KNOPFELMACHER CASE RAISES WIDER ISSUES

There is no doubt whatever that the Sydney University professorial board rejected Dr. Frank Knopfelmacher's application for a senior lectureship in the philosophy department because of Knopfelmacher's anti-Communist activities at the Melbourne University. Dr. Knopfelmacher has not only been victimised; he has been smeared.
The Knopfelmacher case raises many issues of great public importance. The manner in which Dr. Knopfelmacher's application was rejected provides yet one more frightening example of the manner in which a majority of passive non-Communists can be manipulated by a minority of pro-Communists.

Dr. Knopfelmacher has made the allegation that he was not the first Australian academic to be refused an appointment because he was an anti-Communist. In a letter to The Australian of April 21 Dr. John Polya of the University of Tasmania, speaking from ten years' experience on a professorial board, claims that it is a "myth" that Australian Universities "are independent, tolerant, appreciative of criticism and free from racial, sectarian and political prejudice". (Polya became a "controversial" figure when he dared to expose and oppose the totalitarian policy of compulsory mass medication known as fluoridation - see his book, "Are We Safe?" available from The Heritage Bookshop, 273 Little Collins Street, Price 17/-, post free).

Not only lecturers have been victimised in Australian Universities because of their political views; students have also suffered. The much-vaunted "academic freedom" does not appear to apply to students who dare to take a strong conservative stand against the totalitarian Leftists. It is high time that Australian taxpayers, who are being called upon to provide an increasing flow of financial support for Australian Universities, started to ask some searching questions about what is happening in these institutions. How much objective teaching is there in the spheres of history, economics and political science? What about the text-books recommended?

A thorough investigation should be made by an independent body representing the taxpayers. A start could be made with the Knopfelmacher case. The evidence we possess leaves little doubt that the Sydney campaign against Dr. Knopfelmacher was master-minded by two men, Professor W. Christiansen and Mr. E. L. Wheelwright.

It was cleverly suggested that because of Dr. Knopfelmacher's strong anti-Communist views, he would as a lecturer in philosophy find it hard to present an objective analysis of Marx and Engels. But how objective are Professor Christiansen and Mr. Wheelwright? Both have long pro-Communist records.

Professor Christiansen is a brother-in-law of Mr. Ted Hill, who leads the pro-Chinese faction of the Communist conspiracy in Australia. He has not long returned from a trip to Communist China, where he was the official guest of the Communist Government.

We do not happen to agree with many of the views of Dr. Knopfelmacher, who has criticised the Australian League of Rights and its National Director, Mr. Eric Butler. But we strongly support his right to justice, and trust that an outraged public opinion will help ensure that justice is done. And that pro-Communist activities in Australian Universities are investigated - even if this provokes howls about "McCarthyism"!

DANGEROUS NONSENSE FROM ANGLICAN ARCHBISHOP

The Most Rev. George Appleton, Anglican Archbishop of Perth, W.A., was one of the Anglican Bishops who signed both letters to the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, urging him to use his influence to stop the fighting in Vietnam. We regret to record that Archbishop's Easter message, as reported in The West Australian of April 19, indicates that his Grace knows as little about the birth and history of Communism as he does about Communist strategy and tactics in South-East Asia.

He is also fuddled in his thinking, as witnessed by his statement that "We live in a land of plenty that could feed millions more if we had the will and the brotherhood to allow them to come in and help us".

As the eminent world authority on agricultural economics, Professor Colin Clark, has pointed out, a great amount of nonsense has been spoken about two-thirds of the people of the world starving. Clark has estimated that probably ten per cent, are suffering from genuine malnutrition, and that most of these are in India and China. India suffers food shortages primarily because of the predominant religion, and China because of Communism.

Archbishop Appleton said, concerning Communism, that "If the Church had been awake to the social injustices that existed 120 years ago, Marx would not have thought the only hope lay in militant Communism and violent revolution".
We are not going to attempt to defend the sad deficiencies of the Christian Church, either in the past or today. But to suggest that Karl Marx was merely a "social reformer" who turned to violence because of the apathy of the Church, is a complete falsification of history.

There is nothing very original in any of Marx's economic or sociological theories, most of which he plagiarised from earlier Socialists. His only claim to originality is his philosophy of "dialectical materialism". In essence, Marx taught that violence is the midwife of all true progress. Marx was a man of hate, and his private correspondence with his collaborator, Engels, is revealing of this "social reformer's" true nature.

If Bishops are going to speak about the Communist challenge, and we believe they should, then their first duty is to make certain that they understand the subject. This will ensure that they are not reported favourable in the front pages of Communist newspapers.

SMITH GOVERNMENT WINNING IN SOUTHERN RHODESIA

Mr. Ian Smith, Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, has demonstrated what can be achieved by sheer will and a refusal to accept the doctrine of inevitability. Slowly but surely he has increased the basis of his support amongst both Europeans and natives. Mr. Peter Grose, a news correspondent in London, is reported in The Australian of April 17 as stating that "Britain has lost the battle for Rhodesia".

Correction, Mr. Grose: The refusal of the patriotic Southern Rhodesian, Mr. Ian Smith, to hand over his country to Communist-directed groups masquerading as "African nationalists", means that (temporarily, at least) Britain has won the battle for Southern Rhodesia. The Soviet aligned section of the "British" Socialist Labor Party is not Britain.

Mr. Grose admits that Britain is unlikely to use force against Southern Rhodesia, and goes on to say that: "The situation in Rhodesia is not comparable with that of previous rebelling colonies in that the rebels control the army, air force and policy".

To label as "rebels" a properly elected Government, many of whose members served with great distinction to help Britain in the war against Hitler's Germany, and who ardently wish to remain British, avoiding the savagery and degeneracy of such regimes as Kenya and Ghana, is dialectic word murder. Mr. Grose trusts that Mr. Harold Wilson will be able to persuade Commonwealth countries to impose an economic and political boycott of Southern Rhodesia in the event of the Smith Government, following its certain sweeping success at the coming elections, being forced to assume complete independence.

Australians must urge their Government to resist any such betrayal of a fellow loyal member of the British Commonwealth. Once the Smith Government demonstrated that "world opinion" and "winds of change" were not going to prevent them from taking firm steps against the African revolutionaries, who were terrorising their fellows, the great majority of Africans in Southern Rhodesia have rallied behind the Smith Government.

With the sympathetic assistance of at least the Crown Dominions and Britain, the Smith Government can not only halt the Communist drive southwards in Africa, but can demonstrate a successful example of co-operation between the European and African.

VIET CONG TERROR IN SOUTH VIETNAM

Press reports on April 14 of the murder of Joseph Grainger, an American civilian hostage, by the Viet Cong in South Vietnam, highlights yet again the immoral nature of the Communist conspiracy. A U.S. Spokesman said that "this brutal murder of an unarmed civilian, weakened by hunger and unable to defend himself, is a violation of international law and accepted humanitarian principles".

Blackmail, through the holding and killing of hostages, is a recurring feature of all Communist regimes. It is the method used to ensure the return of prisoners allowed outside the iron curtain. The group of Anglican Bishops, and others in positions of influence, who have allowed their names to be used to condemn Western efforts to prevent this immoral force from conquering South-East Asia, are either ignorant of, or ignore these facts. They seem to be more swayed in their indignation by the publication of unverified "atrocity" photographs in the daily papers. It is more than coincidental that there has been a rash of such photos recently.

In a letter to The Australian of April 13, Nguyen Hoan of the South Vietnam Embassy condemned the editoral comment on one of these photos as "snide" and questioned their authenticity. He showed convincingly how it was impossible for one photo to be authentic. He then said that the South Vietnam Embassy could supply authentic photos of Viet Cong actions, though he feared that their publication might offend normal standards of decency.
It is strange that this side of the story is rarely included by the daily mind conditioners.

We would suggest that the Anglican Bishops consult Mr. Nguyen Hoan or some other alternative source to the selective editors before writing any more letters on the subject of South Vietnam.