Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
Douglas Social Credit @
Brighteon.com
Christian based service movement warning about threats to rights and freedom irrespective of the label.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke
Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
Douglas Social Credit @
Youtube
Home The Cross-Roads Newtimes Survey blog.alor.org Library

Library


Introduction to The Red Pattern of World Conquest

(Eric D. Butler)

by Sir Raphael Cilento

 

The incredible story of how the Communist conspiracy has in less than an average person’s lifetime, from 1903 until the present time, (July 1985) advanced to the stage where it now stands within reach of its final objective – World Conquest

ERIC D. BUTLER

Mr Eric D. Butler first established himself as an authority on national and international affairs when writing for the morning Melbourne paper, "The Argus", soon after the Second World War. But as a young man before the war he was already widely known as a lecturer and writer. In the post-war years he specialised on International Communism, writing extensively for journals throughout the English-speaking world. Two of his books, "The Fabian Socialist Contribution To The Communist Advance", and "Dialectics – Communist Instrument for World Conquest", have had a wide sale. He has travelled widely, visiting the world's trouble spots, reporting and lecturing.

SIR RAPHAEL CILENTO

Very few men have had the vast and varied experiences of Sir Raphael Cilento, a great Australian. In most parts of the world he is recognized as a leading expert in the field of tropical medicine. While pioneering in this field he gained an intimate picture of colonial problems in many parts of the world. He has held numerous administrative posts in his long and distinguished career. He was appointed U.N.R.R.A. Zone Director in 1945 for the British occupied zone in Germany. Sir Raphael saw at first hand the creation of the U.N., and was Director for the Division of Refugees in 1946 and for the Division of Social Activities from 1947-1950. After leaving the U.N., Sir Raphael devoted himself to travelling extensively and lecturing and writing on international affairs. His intimate knowledge of most parts of the world, his personal acquaintance with many of the outstanding political and military figures of the Second World War and post-war years, coupled with a deep knowledge of history, fitted Sir Raphael Cilento to become one of the world's outstanding experts on international affairs. Sir Raphael died in 1985.

 

Introduction by Sir Raphael Cilento

Forecasting the trend of world politics is always a thankless activity, because if it turns out that you are right, no one ever remembers it, while, if you are wrong no one ever forgets it!

It is because events have so amply confirmed the predictions Eric Butler voiced in 1959 and earlier and set out in print in 1961, that I consider it an honour and a privilege to write this introduction to this new edition of "The Red Pattern of World Conquest". The book is a succinct, factual, and readable precis of the history of the ruthless drive of international communism into the crumbling citadel of civilization. It is thoroughly authenticated and documented; it is frightening in its simplicity and forthright approach but, more frightening, to those of us who have been involved for years upon the edges of the gathering storm, is the heedless complacency of the masses destined to be serfs of the Soviets, if the Soviets win.

In order that they should not win, everyone should be aware of the communist strategy, its policy of erosion and attrition in the political, economic, military and propaganda fields - and should be alert to neutralize the effects of that creeping paralysis with which it numbs the unwary minds of men and goodwill.

This is the purpose of the book - and it fulfils it well.

In 1945 at the end of World War II, I was appointed to take charge, under Field Marshal Montgomery, of the hundreds of thousands or refugees in the British Zone of Occupation in Germany. This led in 1946 to my appointment as Director of the Division of Refugees and Displaced Persons, with global responsibility in that regard, at the newly formed headquarters of United Nations in New York.

The Western World, after unprecedented expenditures of blood and treasure in two colossal wars, was utterly warweary. World War I - "the war to end all wars" - had merely been the prelude to World War II. The League of Nations had bogged down in the morass that formed round the greed, fear, arrogance, and hate of suspicious or power-hungry nations or men; and was doomed from birth, indeed, by the refusal of the United States of America to recognize it, though Woodrow Wilson had fathered it, and forced it upon his reluctant colleagues. This time, in 1945, there was to be no mistake!

The United Nations "with teeth in it" was to found itself upon the essential indivisibility of world peace and world prosperity. Drowning men clutch at straws and these were prepared, in their extremity, to swallow any plausible panacea - ignoring history and impatiently dismissing reasoned warnings. Their extremity was Russia's long awaited opportunity and the Kremlin used it in a series of masterly manoeuvres that have advanced their sappers to the very siege-lines of the devastated and unwary West. The organization of a world wide "United Nations" was a concept as old at least as the multi-national debates among the victors after the Napoleonic Wars. It was the Czar who put the project forward, in some cases in words that re-echo in the present U.N. charter, and with all the solemn and farcical protocol from "unity to ensure peace" to "summit conferences." In that day and age it had been Lord Castlereagh, the British representative, who had exposed the futility of so sentimental a pipe-dream and had withdrawn to England, from which vantage point he had watched his pessimistic predictions fulfilled.

The Russians of the present century were much more subtle. Lenin had once evoked roars of applause at a communist international conference in Mid-Asia by announcing dramatically: "I too am an Asian". The strategy he had advanced in 1921 had been summed up in the phrase; "The shortest road to Paris is via Peking!" on the one hand; and, on the other, by his advice that the Asian-type weapon to use against the West, as in judo or ju-jitsu, was its own strength - its best men and its best sentiments and principles.
Moreover, Lenin's successors (who maintained both points of his policy) did not forget that the United Nations (U.N.) and the United Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.) both tacitly add to their titles the words "of the World"! At the end of World War II it was "the Soviets" who had gained an inflated popularity through a slanted Press which acclaimed their sufferings; the victory at Stalingrad; the so-called "liberation" of the Eastern European Nations and the myth of their advocacy of: universal brotherhood; the abolition of war; peaceful co-existence; and a planned world-wide economy. Their fervent claim for universal brotherhood was directed towards winning the support of university men and women, clergymen, social workers and sincerely pacifist agencies, and they succeeded beyond their anticipation. Was not universal brotherhood the wistful hope of all men of goodwill? The best men believed it. But was it not true that brotherhood could not be universal if one brother was free and the other enslaved or a "second rate citizen"? It seemed an obvious corollary.

The Western nations set themselves almost hysterically to "liberate" the people in their colonial possessions - no matter how primitive, no matter how prematurely. As they moved out, the Soviets moved in. Within five years their plans had become sufficiently securely established, to be publicly proclaimed.

They intended to capture the United Nations (of the world); to identify it with and absorb its members into the United Soviet Socialist Republics (of the world); and to use the economic and propaganda weapons with which the West provided them to subvert and strangle the West.

Those of us who made our first contacts with the communists at U.N. in 1946 (first General Assembly) began dimly to suspect a sort of pincer movement aimed at that objective. We had no idea it had been increasingly in operation since 1917. We thought it a new and jejune attempt at power politics which would get nowhere and could be ignored. Was not the United States of America so dominant that it could rely on 46 of the 57 votes in the Assembly, with, 6 for the Soviet bloc, and the remainder abstaining?

Had not some American (whether knave or fool does not now matter) insisted that to convince the Soviets of our good faith and impartiality, the Russian among the eight assistant Secretaries-General to Trygve Lie, should be granted the vital portfolio of Security - the secret window on all the world? It had been agreed (under pressure from America) and Russia has held it ever since.

Was not Trygve Lie himself a compromise appointee as Secretary-General, acceptable to the West because he had been a member of the Norwegian government-in-exile, and acceptable to Russia because he had been earlier a visitor to Moscow from Norway, a radical Socialist, in fact a communist sympathiser who had, as the world now said, "pressed his pants" and progressed to respectability in the Western sense? All these were accepted as signs of a general desire for "co-operative co-existence".

Yet there were warnings too.

After a long series of Russian defeats in debate (West 46; Soviets 6; abstaining 5!) I was standing behind the brilliant Vyshinski, the permanent representative of U.S.S.R. in the General Assembly, and said flippantly to his alternate: "Don't you ever get tired of these defeats - and your inability to put a resolution through unless America graciously consents? Don't you ever think of giving up the unequal battle and going home?" Vyshinski who usually ignored all but top ranking diplomats and denied any knowledge of English, wheeled and asked abruptly in Russian: "What did that officer say?" On hearing it repeated, he said: "It is true we can get nothing on the agenda paper - now! - unless Washington agrees and that they agree sometimes only to defeat us and headline our supposed humiliation. This we regard with contempt. What do the votes of the ignorant matter? Two hundred years ago, if a vote had been taken as to whether the world was flat or round, ninety nine per cent would have voted it was flat - but it would not have altered the fact that it was round.
Tell him," he continued, "that in ten years' time the U.S.A. will get no vital resolution on the agenda paper without our consent, or only so that it can be defeated and the arrogance of the Americans humbled. The Americans then will want to modify the Charter or leave the United Nations, but they will find it impossible to dismount from the tiger they are creating!" He stalked off. He was almost exactly right, but he did not live to see the day, as we have, when the Soviet bloc has a majority in the United Nations and when the U.S.A. and its dwindling group of supporters can carry no vote on anything if the Soviet decides to inflame the Afro-Asian bloc against it with such meretricious slogans as ''economic imperialism" or "disguised colonialism''.

But there were other minor portents: Trygve Lie instructed me to draft a "personal particulars" form for the use of the Personnel Department. I thought I could not do better than apply (with any modifications necessary) the form used by the Metropolitan Life Assurance Company - a model form in my opinion. But it was the unexpected cause of a near riot, a protest meeting, and a stop-work threat from the 2000 or so employees in that early stage (1946). And the reason? After the usual "name", "address", "birthplace", "age", etc., came the heading (innocent enough in all seeming) "religion", and it was this that provoked nearly 60% to near hysteria! "It can be - it is - a secret basis for discrimination - a new roster for genocide" was the amazing accusation.

Amazing or not, the form was scrapped, but not before it had demonstrated quite unexpectedly the large proportion of the early staff that was openly leftist, or violently anti-British, or fanatically pro-Zionist, or often, all three.

Harry Dexter White, the communist traitor who was the evil genius who governed Roosevelt in his final 24 months of senility, at Teheran and Yalta, was dead; but it was a matter for astonishment when Alger Hiss presented himself in my Division (as he did in every other) with a general and particular letter instructing all Divisional Directors to make available to him all papers and information, classified or unclassified, to assist him to re-assess all appointees to determine their suitability for permanent employment or otherwise!

I have no doubt that the criterion was ideological. His arrest, conviction and gaol sentence later, flushed out a host of open or secret supporters, none more vocal than Eleanor Roosevelt, whose virulent attack on the verdict was so gross a contempt of Court that only in the United States of America would it have escaped condign punishment, in my opinion.

Eleanor Roosevelt, Anna Rosenberg and, later Alva Myrdal, exercised what seemed to me a totally unjustified and disproportionate influence upon policy decisions, personnel selections, and project approvals or rejections, especially in matters affecting "social questions'', "social welfare", "human rights", and other matters of prime significance for emerging "have-not" nations due for "liberation" (whatever that meant) and ideological alignment: and grossly susceptible to every form of propaganda.

For a decade or so from 1947, the Western nations scuttled from the exercise of power and paternalism amidst the scorn and disillusionment of friend, foe, and the "newly liberated" alike.

It was time for stage two.

The communist plan for world domination was simple, indeed, as all tremendous projects require to be for success.

Food - the material of growth and survival - is life's essential. Deprive a man (or a city or nation) of this essential, and he will surrender on any terms to save his own life or those of his family. What you can do with a man physically, you can do to a nation economically.
The great Western Nations were dependent upon the food and raw materials of the native areas they had rescued (in many instances) from barbarism and internecine war. Isolate them, deprive them of their colonies, and they would be forced to make an unconditional surrender.
For under-developed nations, subverted to ripeness for revolution by blowing into flame the embers of any local linguistic, religious, economic or administrative problem (and what country is free of them?) there was the plan of guerrilla warfare outlined by Won San in the fourth century; revived and set down in book form by Mao Tse-tung in China (and expanded by Che Guevara in Cuba) in the twentieth.
"Liberation" with the assistance of the agents or dupes of the Soviets in all countries of the West was stage I; after it had reached the point of no return, confrontation was stage II, Lenin and, later Stalin and, still later, Mao Tse-tung and the Peking party, saw stage III as the slaughter in a total revolutionary massacre of all those who had disarmed themselves. Khrushchev, Brezhnef, Kosygin and the Moscow party, saw it as an equally final victory - but by evolutionary elimination of the "will of the West to resist".
Both parties rely upon a military and economic encirclement aided by an ever more intensive propaganda battle within the West itself by infiltrators, other traitors and local dupes.

The war of "revolutionary liberation" has four phases: the first is infiltration and subversion by propaganda, with an accessible funk-hole and refuge over a friendly or indifferent neighbouring border; its associated purpose is continually improved information upon every local item of value attainable in the area; the second is dispersal when the activities set up attract troops - "when the enemy advances in force, retreat" pricking him like mosquito hordes, from every point of his perimeter; thirdly: "when he is exhausted by ineffective counter-attacks and you can deploy sufficient men and arms, select your site and make a frontal attack"; fourthly: "when he runs, follow him up ruthlessly", murdering all his military, civilian or social supporters and consolidating by atrocity and terror what has been gained by direct action.

The function of U.S.S.R. based on "fortress Russia", with a border of satellite confederates, protective but if necessary, expendable, was to neutralize Western Europe, to replace British, American and other powers in Asia Minor (the Middle East); to absorb into the Soviet power bloc the Arab States of all North Africa; to gain Ghana and ports on the Atlantic from West Africa and to reach South America at a strategic time and in a place "ripe for revolution".

The function of the Soviets of the Far East, based on China, with a border of satellite or neutralised states from Korea and Cambodia to Burma was to take over Indonesia; pass east through New Guinea across the Pacific to South America on its western side at a strategic time and place, junctioning with the Russians and their allies and rolling up the country on to Cuba, completing the encirclement of Western Europe and North America. Only one barrier seemed opposed to success; it was impossible to go forward without removing from the flank of their advance the menacing forces south of the Equator in Africa - Rhodesia, Portuguese East and West Africa, South West Africa and the Republic of South Africa.

The date of the first adventure on this plan - the taking over (with the consent of Sukarno) of Indonesia; and (with the consent of Nkrumah) of Ghana, was set for 1965 but Russia now proved more than reluctant.

Khrushchev's opposition to the "revolutionary" as compared with the "evolutionary" plan for the take-over of the western world had led to serious clashes on the 6000 miles Russo-Chinese border from Turkestan to Eastern Siberia and had provoked a grave split among Communists everywhere - nowhere more than in China itself.

Mao Tse-tung, accusing Russia of "deviationism", of "colonialism" in Asia (as the European overlord of Northern Asia and its predominantly Mongol population as far as Vladivostok, the Kamchatka Peninsula and Behring Straits), and of "betraying the revolution" by befriending rather than destroying the West, rejected Khrushchev's claim that Russia's massive industrial and technological advance in half-a-century would be uselessly sacrificed in a new world war, and his warning that Russia might need to resist Chinese border invasions by force.
Mao insisted that there was no Russian monopoly of Soviet leadership; that 750 million faithful Chinese were of more account than 210 million dissident Russians; that Russia's threats were ludicrous since she had not even the resources to police their common 6000-mile border, except by withdrawing from every other frontier; and that China was maintaining the immutable principles of communism and, if deserted, would carry on the battle for world control alone.

Meanwhile he demanded Khrushchev's head (and got it!) and began the ruthless weeding out of Chinese supporters of the "evolutionary heresy" among the Chinese Universities, administrative groups, and Army, one dramatic feature of which was the "cultural revolution" with the "Red Guard" adolescents as its undiscriminating shock troops

Brezhnef and Kosygin, summoned to advise Peking whether they now accepted for the U.S.S.R. the "revolutionary alternative" temporised and were contemptuously told that though Russia had had a change of head, it had had no change of heart. In every country, the fifth column that is the militant "Peking party" - and every country has such a party, occult or overt - Was instructed to grow at the expense of the "Moscow party" of conciliation, though, with typical communist double talk, the lures of "mellowing relationships", "peaceful co-existence", etc. were spread to trap the unwary masses.

But the major essentials - the take over of Indonesia, the assault from Ghana - failed. The officers of the Army, alerted in time, seized power in Ghana during the fatal absence in Peking of Nkrumah; while, in Indonesia (29th Sept. - 14th Oct. 65) they saved themselves by a hair-breadth and, by the greatest and least publicised massacre and counter-massacre in recent history, reversed the process, supplanted Sukarno, rejected "confrontation" with Malaysia, and sought re-entry into the Western ambit of relative security, militarily and economically.

Lin Piao's publication in 1953 of the arrogant plan for world conquest, prepared 20 years earlier, was repeated with increased violence after the communist tentatives in Indonesia and Ghana had failed, the failure was dismissed as immaterial; and an immediate new offensive was announced. "Those who believe China can be defeated", it was said, "would be stupid enough to try to beat back a fog with their hands. The East is Red!"

In the Far East, (which is the Near North to Australians) China considered that the flash point and frontier between East and West in Vietnam (indeed, from Korea to India) was stalemated and represented, for the time, a holding area where propaganda could be relied upon to destroy by attrition in due course the American "will to win". In Africa the subversive activities that had been based on Ghana and Algeria, commencing with the rape of the French Congo (Brazzaville): and the atrocious intervention in the Belgian Congo following Lumumba, the virtual take-over of Sekou Toure's former French Guinea, and the linkage northerly as well as westerly, now were displayed as part of an intense campaign to put a hand right across Africa.

Zanzibar and Pemba were seized and the Arab population virtually exterminated; Tanzania was taken over and its territory used to train terrorists for the invasion of Portuguese East and West Africa itself, while delegations of Chinese appeared not only in all strategically significant African areas, but in the Middle East, and in many parts of South America, which Chou En-Lai had declared, after a series of visits "ripe for revolution".

The U.S.S.R. fighting now to maintain prestige and leadership was forced as China had anticipated, to match or surpass the Chinese image both on the Asian and the African perimeters. She multiplied her assistance to Vietnam and announced that it would be unlimited, if desired; sent missions to the Middle East; and appeared as the protector of the Arab nations that bordered the vital Mediterranean Sea in North Africa, and Asia Minor.

It was at this stage that the Socialist or half-communist Cabinet of Harold Wilson, and Denis Healey (once a leading university exponent of communist thought) tipped the scales towards disaster for the West, by announcing the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from any area east of Suez; abandoned its vital naval bases, revoked its placatory proposals (never sincere) for a chain of island bases across the southern fringe of the Indian Ocean from Australia to the east African coast; and granted "independence" (!) to Mauritius; deserted and left to their fate at the hands of their communist opponents, its loyal friends in Aden and the adjacent areas it had sworn to defend, and, finally, abandoned the pretence of establishing a forward strong post in the Persian Gulf - the last fragment of its blatantly fictitious "defence" programme.
How curious that these manoeuvres should so closely resemble the resolutions taken by the leftist Black Odyssey conference of May 1964, as set out on page 57 of Harold Soref's book, "The Puppeteers"; how startling that they should give Russia complete dominance (after the 6-day war between Israel and the Arab States) of the Mediterranean; control of all the north coast of Africa; control of the Middle East; neutralization of Western naval power; and the access to the Indian Ocean that Russia had vainly sought for 200 years. The Indian Ocean it seems is threatened with absorption into the communist orbit. The Soviets were, by these acts, given almost all they had lost by their defeats in Indonesia and Ghana, and, in some respects, more.
It is unnecessary, perhaps, to mention in any detail the aid and comfort the United Kingdom under its present wreckers, is giving to the enemy in their plans to remove from their flank, the only effective obstacle to their advance - the white man's front line from Rhodesia to Pretoria, from Mozambique to Angola.

I spent all June, 1967, in South Vietnam - one of many visits to South East Asia - and endeavoured to assess the outlook of the Asian leaders and intelligentsia, the factor that is so often overlooked by observers tied to Western views and social concepts. (Social patterns only grow within a community uniquely; if real, they are never exportable; the attempt to explain and apply ours in Asia, is like trying to estimate sunshine in terms of rain.")

In all critical international situations, discussions are like icebergs - only 1/9th is visible and the 8/9ths below the surface may be vastly different in outline. The attempt to force Ho Chi Minh to the conference table is fantastically foreign in the Asian idea of "face" - no Asian can negotiate while losing. It is for that reason the communists demand before negotiation a military victory like Dien Bien Phu or an unconditional surrender by the Americans as shown not by a cessation of bombing but of all acts of war - in fact abandonment of the country and withdrawal from it leaving it to its fate. (as Healey did Aden). It is curious how anxiously the suborned press of the world suppresses this vital fact

The next tenet of the Asian view so far as I could determine it, is a belief that the white man "on the run" as compared with the Asian newly emergent, has no immutable "will to win". The French Army was defeated not in Vietnam, but by the saboteurs in Paris who built up a vast protest against the war in 1954 and by the American refusal of arms to the French Army in the field at their moment of utter emergency. My informants believed that, in the same way, the "will to win" of America could and would be destroyed. The "tic-tac" men from the communist side (Russian) were said to be offering their opposite numbers on the American side (but with a greatly-resented ignoring of the South Vietnamese) the following terms: A complete cease-fire on all fronts - not only in Vietnam; an acceptance with this "package peace", of a policy of "peaceful co-existence" world-wide; an acceptance in principle of a resolution at the approaching General Assembly of the United Nations (November 1967), to be proposed by the Soviets, of a progression toward a "one world government" with an executive selected by the United Nations (The Soviets, on any such issue, already command a majority, possibly a 2/3rd majority, of votes at United Nations). This phoney proposal, already reduced to contempt by the situations resulting from its adoption in the Korean War; in the fiasco in Laos; and in Vietnam itself following the Geneva Agreement of 1954, (never accepted, however, either by U.S.A. or South Vietnam) was intended to evoke a tribute of world wide prestige for Russia on the fiftieth anniversary of the successful Bolshevik revolution of November, 1917.

Khrushchev, talking of propaganda proposals and the West, had once said with scorn: "You spit in their faces and they think it is dew!" The "tic-tac" men considered that however much the military men might recognize that such an agreement was farcical, unreal, and would resolve nothing equitable but would give the Soviets an immense advantage by disarming the West and withdrawing them from Asia - they would never subsequently regain a footing - the public and the press would eagerly seize such a proposition in the wistful hope it might be genuine, and force the Pentagon, in an election year (1968) to agree.

Our side recognized the subtlety of the Soviet assault and its clever timing - the Russians are the best chess players in the world. The proposal was impossible of acceptance, but there was no positive counter-proposal to advance. In the event of blunt refusal, had the Soviets an alternative to propose or a consequence to predict?
The alternative, they replied, was escalation of the war in every area in which an ember could be blown into a flame, and in its three aspects - military, economic and propaganda-wise - from Korea to Kinshasa, from Hong Kong and Djakarta to the race riot areas of the American cities, and from public protest to anarchy in every vital industry.

"Militarily", they were said to argue: "you have the fire power, but what you capture by day, the Viet Cong infiltrate again by night. The guerrilla policy of perimeter attack and dispersal is exhausting your troops, economically you are being bled white - you admit to spending $25 thousand million this year – indirectly you are spending three times as much. Escalation will cut your other jugular whether in Korea, Burma, the Middle East or anywhere where you need to deploy vastly increased numbers of men, ships and material.
As for propaganda, you are simply not in the race. 'World opinion' is the illegitimate offspring of your cult of softness, permissiveness, 'limited warfare' and the double standard for praise and blame for white and coloured - 'every white man has a black heart and a guilt sense; every black man's heart is simon pure - his excesses are forgivable'. This 'world opinion' is ranged 90% against you. . . " They added, it is said: "There is only one proviso Russia will insist upon - whatever terms you accept must smear the face of China and Mao Tse-tung, who have promised the north Vietnamese a mighty victory to end the war by your extermination. We want to end it by agreement to show it can be done equally effectively without loss of blood and treasure.

If you escalate the war alternatively you can only win by bringing China in, and if you do that you bring in the Soviets, because Russia could not stand by and tolerate what would be a massive blow to international communism. But once you had withdrawn, we could deal with China and its nuclear threat and we are the only power on earth that could do so!"

It was obvious America could not suffer the gross humiliation of such a withdrawal, such a surrender. It was obvious nevertheless that propaganda for "peace at any price" had reached such a stage, that the matter needed to be resolved at once or end disastrously.

You all know that America decided to escalate - there was the re-shuffle at the Pentagon and the build up of troops as the reaction to General Vo Nguyen Giap's tremendous attack of Jan.- Feb. 1968 and his demonstration that he could attack when and where he chose; the threat that Khe Sanh could be another Dien Bien Phu; the collapse of the pound sterling; the assault on the dollar - the final fight for world control is joined whether it lasts a year or a decade, or a century!

Among the turmoil there was (and is) one intriguing and perhaps optimistic item.

The bitter Chinese taunt that Russia is the greatest and most virulently tenacious of colonial powers is demonstrably true though this fact is always regarded as blasphemous and violently denied by the leftist Press and fellow travellers. A "colony" is no less a colony, because it shares a common border with the foreign power that rules its people - as Siberia does with Russia.

The Chinese are not "wrecking the unity" of the communist front - their association with Russia (as with all others throughout history) is merely a "liaison of convenience" - a stage on the road to world domination that they feel is their right and their destiny!

How strange - how significant - that the Russian objective, in the final analysis, should be precisely the same world domination - but from Moscow, not Peking, perhaps with Peking as the ultimate enemy, and with the succession to Mao Tse-tung, the elderly ruler of China and her satellites as an ever-more immediate problem.

As is almost routine in high history, many a variable deflects the course of world strategy and it may well be that the struggle our children and grandchildren inherit may be a three cornered conflict. But it is ourselves who leave to them whatever is their legacy, and that is a vital fact that involves us all.

The immediate issue is Vietnam - no local struggle but the flashpoint in the global East-West war to the death - a war that can only be ended by winning it, and winning it in time.

That is why this book of Eric Butler's is so vital and personal a message to all who read it, because its theme for us is the old but absolute aphorism: "He that makes time his friend, has little to fear from his enemies; But, he that makes time his enemy, has little to hope from his friends"!

Brisbane, Q.

R.W. Cilento

© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159