The following text appeared in the British publication, The Guernsey Star, of August 31, 1960, over the name of Capt. A. G. Pape. We think it very enlightening, and with Capt. Pape's permission, we are reprinting it here. The title as above, goes with the. original text. The emphasis is ours.
Ed.
* * *
The public, whether it be the various grades of well-informed or "intellectual" public which believes what it reads in the "better" journals, or the great mass public which has its mind tailored by the lower organs of propaganda, this public is a passive receptacle into which are placed certain ideas and "facts" to ensure that its members act in general conformity with the wishes of those who control propaganda and education.
I do not suggest that the system operates to perfection, or that it is always on time, although it is certainly being constantly improved; but I do assert the existence of a conformity at all levels of communication, enabling a relatively few men to place ideas and "facts" into the minds of almost the whole of mankind.
Very few people are qualified to hold opinion on national, international or even local affairs, in the sense that very few people ever arrive at opinion as result of careful observation and comparison of phenomena. It is safe to say that in most cases, especially with regard to national and international affairs, opinion is manufactured for them by somebody else, in much the same way as their breakfast cereal and motor-car.
However, manufactured opinion is more dangerous to the humanity of the victim than a car; squeezing this figure to exhaustion, we might say that whereas a car can kill the body, manufactured opinion dehumanizes the living man.
One organization which has played a considerable part in channelling ideas and facts to the public is Political and Economic Planning, usually known as PEP, which was founded about thirty years ago in London and operates mainly through pamphlets and special studies published in book form. It is possible to trace the progress of a number of ideas which have since become public property, from their original limited circulation in PEP publications, on to the platforms of all political parties out into organs of wider circulation, and into many supposedly "neutral" organizations, such as ladies' committees and social clubs. PEP's membership during 30 years has included some very "key" people indeed, with enormous ramifications in business, banking, publishing, and politics in Great Britain and over a large area of the world.
The following, for instance, were members at one time or another during the 'thirties: Sir Basil Blacket (Bank of England); Lord Melchett (Imperial Chemicals); Sir E. Iliffe (London "Daily Telegraph'); Mr. Harold Macmillan (Politician); Wickham Steed (London "Times"); Prof. Guggenheim-Gregory (London School of Economics); I. M. Sieff (Chain Stores), etc.
PEP has from time to time published some useful material, there is no doubt about this; but broadly, it has always aimed at replacing the small independant local unit, whether it be in business, farming or the formation of local policy, by the big, centralized and "efficient" organization with centralized control of policy. One of its earliest documents, "Freedom and Planning", 1931, stated its policy in clear terms. (It is worth keeping in mind, however, that moves towards fulfilment of that policy are by no means as clear and straightforward as its statement): The document said:
"Planned economy must clearly involve drastic inroads upon the rights of individual ownership of land", and whether we like it or not, the individual farmer will be forced by events to submit to far-reaching changes of outlook and methods."
It is useless, sometimes even less than useless, to sentimentalize about farmers and agriculture, but it is important to draw attention to the deep-rooted significance for a society like ours of the great gulf separating the independent farmer working his own soil, and farm labour producing to the requirements of central policy-makers.
"When I once asked Lord Haldane why he persuaded his friend, Sir Ernest Cassel, to settle by his will large sums on... the London School of Economics, he replied: 'Our object is to make this institution a place to raise and train the bureaucracy of the future Socialist State'." ("Quarterly Review", January, 1929).
In February, 1957, a group of more than 50 bureaucrats, economists, politicians, bankers, businessmen and publishers from the United States, Britain and Europe, but mostly from the United States, met quietly, one might almost say secretly, at St. Simons Island off the coast of Georgia, and some, if not all, the U.S. delegates were members of the Council on Foreign Relations. In September, 1958, a similar group met, again secretly, at Buxton in Derbyshire, England. At least 24 of those who attended the Buxton meeting were also at St. Simons Island, including John J. McCloy and David Rockefeller (both Chase Manhattan) and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands.
There is no public record of what was discussed at these two meetings, but we can definitely say that the organizers went to a great deal of trouble to avoid publicity. It may be that this secrecy was justified; it may be, on the other hand, that it was not.
One of the men who attended both meetings was Mr. Paul Rykans, a Dutch banker, a member of the Anglo-Dutch Trade Council and chairman of an "industrial development" organization called MIDEC, in which 120 European and six U.S. firms are participating to "develop" the Middle East. One of the U.S. members of MIDEC is Rockefeller Centre Inc. Both David and Nelson Rockefeller have been and still may be members of the Council on Foreign Relations. James S. Rockefeller is or was president of the First National City Bank of New York.
Anybody likes to get a directory of Directors and a few dozen copies of the International Monetary Fund weekly ("International Financial News Survey") will find plenty of evidence to indicate that a good deal of so-called "economic policy", whether in Washington or Indonesia, Australia or Sweden, emanates from a relatively small circle of "interested parties".
The total picture is, therefore, one of the Communists driving hard to hit the Western nations where they are weakest on the economic front. But this weakness only exists because the non-Communist world slavishly accepts the doctrine that they can only solve their internal financial and economic problems by increasing exports. It is this doctrine which gives the controllers of the financial system a death grip on the economics of the West. And unless this grip can be broken then the initiative in the world struggle must remain with the Communists. Unless it is suggested that the controllers of the financial system of the West are so stupid that they cannot see where their policies are leading a suggestion we cannot accept - then it is clear that they have no objection to the expansion of Communism.
The New Times, July 15, 1960