose the measure because of personal anxieties aroused. 2. Those who acquire social status, political gain or personal profit by opposing it. 3. Those who are fearful of change and suspicious of authority. Your attention is particularly directed to the suggestion that anyone opposing fluoridation may be emotionally disturbed or mentally unbalanced.

This is most important, since it fits in with the Mental Health Movement and is the type of statement that is appearing more and more frequently in magazines and newspapers. Recently, this has been stated more boldly in a newspaper article which I shall come to shortly.

To continue with one more paragraph: “Most of the ‘scientists'”–and they have scientists in quotation marks– “who come before administrative or legislative bodies in opposition to fluoridation have little or no standing in their profession.” You can see how, in the public mind, fluoridation proponents are attempting to paint the picture that any physician, or any dentist, or any scientist, who opposes fluoridation not only enjoys a poor professional reputation, but may be emotionally unstable. This of course is not only false, but slanderous.

In the San Francisco Chronicle, October 4, 1957, appeared the headline, “CONSPIRACY CHARGED OF QUACKS, BIGOTS, FADDISTS.” The article said, “Medical quacks are joining in a dangerous alliance with religious bigots, food faddists and other crackpots all over the country, an official of the United States Food and Drug Administration asserted…”

McKay McKennon, Jr., head of the administration’s San Francisco office is the man quoted in this release. He goes on to mention some findings of the American Cancer Society describing a close tie-in between what they call quacks and bigots.

He continues, “In addition there seems to be a connection between these groups and the forces violently opposing fluoridation of drinking water.” (Note the use of the adverb “violently” which has an unpleasant connotation.)

McKennon describes the whole broad problem of medical fakery as deep-seated and difficult. He goes on to list the many people who for various reasons have a prejudice against the medical profession and in favor of unorthodox practitioners. He lists five myths which he believes are the basic approach of the quack, and he includes of course the scare technique; but the five standard myths are as follows according to McKennon:

1. All disease may be due to diet. 2. Soil depletion causes malnutrition. 3. Overprocessing of food causes disease. 4. Subclinical deficiencies of vitamins and certain foods are major enemies of good health. 5. Mysterious emanations can cause disease, and equally mysterious rays can cure disease.

There are many physicians who might not wholeheartedly endorse the first four points but would at least admit that they might have something to do with disease. However, I know of no ethical physician who believes that mysterious emanations can either cause or cure disease. Nevertheless, by tying together these five points, McKennon suggests that anyone who feels that the first four points have any merit at all, believes in the so-called mysterious rays. This is clever propaganda by association.

Naturally, I am in no position to say that this was McKennon’s personal intent, but the result in the minds of many people who read this release is certainly obvious. The implications of the engineering of consent when fully understood help our citizens to appreciate what is happening. It is their best protection against having their minds swayed by nonsense and by the repetition of phrases and statements for which there may not be any substantiation.

The Independent Press-Telegram, Long Beach, Calif., printed an article on March 29, 1959, entitled “Some Health Project Foes Called Irrational,” by Ben Zinzer, quotes Dr. Marmor, a member of the Mental Health Committee of the Los Angeles County Medical Association:

Many persons who oppose community health programs are victims of intense anxiety stemming from deep, unconscious roots planted in childhood. The charge is that of a group of Southland psychiatrists. It’s included in a report to be delivered Monday in San Francisco at the annual meeting of the American Orthopsychiatric Association.

One of the authors, Dr. Judd Marmor, of Beverly Hills, told The Independent Press-Telegram: “This anxiety is impervious to any rational, scientific explanation.”

Dr. Marmor says opposition to health programs is by no means confined to the “lunatic fringe.” But rational opposition, he says, is in the minority….

A large segment of the population that opposes health programs often lines up as an “anti” faction, the report will disclose.

“We find the same groups of people involved again and again in opposition to widely diverse health programs.” Dr. Marmor notes….

“Many individuals and organizations active in the fight against mental health legislation are also to be found in the ranks of those opposing water fluoridation, vaccination of either humans or animals, and vivisection,” he says. (Note: Repetition and association suggest that any person opposing one of the above is against all health programs.)

He describes the “anti-health program” personality pattern as frequently fitting the person who:…”Is easily alarmed by anything that seems new and unfamiliar.

…”Views with suspicion and apprehension new habits, new foods, new drugs and new ideas.

… “Recognizes fundamentalism as the cornerstone of his life philosophy.” (Note the attack on religion.)

…”Insists upon a determined and rigid adherence to convention and tradition.” (This casts doubt upon morality and Christian principles and suggests bigotry.)

… “Is excessively preoccupied with fears of sexual attack or bodily poisoning.” (I can’t imagine the origin of this one.)

“BUT WHY THE ANXIETY?” Dr. Marmor asks. The article continues:

The report will say that many health-program foes come from homes in which rigid, authoritarian patterns dominated their early developmental years. (Who is against health? Only the mentally ill, of course!)

“The result,” ‘says Dr. Marmor, “is a personality pattern of repression, hostility and insecurity.”

“The opponents’ arguments against health programs often become irrational and delusional,” he says. (Polite words for “balmy.”)

Dr. Marmor, a member of the mental health committee of the Los Angeles County Medical Assn., says opposition to change also involves external factors such as threats to power or economic security and attitudes of community leadership.

Where can the public get the truth about health programs, such as those dealing with water fluoridation or mental illness?

“From the enlightened leadership of the community,” he says.

And what can be done about those who invariably oppose progressive health legislation?

“Nothing,” says Dr. Marmor.

“They could consult a psychiatrist,” Dr. Marmor suggests. “But they won’t.”

The foregoing press release would be amusing except for the grim implications and the fact that repetition of this propaganda is likely to condition the minds of our citizens. Eventually, instead of suggesting that those who disagree with “Big Brother” could consult a psychiatrist, the chant might well become–”They must see a psychiatrist!”

This theme was sung in a milder way by no less an authority than Arthur H. Flemming, Former Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. With one hand he takes steps to protect us from harmful chemicals in our food, while with the other he advocates the addition of another poison to our water supplies.

He said: “…A gross disservice is being done the children of America by a small, militant, and for the most part, demagogic group which utilizes unscientific arguments to influence communities against fluoridation. All the blame for the lag in fluoridation, however, must not be placed on the shoulders of the uninformed (emphasis mine) who, for various reasons, are opposed to it. Proponents must become as aggressive in the promotion of this measure as the opponents who have been seeking its suppression.”

Lest you think I am exaggerating the dangers inherent in the Mental Health Movement, consider the resolution adopted by the 11,000-member, 17th District of the American Legion, Department of California. This was passed in March, 1958, and reads in part:

“Whereas, certain forces dedicated to the overthrow of our form of government have distorted the magnitude of the problem of Mental Health out of true proportion, and

“Whereas, the aim of much Mental Health legislation is not based on the needs of the mentally ill, but rather on the infamous London Conference of 1948 which outlined a plan to bring about a collectivist World Government through an insidious misuse of the meaning of Mental Health, and

“Whereas, many legislative proposals under the guise of Mental Health Legislation deny the traditional rights of the Constitution of the United States of America to American citizens, and

“Whereas, at this time there are no immediate and glaring deficiencies in the availability of care for the mentally ill which justify an emergency approach,

“Now, therefore, be it resolved…that the National Department through the Department of California, be urged to:

“1. Support HR 98 introduced in the Congress of the United States by Representative Usher Burdick, calling for a thorough investigation of all phases of the so-called Mental Health program, and

“2. Urge a moratorium on all national, state and local levels until a searching and unbiased investigation shall have been made by the Congress of the United States, and such recommendations made public….”

Something very sinister is happening to our Republic. Become informed! Arouse your friends! Write your senators and representatives, urging a congressional investigation of the forces behind the Mental Health Movement and the Fluoridation Drive. Who knows how long you will be able to openly question such action? The light of freedom has gone out for over 700 million people in the past 15 years.

Read “Mental Robots” by Dr. Lewis Alesen, “Conquest of the American Mind” by Felix Wit· mer, “Brainwashing” by Edward Hunter, “Rape of the Mind” by Dr. J. Meerloo and “The Naked Communist” by W. Cleon Skousen.

In January of 1958, speaking on the advance of totalitarianism, before a meeting of psychiatrists and other physicians in San Francisco, Aldous Huxley said:

“…We are being pushed along in the same direction, amidst all the trappings of freedom, and the end will be our robotization. Our dictators will instill in us an enormous euphoria so that it will be physically impossible to dream of revolution. It is happening now; there isn’t much time; and it is terribly important for people who understand this area to be aware of the need for resistance.”

If we are to remain a free and Christian nation, all citizens must not only awaken to the insidious methods being used to undermine our Republic, but must take an active part in resisting these pressures.

It is not only time to wake up, but to stand up and be counted.

Let us pray that the remark of General George Van Horn Moseley (commenting on the decline of our Republic) will never come true. He said, “Historians of the Future will marvel most of all at the non-resistance of those who had the most to lose.”