PROPAGANDA IN THE NEXT WAR
Originally published in 1938
This particular
book Propaganda In The Next War formed part of a series of eight volumes
entitled The Next War, which were first published in England in 1938,
but it is, perhaps, the most important of them all, for it exposes the thinking
behind propaganda which is still prevalent to this day. Even though it was
written, at a time when the military hardware and delivery systems were light
years ahead of what they were when Nicolo Machiavelli wrote The Prince,
this particular tome mirrors his thinking exactly. Today, Henry Kissinger,
might well be regarded as the inheritor of the mantle of both Captain Sydney
Rogerson (this book’s author), and the arch strategist Machiavelli, who would,
I feel sure, be gratified at seeing the implementation of his thinking executed
on so grand a scale at the World Trade Centre this September.
So who was
Captain Sidney Rogerson and what was his agenda? His entry in Who’s Who describes him as a: “Publicity and Public
Relations Consultant and author. Born 22nd of October 1894. Son of
the Reverend S. Rogerson. B.A. in Modern History 1916; Served in the European
War; Commissioned in the West Yorkshire Regiment 1916-1919. Demobilised in 1919.
1923-30 was Publicity Manager for the F.B.I (Federation of British Industry);
Joined I.C.I (Imperial Chemical Industries) in 1930; Publicity Controller I.C.I
Ltd., 1932-1952. Publicity and Public Relations Advisor to the Army Council,
War Office, 1952-3-4. Hon. Col. 44th (Home Counties) Infantry
Division. Signals Regiment T.A., 1955. Publications: Twelve Days, 1933: Last
of the Ebb, 1937: Propaganda in the Next War,1938: Old
Enchantment, 1938: Our Bird Book, 1946: Both Sides Of The Road, 1949.
His book Twelve
Days was a narrative history of warfare during The Great War in the
Somme during the winter of 1916, a history read by both Winston Churchill and
Anthony Eden in August 1936. So Rogerson, was a man with first hand knowledge
of warfare and the value of propaganda in winning that particular
confrontation. Which, he used to great advantage, in compiling this important
study. Of particular interest are his observations about the Japanese
“tactlessly” dumping their shoddy goods in I.C.I’s traditional markets, which
made it much easier to arouse hostilities towards them.
An issue, not
mentioned specifically by Rogerson, concerning the causes of World Wars 1 and
2, and the one Winston Churchill recognised as the main flash point was money
or, more to the point, a lack of it. Money which was created by what he
referred to as our “hideous, convoluted monetary system” which prevented
sufficient money from being placed in circulation. Rogerson, as the Publicity
Controller for what was, at the time, the world’s largest chemical corporation
was very much alive to the threat that Japan and the other axis powers posed
to, not only I.C.I., but to all the members of the Federation of British
Industries. They were trapped on the treadmill of debt which they could not get
off, as Germany was desperately trying to do. As members of the F.B.I. –
conditioned by the propaganda of the banks - they found it difficult to
recognise that the conditions which caused most, if not all wars, were due, to
what Keynes referred to as: “The deficiency of effective (domestic)
demand.” In other words, insufficient
money in circulation to “satisfy the purchasing requirements of consumers,”
which was further exacerbated by those other insane notions that a country has
to either: “export or die,” or that it can have either “guns or butter” but not
both, even when it has failed to satisfy the needs of its own domestic
population.
Archbishop
William Temple correctly defined the problem in 1942: “The trend towards war is inherent in the internal economy of the
modern nation. The essential evil in the ordering of European life has been the
inversion of the proper relations between finance, production and consumption…”
As Winston
Churchill pointed out to Lord Robert Boothby. “The unforgivable crime of
Germany, before the second world war, was her attempt to extricate its economic
power from the world’s trading system and create its own exchange mechanism
which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit”.
In the wake of
the demolition of the World Trade Centre by terrorists – and no one can deny
that it was a terrorist act – it is important for us to bear in mind that the
events may not have been carried out by Osama Bin Ladin or the Taliban, but by
forces much closer to home. The incredible
evidence this book contains and the picture it paints of the thinking and
machinations of Britain towards her allies prior to World War 1, show how
radically and speedily they changed to suit – what Lord Palmerston regarded as
our permanent interests in the run up to World War 2. Of particular importance,
to all segments of society, regardless of their country, race or religion, is
the evidence it contains about Palestine, and how propaganda played a
significant part in the defeat of Germany in World Wars I and II, and the role
it continues to play in all conflicts where the end justifies the means.
Well known for
his gruff, self-assertive manner, Lord Palmerston made Britain’s long-term
intentions towards other countries and their natural resources absolutely clear
when he declared that: “We no longer have permanent principles, but permanent
interests, which we pursue to the exclusion of all else.” And, unfortunately,
nothing has changed since he made this astonishing admission. Lord Palmerston entered
parliament as John Henry Temple, a Tory, in 1807, and was Secretary of War from
1809 to 1828, before joining the Whigs. As the Whig foreign secretary 1830-34;
1835-41; and 1846-51 he helped to secure Belgian independence and worked
against Russian influence in the east. During his premiership (he was Prime
Minister between 1855-58 and 1859-65) he attempted to take Britain into the
American Civil War on the side of the South. He defeated the Sepoy revolt
during the Indian Mutiny in 1857 to 1858, and spoke out in favour of Italian
Nationalism.
For the past one hundred years, or so, these “permanent
interests” have included the control of the oil and gas reserves of a sizeable
proportion of the world’s known resources and any new ones that are discovered.
A policy heartily endorsed by Winston Churchill who openly, and unashamedly
declared: "We must become the owners, or at any rate the controllers at
the source, of at least a proportion of the oil which we require…”
This policy,
regarding the oilfields of Mesopotamia (present day Iraq) proposed by Churchill
in 1913 was fully endorsed by a British Royal Commission, which completely
agreed with his policies. We should not forget the admission of T.E.Lawrence in
his ‘Seven Pillars of Wisdom’ that his “betrayal”, of the Arabs, was a
“regrettable” but necessary device in arriving at a “cheap and speedy victory”
in order to protect Britain’s “petroleum” interests in “Mesopotamia.” Which
resulted in the ‘Red Line Agreement’ and the official carving up of the oil wealth
of the Islamic world following permanent dismemberment of the Turkish Caliphate
and the ushering into existence (through terrorism and deception) the two
“Secular: Zionist States of “Modern” Turkey and Israel.”
Churchill’s view was shared by Sir Arthur
Hirtzel, Head of the British government's 'India Office Political Department.
Who, in 1919, made the following recommendation, which clearly came to pass:
"What we want to have in existence, what we ought to have been creating in
this time is some administration with Arab institutions which we can safely
leave while pulling the strings ourselves; something that won't cost very much,
which the Labour government can swallow consistent with its 'principles, but
under which our economic and political interests will be secure. [.....] If the
French remain in Syria we shall have to avoid giving them the excuse of setting
up a protectorate. If they go, or if we appear to be reactionary in
Mesopotamia, there is always the risk that [King] Faisal will encourage the
Americans to take over both, and it should be borne in mind that the Standard
Oil company is very anxious to take over Iraq."
No one, with any
real knowledge of the present situation in Afghanistan or the Middle East is
under any illusion that the present crisis is all about oil and other
hydrocarbons which is the holy grail for the likes of Bush, Kissinger, Enron,
Unocal, and Standard Oil – for which also read Rockefeller, the Council on
Foreign Relations, the U.N. and NATO.
Muslims, like
most rightly thinking people, not only reject terrorism but reject any kind of
violence that may be used as a means of furthering any political agenda. For
this very reason we should never lose sight of the fact that: “war is politics
by other means.” It is, therefore,
important to be fully aware of the evidence given by John J Maresca, a Vice
President of the giant Unocal Oil Corporation, to the Committee on United
States Interests in the Central Asian Republics hearings before the
Sub-committee on Asia and the Pacific of the Committee on International
Relations House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifth Congress Second Session
February 12, 1998, and whilst I am not saying that Unocal played a part in the
WTC incident, both it and its allies stand to benefit from the opportunity that
its demolition and the smoke screen conveniently provides for “Big Oil” to
impose a government of their choice on the people of Afghanistan and the rest
of Central Asia. We saw this in Iran, when the CIA toppled the democratically
elected government of Mossadeg, in favour of General Zahidi, who was favoured
by both the Americans and the British, because he was, in the words of Sir
Samuel Fall: “vain, plausible and thoroughly untrustworthy”.
THE STATEMENT OF
JOHN J. MARESCA, VICE PRESIDENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, UNOCAL CORPORATION
“Next we would like to hear from Mr. John J. Maresca, vice
president of international relations, Unocal Corporation. You may proceed as
you wish:
Mr. Maresca.
“Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's nice to see you again. I am John Maresca, vice
president for international relations of the Unocal Corporation. Unocal, as you
know, is one of the world's leading energy resource and project development
companies. I appreciate your invitation to speak here today. I believe these
hearings are important and timely. I congratulate you for focusing on Central
Asia oil and gas reserves and the role they play in shaping U.S. policy. I
would like to focus today on three issues.
Ø
“First, the need for multiple pipeline routes for Central
Asian oil and gas resources.
Ø
Second, the need for U.S. support for international and
regional efforts to achieve balanced and lasting political settlements to the
conflicts in the region, including Afghanistan.
Ø
“Third, the need for structured assistance to encourage
economic reforms and the development of appropriate investment climates in the
region. In this regard, we specifically support repeal or removal of section
907 of the Freedom Support Act.
“Mr. Chairman,
the Caspian region contains tremendous untapped hydrocarbon reserves. Just to
give an idea of the scale, proven natural gas reserves equal more than 236
trillion cubic feet. The region's total oil reserves may well reach more than
60 billion barrels of oil. Some estimates are as high as 200 billion barrels.
In 1995, the region was producing only 870,000 barrels per day. By 2010,
western companies could increase production to about 4.5 million barrels a day,
an increase of more than 500 percent in only 15 years. If this occurs, the region
would represent about 5 percent of the world's total oil production. One major
problem has yet to be resolved: how to get the region's vast energy resources
to the markets where they are needed. Central Asia is isolated. Their natural
resources are landlocked, both geographically and politically. Each of the
countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia faces difficult political
challenges. Some have unsettled wars or latent conflicts. Others have evolving
systems where the laws and even the courts are dynamic and changing. In
addition, a chief technical obstacle, which we in the industry face in
transporting oil, is the region's existing pipeline infrastructure. Because the
region's pipelines were constructed during the Moscow-centred Soviet period,
they tend to head north and west toward Russia. There are no connections to the
south and east. But Russia is currently unlikely to absorb large new quantities
of foreign oil. It's unlikely to be a significant market for new energy in the
next decade. It lacks the capacity to deliver it to other markets...From the
outset we have made it clear that the construction of the pipeline we have
proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in
place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company. "
Mr. John J. Maresca, vice
president of international relations, Unocal Corporation
As is well known,
the owners of Standard Oil and its allies have always coveted the oil and gas
reserves of the world and have used every trick in the book to own or control
its supply. In his Reminiscences, John D. Rockefeller, the owner of
Standard Oil (ESSO), informed us that the entire American administration –
including the CIA, and its Armed forces were at its disposal to achieve what it
could not otherwise achieve by fair means or foul: “One of our greatest helpers
has been the State Department in Washington. Our ambassadors and ministers and
consuls have aided to push our way into new markets to the utmost corners of
the world...”
As Garry Allen
also points out in his: The Rockefeller File, pages 159-160: “American
foreign policy has meant billions of dollars for the Rockefellers. It has been
paid for in many cases by the blood of our soldiers and in every case by the
sweat of our tax payers”. A point further confirmed by Washington reporter Jack
Anderson in 1967: “...the State Department has often taken its policies right
out of the executive suites of the oil companies. When Big Oil can’t get what
it wants in foreign countries, the State Department tries to get it for them.
In many countries, the American Embassies function virtually as branch offices
for the Oil combine...The State Department can be found almost always on the
side of the ‘seven sisters’ as the oil giants are known inside the industry...”
To which Allen
further adds: “ Just as the Rockefellers make sure that their capos (men)
are running “our” perennially disastrous foreign policy, you can bet your last
devalued dollar that the Rockefeller Mafia controls the national and international
money game. The Rockefellers have made the Treasury Department virtually a
branch of Chase Manhatten Bank.”
This global
control of oil - through the power of money enforced by an army of military
bailiffs - began in the late 1880’s with the decision made by Admiral Jack
Fisher that the British Fleet would convert to oil as its primary fuel which,
under the policy of “strategic denial”, would then belong to Britain and be
denied, where ever possible, to all others.
1913. As usual most of our foreign policies were, and still
are, driven by booty not duty: "We must become the owners, or at any rate
the controllers at the source, of at least a proportion of the oil which we
require…”
This policy, proposed by Winston Churchill, was endorsed by
a British Royal Commission, which fully agreed with his policies towards Iraq
(Mesopotamia), in 1913.
1919. "What
we want to have in existence, what we ought to have been creating in this time
is some administration with Arab institutions which we can safely leave while
pulling the strings ourselves; something that won't cost very much, which the
Labour government can swallow consistent with its 'principles, but under which
our economic and political interests will be secure. [.....] If the French
remain in Syria we shall have to avoid giving them the excuse of setting up a
protectorate. If they go, or if we appear to be reactionary in Mesopotamia,
there is always the risk that [King] Faisal will encourage the Americans to
take over both, and it should be borne in mind that the Standard Oil company is
very anxious to take over Iraq."
Sir Arthur
Hirtzel, Head of the British government's 'India Office Political Department.
1919
1947. "Our strategic and security interests throughout
the world will be best safeguarded by the establishment in suitable spots of
'Police Stations', fully equipped to deal with emergencies within a large
radius. Kuwait is one such spot from which Iraq, South Persia, Saudi Arabia and
the Persian Gulf could be controlled. It will be worthwhile to go to
considerable trouble and expense to establish and man a 'Police Station'
there." British Foreign Office, policy memo, 1947
The following confirms what Presidents Jefferson, Lincoln
and Jackson feared would happen when Corporations became “enthroned” and worked
upon the prejudices of the people in order to maintain their grip on power and
the world’s resources.
1913. "We
have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled
and dominated Governments in the world - no longer a Government of free
opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a
Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men."
NOTE PLEASE MAKE FONT SMALLER: President Woodrow Wilson,
following the establishment of the privately owned Federal Reserve System in
1913.
1941. "If war aims are stated which seem to be solely
concerned with Anglo-American imperialism, they will offer little to people in
the rest of the world. The interests of other peoples should be stressed. This
would have a better propaganda effect."
Private memo from
The Council of Foreign Relations to the US State Department, 1941
1998. "The U.S.A. has supplied arms, security
equipment and training to governments and armed groups that have committed
torture, political killings and other human rights abuses in countries around
the world."
Amnesty
International ["United States of America - Rights for All] October 1998
If the United
Nations continues to fail to exercise its mandate in the interests of the whole
of humanity, then its supporters and critics would appear to be correct in
their assessments of its aims and objectives. Furthermore, as the Rockefellers
and Standard Oil provided the land for the United Nations and much of its initial
funding it seems unlikely that their intentions for the organisation were - at
any stage – honourable or humanitarian; and explain why Israel and the United
States are never brought to task for their continuous rejection of any U.N.
resolution deemed “hostile to their interests” – For which read Rockefeller,
Standard Oil, et al.
Ø
David Ben Gurion, Time Magazine, August 16th
1948: “The United Nations is a Jewish Ideal”.
Ø
Harry Klein, New York Jewish Lawyer: “The United Nations is
Zionism”. In ‘Zionism Rules The World’.
Ø
United States Congressman James B. Utt: “The United Nations
has strict double standards which guide it through its devious treacherous path
to world domination.”
Ø
James Paul Warburg, to the United States Senate on February
17th, 1950: “We will have world government, whether or not we like
it. The only question is, whether world government will be achieved by conquest
or consent.”
Ø
Ramsey Clark the Former U.S. Attorney General under
President Lyndon Johnson made absolutely clear: "The greatest crime since
World War II has been U.S. foreign policy."
Ø
General David Sharp a former United States Marine
Commandant 1966: "I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty,
bloody, dollar soaked fingers out of the business of these [Third World] nations
so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their
own. And if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because
the "haves" refuse to share with the "have-nots" by any
peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American
style, which they don't want and above all don't want crammed down their
throats by Americans."
In 1799, Thomas Jefferson gave the following warning, which
has been ignored, along with other good advice right up to the present day:
“Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day, but
a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, unalterable through
every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of
reducing us to slavery.” Subsequently
referred to as: “the conspiracy theory”.
If America does not heed these warnings, she may well
become, (as predicted by David Ben-Gurion in Look magazine and Life magazine of
January 1962): “A Welfare State with A Planned Economy” with Jerusalem as the
centre of a United Nation’s World Government at whose disposal will be a world
police force – NATO.
However there is good news and bad news. As Muhammad, the
last Prophet foretold: “When Dajjal – Anti-Christ – fails to bring the whole
world under his control, through his machinations and false beliefs – the
Christian nations will gather under 80 banners to try and bring peace to the
world, but would betray the world and bring about its ultimate destruction.”
But before they do, according to the Qur’an, the second
coming of Christ must occur. According to the Hadith a brief period of peace
will ensue during which time a resolution of the differences that created the
schisms amongst Christ’s followers will be accomplished and those that exist
between the Muslims and the Christians will also be resolved resulting in a
grand alliance between Al Mahdi and Christ Jesus, the son of Mary peace be upon
them both, who will be followed by sincere believers from both camps. In spite
of the machinations envisaged by A.J.Quinnell in his – The Mahdi – in
which M16 and the CIA collude to bring to power a Mahdi of their own choice to
control the Muslim world and all its mineral resources - the final outcome is
already known with the ink on the page is already dry – the only choice
remaining is the camp to which we choose to belong – are we to found among the
forces of Christ, or the forces of anti-Christ?
David M Pidcock
The Institute For Rational Economics
Sheffield S103HN
England
September 2001.
POST SCRIPTUM
Lest we forget! In a Congressional speech in the United
States Senate on April 25th 1939, recorded in the Congressional Record, 76th
Congress, Vol.84, No.82, pages 6597-6604, Senator Gerald P. Nye, of
North Dakota, said:
"There has been published a series of works under the
title 'The Next War.' One of the volumes in this series is entitled 'Propaganda
In The Next War.' This particular volume was written by one Sidney Rogerson. I
have been unable to obtain any trace of his background or of his connections;
but the editor-in-chief of all these works, including the one entitled
'Propaganda in the Next War' is a man whose name is recognised the world over
as an authority in Great Britain. He is non-other than Capt. Liddell Hart, associated
with the London Times, a writer and a military authority in Europe. The
following are quotations from this authority:
'For sometime the issue as to which side the United States
would take hung in the balance, the final result was a credit to our propaganda
[i.e. British]. There remain the Jews. It has been estimated that of the world
Jew population of approximately 15,000,000, no fewer than 5,000,000 are in the
United States; 25% of the inhabitants of New York are Jews. During the Great
War we bought off this huge American Jewish Public by
the promise of the Jewish national home in Palestine, held by
(General) Ludendorf to be the master stroke of allied propaganda, as it enabled
us not only to appeal to Jews in America but to Jews in Germany as well."'
"To persuade her (the United States) to take our part
will be much more difficult, so difficult as to be unlikely to succeed; It will
need a definite threat to America, a threat, moreover which will have to be
brought home by propaganda to every citizen, before the republic will again
take arms in an external quarrel... The position will naturally be considerably
eased if Japan were involved, and this might and probably would bring America
in without further ado. At any rate, it would be the natural and obvious object
of our propagandists to this, just as during the Great War they succeeded in
embroiling the United States with Germany. Fortunately with America, our
propaganda is on firm We can be entirely sincere, as our main plank will he democratic
one. We must clearly enunciate our belief in the democratic form of
government, and our firm resolve to adhere to it. Our minor propaganda will aim
at attaching the support of important sections, such as the Jews, probably by
the declaration of a clear-cut policy on Palestine, and of our intentions, if
victorious, to put an end to anti-Semitic persecutions and of the Roman
Catholic community in similar terms...In the realm of the moving picture
industry we may be able to depend on the natural bias of the United
States film manufacturers in favour of Great Britain as opposed to Germany,
Japan, or Italy, and on their command of the machinery of international film
distribution. This will be an asset both with the stock entertainment picture
and the news reels."
George Armstrong informs us that at the time of him writing
“The Rothschild Money Trust” in 1940, that: "The President has dispatched
the fleet to the Pacific. This is for the purpose of war with Japan. It can be
of no other purpose. If Japan will only torpedo one of these boats, the Jewish
Press, the Jewish Radio and the Jewish Cinema the do the rest. The Jewish
Admiral Taussig stated to a Congressional Investigating Committee that 'War
with Japan is inevitable, [The Rothschild Money Trust, page 64]
He goes on to state that: "They 'bought-off the huge
American Jewish Public' with the promise of Palestine, and with them they
bought the powerful metropolitan Jewish press and the Wilson Administration,
says George Armstrong, in his The Rothschild Money Trust. But the next
time it would require an act of aggression in line with Rogerson’s
suggestion; a suggestion that eventually came to pass.
Miles Copeland, in his autobiography: 'The Game Player
[pages 68-69] confirms that president Roosevelt allowed the (Japanese to
destroy America's Pacific Fleet and hundreds of his own people. Having broken
Japanese codes, they already knew of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor.
Copeland’s new boss informed him about the meeting between CIA-Admiral Sidney
Sauers and president Harry Trueman. When Sauers promised that America would
never again suffer an attack like Pearl Harbour, Trueman said that he obviously
had not received his secret briefing, otherwise he would have known that
"President Roosevelt got the intelligence, and he decided to let the Pearl
Harbour attack happen as a way of arousing an otherwise apathetic
populace."
From the Diaries of U.S. Secretary Stimson, we find
recorded in: “President Roosevelt and the Coming Of The War 1941 – A Study In
Appearances & Realities”, by Charles A Beard, Yale University Press, the
admission that he, together with General Marshall, Admiral Stark, Knox, Hull,
and Roosevelt were all sitting in the Oval Office, on the 25th of
November, one full week before the attack on Pearl Harbor, wondering: “how to
manoeuvre the Japanese into firing the first shot without allowing to much
danger to ourselves…” So much for the Day of Infamy Speech which was written
long before the actual event. For Roosevelt, unlike Churchill: “did not role his
own speeches.”
Therefore, the success of the Japanese attack on Pearl
Harbor, was entirely due to the fact that it was part of a much wider,
long-term plan, which served the strategic interests of the black propagandists
- a plan and a process which is still in force today. It occurred because, as
Truman understood and Roosevelt stated: “Nothing happens by accident. If a
thing happened it happened because it was planned that way…”
When the evidence
finally emerges about the real identity of the masterminds behind the events of
September 11th, it seems hard to imagine that George W Bush Jr,
along with a sizeable contingent from his entourage and the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, will be able to escape impeachment for what could justifiably be termed
Slaughtergate 911. Particularly when linked to the collapse of Enron, the
possible winding up or “shredding” of Arthur Anderson and as the basis for the
sequel to the movie ‘Wag The Dog’, for, as someone quite rightly remarked
– The Plot Sickens.
January 27th 2002