MASS MEDIA'S REACTION TO VERWOERD MURDER

South Africa's Ambassador to Britain, Dr. Carel De Wet, has said something which badly needed saying by someone. Dr. De Wet blamed British newspapers and television for encouraging violence by their handling of the assassination of Dr. Verwoerd. The South African Ambassador's remarks are applicable to the press and television of the whole Western world.

In a press statement commenting on the knife attack on a South African consular official, Mr. Johannes Van Der Poel, in London, Dr. De Wet said:
"The distasteful and, in many instances, the uncivilized way the tragedy of Dr. Verwoerd's brutal assassination was commented on by most of the press, including the British Broadcasting Corporation, television, and also the reaction of some individuals, invites violence of this kind. (the stabbing of Mr. Van Der Poel) To play up and whitewash the knifing of a statesman to death initiates and encourages violence such as we have witnessed at the South Africa House and elsewhere in Britain."
Dr. De Wet might have added that the almost uniform reaction of the world's mass media to the Verwoerd assassination suggests that many of those influential in press, television and radio are determined to foster the concept of violent murder as an acceptable political weapon.

Former South African Communist Solly Sachs expressed the views of the agents of revolution everywhere when he said that he had no regrets about Verwoerd's assassination. Needless to say, the BBC saw to it that Sachs was given adequate publicity.

Whatever the real motives for the assassination of the South African Prime Minister, the deed acted like a signal to revolutionaries and their dupes all around the world. Press, television, and radio commentators followed the Communist lead that Dr. Verwoerd's policies had caused his death, and that now was the time to intensify the international campaign against South Africa. This campaign is now well under way and there is no doubt that it will be intensified as part of the war against Rhodesia.
International Communism is moving in on the vital strategic target of Africa.

AFRICAN SUPPORT FOR SOUTH AFRICA

One of the first messages of congratulations sent to the new South African Prime Minister, Mr. B. J. Vorster, came from an African Prime Minister, Chief Lebua Jonathan of Basutoland. The Basutoland Prime Minister expressed the hope that in the years ahead South Africa and Basutoland would be able to build fruitfully on the foundations laid in Chief Jonathan's recent talks with Dr. Verwoerd, despite their political differences.
Contrary to the creators of "world opinion", Dr. Verwoerd was not the symbol of oppression for the great majority of the African people. He was, in fact openly held in very high esteem by them.

The Moderator of the Dutch Reformed Church, the Reverend J.S.Geriche, stressed in his oration at Dr. Verwoerd's funeral on September 10, that Dr. Verwoerd had been the victim of vicious and lying propaganda.
Evidence of the depths to which some creatures of the mass media will sink, was provided by the expulsion of three British independent television reporters from Basutoland after trying to bribe a Basuto African official to make a derogatory statement about Dr. Verwoerd in a film interview. The official told his departmental superior that he had been offered a bottle of whiskey to make the statement.

NASSER CONTINUES TO SERVE MOSCOW

MR. DOUGLAS WILKIE'S POISONOUS RUBBISH

Mr. "As-I-See-It" Douglas Wilkie is presented by a section of the Australian press as a great oracle on international affairs. On September 14 Mr. Wilkie devoted his column to pontificating on the Rhodesian question. He has dealt with this question in the past, but has never been very strong on facts. And most of his predictions have not been justified by subsequent events. Mr. Wilkie states the obvious when he says the key to the Rhodesian problem lies with South Africa. But then he makes a number of comments, which can only be described as poisonous rubbish.
Of course, "There was an understanding between Wilson and Verwoerd." But the understanding was forced on Harold Wilson by a political leader who was not prepared to yield to threats.
Mr. Wilkie no doubt recalls what happened when Wilson threatened that Britain under his Socialist Government would not supply South Africa with promised Bucaneer planes. So his snide suggestion that Verwoerd was similar to Wilson in not allowing "ideals to interfere with practical politics", is merely a sophisticated form of smearing.
We can inform Mr. Wilkie that Wilson also attempted to put pressure on Verwoerd concerning the flow of oil to Rhodesia through South Africa, and that it was made clear to the British Socialist leader that South Africa had no intention of changing its policies to help the war against Rhodesia.

Mr. Wilkie comments that, "there's good evidence that Verwoerd wrote off Smith as an unreliable upstart." There is no such evidence. The South African Nationalist Government recognised the historic significance of the Rhodesian stand. But mind reader Douglas Wilkie claims that "Wilson recognised that Verwoerd must appease his extremists by letting some oil and financial aid seep into Rhodesia."
This statement is typical Wilkie rubbish.
The Verwoerd Government's attitude towards the Smith Government was clear and unequivocal. It was "business as usual".

The really purple patch of the Wilkie article is the claim that Wilson sent Verwoerd a message a few days before his death, stressing that Britain and South Africa had common interests, that there was a danger of mandatory sanctions being imposed against Rhodesia through the UN, that this would be dangerous for South Africa and "Would Verwoerd therefore bear with Wilson telling the black African States that Britain was ready to impose a tough oil rationing plan, based on the voluntary co-operation of Verwoerd and the major oil companies - so as to stop supplies reaching Rhodesia?".
Mr. Wilkie then makes the comment, "perhaps Verwoerd was on the brink of such an assurance to Wilson."

This is real filth. Even if there were any truth in the Wilkie story about Wilson's approach to Verwoerd, there is no evidence whatever that Verwoerd would consider for one minute supporting a policy, which would destroy South Africa's front line defence.

Mr. Wilkie ends his piece by suggesting that new South African Prime Minister might see economic sense in supporting Wilson. "If so, Mr. Smith will be forced into isolation. He will have no option but to couple Rhodesia's claims to independence with a constitution that guarantees his Africans a growing share in government."

It would appear that Mr. Wilkie's research activities have not taken him as far as the Rhodesian Constitution, which in fact provides the Africans with the very avenue for political advancement, which he mentions. But we have a feeling that Mr. Wilkie is not over concerned about fact.
Biased propaganda, camouflaged as objective commentary, is his specialty.

RHODESIAN HIGH COURT RULING

The press headlined the fact that two Judges of the Rhodesian High Court ruled last week that the Smith Government was not a legal government. There was nothing surprising about the High Court ruling, as the attitude of the Wilson Government forced the Rhodesian Government to declare independence unilaterally. From a strictly legal point of view, the High Court could hardly rule other than it did. But, much more important from the Smith Government's point of view, the High Court ruled that it was the only effective Government of Rhodesia and that those detained under the emergency legislation must remain in detention.
The decision followed an appeal against detention by African nationalist Mr. Daniel Madzimbatu and the well-known lawyer, Mr. Leo Baron.
It is not surprising that the Rhodesian Prime Minister, Mr. Ian Smith, said he was pleased with the High Court's finding.

The very fact that the African nationalist and Mr. Baron were able to appeal to the High Court, and that the Court ruled that the Smith Government was not legal, proves there is no "Police State" in Rhodesia.

PRESS PUBLICITY FOR DR. J.F. CAIRNS, M.P.

ON TARGET BULLETIN
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION : Money

As far as most people are concerned, the basic feature about money is that they never seem to have enough of it! It is surprising how few have really thought about the deeper aspects of money.
Let us start with a simple question: What is money?

In Australia only a short time ago money was, to most people, simply pounds, shillings and pence. But today it is dollars and cents. Obviously Australia's monetary unit has been changed, and given different labels. This proves that money is a man-made instrument. It is not something that cannot be altered.
Perhaps the best definition of money is that it is anything that people will readily accept as purchasing power.
Money therefore has a psychological factor: people must have faith in it. So long as it is accepted, then it is in fact money.

Large numbers of forged notes have on occasions circulated in the community simply because people had faith in these notes. Goods and services change hands with forged notes just as effectively as with legal notes. Over the centuries, money has taken many and varied forms in different countries: leather discs, shells, etc. Obviously notes and coins were a big step forward in the providing of a convenient form of money. Then today we have the most modern and efficient form of money, which is bank credit. The chequebook is a most flexible instrument enabling the individual to write exactly the amount he requires.
The banking system continuously adjusts accounts as cheques are written and banked.

In a modern complex society money is a major essential. But money cannot be considered without price. Price is an aspect of money because this governs what any given monetary unit will buy. Price making then is something, which must be considered if we are to obtain a realistic understanding of the relationship of the nation's monetary system to Government.

The following questions immediately come to mind: Who should create the nation's money supply? The Government; or Private individuals?

And as price is an aspect of money, who should govern prices?
If the answer is that the Government should do this does not that mean Government interference with private enterprise and competition?
But surely the nation's monetary supply must be regarded as a genuine community matter to be handled by the Government.

Money is certainly power today. Centralised Government power is a great danger. But there are some matters, which clearly come within the jurisdiction of Government. Surely money, like scales of measurement, genuine health measures, and similar matters, comes within the scope of Government for at least regulation.

Question: Do you think it is possible for Government to exercise effective control of the money system without using its position to interfere with the legitimate rights of the individual?