UGLY INCIDENT AT MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY

The organised demonstration against Mr. Eric Butler, when he spoke on Rhodesia at the Melbourne University last week, was one of the worst of its kind yet seen at an Australian University. The shower of missiles thrown at Mr. Butler reflects the growing revolutionary spirit in Australian Universities. Also disturbing was the determination not to permit Mr. Butler to present the case for Rhodesia.
From the moment Mr. Butler appeared in the packed lecture hall, there was constant uproar and a torrent of abuse. It would be silly and dangerously misleading to call these students Communists. But, as Mr. Butler said, they are the raw material of revolution because their view of law and order and academic freedom has been so warped that they believe they are justified to act like young thugs to prevent the presentation of any point of view, which is contrary to what they believe as progress.
It is not so much the University students who are to blame for what is happening in Universities today, but those in authority in the Universities.

If the free world is to survive, drastic action is necessary to ensure that a start is made to stop the poisoning of the minds of the leaders of tomorrow. Unless this can be done, the future for genuine freedom looks extremely bleak. A start can be made by more Australian parents equipping themselves with an understanding of what they, as taxpayers, are subsidising in the Universities.

ANOTHER UNIVERSITY RIOT

Brief reports appeared in the Australian press this week about the suspension of thirty-one students from Rhodesia's multi-racial University College. Twenty-nine of those suspended were Africans. Press reports stated that those suspended "were involved in demonstrations during the presentation ceremony". But they did not mention that the "demonstrations" consisted of foul abuse, spitting and an attempt by physical means to prevent the three principal guests, two Rhodesian Cabinet Ministers and the visiting principal of Cape Town University, (Dr. J. R. Duminy) from attending the ceremony.
European students had to form a protective cordon for the guests.

We have no doubt that the action taken against the rioting students at the Rhodesia University will be used by anti-Rhodesian smearers as further evidence of "policy-state" methods in Rhodesia.

NO-WIN WAR CONTINUES IN VIETNAM

Premier Nguyen cao Ky must find his American allies frustrating. He states the obvious truth that in order to defeat Hanoi it will be necessary to invade North Vietnam. The American policy makers in Washington immediately dissociate themselves from Premier Kys' policy.
They continue to made it clear that they are persevering with their no-win policy under the vague formula of forcing Hanoi to the conference table.

When President Johnson at long last permitted some American bombing of oil installations around Hanoi and Haiphong, some thought that under the pressure of mounting American public opinion, America was moving to a definite win programme. But it is now clear that much more pressure will be required for such a programme to be got under way and carried through.

Recently returned from Vietnam, "Chicago Tribune" aviation editor Wayne Thomis reports on his experiences in Vietnam, where he flew as an observer on combat operations. He states that many important strategic targets in North Vietnam are still protected on the orders of President Johnson.
"We finally did strike at the oil storage depots" says Thomis, "but there are about five airports around Hanoi and we haven't touched them although our pilots have seen twin-engine bombers and Soviet MIG fighters on them.
The electric power plants have been spared. We have never mined or bombed the port of Haiphong, though our pilots fly so near foreign shipping there - much of it under the flags of our supposed allies - that photographs could be taken from on deck."

Unless there is some realistic thinking about the Vietnam question before much longer, the type of war in which Australians, New Zealanders and Americans are engaged could prove a tremendous victory for International Communism.

The basic weakness in the American approach is the insistence that there should be no formal declaration of war upon North Vietnam. In the absence of a formal declaration of war, the Australian, New Zealand and American public are left open to the confusion of all types of Communist psychological tactics. And the concept of total victory never arises. The result is that the greatest single military and economic power in the world, planning to put men on the moon in a few years, apparently cannot defeat a small, tin-pot part of Asia run by a hated and inefficient Communist Government.

In a major address on Communist strategy in 1961, Khrushchev said:
"In modern conditions, the following categories of wars should be distinguished: world wars, local wars, liberation wars and popular uprisings." He ruled out "world wars" and "local wars" as being too dangerous. But in referring to what he called "liberation wars", he mentioned Vietnam saying, "It is a sacred war. We recognise such wars...."
In other words, Vietnam is a test case for Moscow's current strategy, and the Viet-cong are but an extension of that strategy.

But instead of accepting the truth that the Moscow strategists, aided, of course, by their blood-brothers in Peking, must be defeated, the American policy makers have tried to pretend that they are "mellowing", the result being that while Australians, New Zealanders and Americans die in a type of jungle war that could go on for years, increased economic aid from North America, and Australia, is supplied to help the Moscow criminals.
This policy of suicide is euphemistically termed "building bridges of understanding".

The first step towards winning the war in Vietnam should be a formal declaration of war on Hanoi. If American policy makers react to this proposal by claiming that it might bring them into direct conflict with Peking, or Moscow, then let it be openly admitted that the real reason for the no-win policy in Vietnam is fear of upsetting the master strategists behind International Communism.

MR. HAROLD WILSON'S MASTERS

An interesting comment on Britain's financial restrictions: "Once again the screeching of brakes, the scorching of tyres, the jolt and perk. Bank rate at 7 percent is almost the highest in our peacetime history. Have they not learnt by experience? Have they forgotten the devastating words of the Radcliffe Report about over-reliance on monetary policy?
The Chancellor... has satisfied the international bankers by massive masochistic and irrelevant cuts in Britain's standard of living."
Who said this? No other than Harold Wilson himself - criticising the Conservatives in 1961!

It is rather ironic that while little Rhodesia, to be beaten to its knees by Harold Wilson's economic sanctions, and besieged by all the forces of International Socialism and International Finance, has announced business as usual and no taxation increases in the recent Budget. Mr. Wilson is imposing economic hardships upon the British people in an endeavour to placate the very International Bankers he had attacked only a few years previously. And, of course, he is now the victim of the very Fabian Socialist financial policies he has supported all his life.

Many legitimate criticisms have been leveled at the British economy, but the fact cannot be disputed that British production in all spheres has been substantially increased in recent years. British farmers are now growing the major part of the British food supply. If the British economy is wrecked, it will only be because of revolutionary financial policies.

"The Australian" of July 23 mentions a group of International Bankers in Switzerland (known in the British papers as the "Gnomes of Zurich") who are high pressuring Mr. Wilson. They are reported to have given Britain a month to prove itself, the implication being that if Britain does not meet the demands being made, there will be drastic action.
The "Gnomes of Zurich" are the same group which fell in line to restrict the international transactions of Rhodesia.

One of the primary aims of the international revolutionaries is the breaking up of the British family of nations and the destruction of Britain. It would appear that the bailiffs are about to try to move in on Mr. Wilson. Perhaps he could call Mr. Ian Smith for some assistance!

THE STRANGE CHALLENGE TO D.J.KILLEN, MP

Although Liberal MP, Jim Killen is one of the best informed and most consistent anti-Communist in the Federal Parliament, there are individuals at work within the DLP attempting to defeat Mr. Killen at the coming Federal Elections by depriving him of DLP preferences. The criticism of Mr. Killen appears to echo the rather dangerous view of Mr. B. A. Santamaria's "News-Weekly" on Rhodesia.
"News-Weekly" of May 4, for example, said that Australia should not become involved in the Rhodesian issue, which was described as "this purely African controversy". Australia "should avoid any gesture which might cause offence in South Asia - which does concern us - as an expression of racialism."

In other words, Australia should do nothing to halt the expansion of Communist global strategy in the vital strategic target of Africa. There are some strange influences within the DLP.

ANNUAL DINNER & SEMINAR