AGENTS OF REVOLUTION AT MELBOURNE MEETING

Only firm chairmanship by Mr. John Turner and the platform skill of Mr. Eric Butler prevented the Melbourne meeting on Rhodesia, held in the Assembly Hall last Monday, from being wrecked by Communist agents and their dupes. In spite of the carefully organised opposition, in which a group of Africans participated, the meeting was an outstanding success and resulted in a substantial contribution to the Petrol for Rhodesia Fund. It also provided for many people a first hand example of Communist tactics.

One group of Africans was ushered in by a Communist lady. The Fabian Socialists were also represented. Mr. Butler's early tactics encouraged key agitators to clearly expose themselves. They were then firmly removed by the police. One of these was a well-known Communist from the waterfront. Of particular interest was the photographer from the Communist press who dashed about the hall to take photos any time an incident looked like developing. We have no doubt that this week's Melbourne Communist press will carry photos of the "brutal police" removing freedom-loving citizens from the League of Rights "Fascist" meeting.

Questioned after the meeting, the Africans declined to say which part of Africa they came from. Mr. Butler's references to Ghana, Nigeria and other countries, which have experienced "liberation", and his point that it was the African people who would suffer most if economic war against Rhodesia was successful, clearly confused the Africans. By permitting the Africans to come to the microphone to ask questions, the Chairman deprived the Communists of any argument that the Africans were being discriminated against. It was instructive to note that the Africans attempted to use the opportunity for questions for propaganda purposes. The behaviour of some of the students present was most revealing to other members of the audience. The Melbourne meeting was an extremely valuable exercise from many aspects. It proved one point: the League of Rights is becomingly increasingly feared by the revolutionaries.

AN EXAMPLE OF SENSATIONAL PRESS REPORTING

For some time now, sensational "news" reports have been appearing in Australian daily papers about the American H bomb lost in the sea off Palomeres in Spain. A tomato crop in the area was reported to be ruined by radioactivity and the local population to be terrified out of their wits. The official Spanish news agency has now joined the 2000 USA troops (encamped there to recover the wreckage) in protest against the lies and distortions, which some reporters have been spreading throughout the world.

"The Guardian"(London) quotes the Spanish agency as follows:
"The people of Almeria have heard with a shrug of their shoulders the sensational news written by some reporters. It has been wrongly stated that the detonator of one of the nuclear bombs involved in the accident had exploded, spreading death-dealing rays of radioactivity. It has been stated that entire villages have been evacuated. Every inhabitant of Almeria knows that the villages have not been evacuated."

John Carroll reports from Spain in "The Australian" of February 11:
"A few miles inland in the village of Vera, American officers in one of the cafes gathered in sullen rage round a journalist phoning back his report about panic in the village. 'It is not true' they said. 'Why don't you guys write the truth'?

The Spanish population is more amused than alarmed by the whole business. The by now famous 'ruined tomato crops' look healthy enough with children playing among them. "It is interesting to note that the locals do not believe the reports that three H bombs have already been found by the Americans on land. "No bombs fell on land a Spanish journalist told me, and a plain clothed Guerdia civilian agreed".

A section of the world's journalists have shown that they are prepared, in order to satisfy sensation with hungry editors, or for far worse reasons, to fabricate stories with little or no basis in truth.

THE REALITY OF COMMUNISIM

The report this week that the Viet Cong in South Vietnam is considering killing the American prisoners it holds, is said to have shocked the US administration. The shock to the Americans confirms once again the general failure in the West to admit the obvious fact that Communists are barbarians. The behaviour of the Communist everywhere he has been allowed to assume power has been uniformly barbaric. How do the "Liberal" thinkers in our Universities manage to reconcile their tolerant beliefs with the fact that in Russia this week two Russian writers, who have dared to suggest that their country is not perfect, were convicted and sent to Siberia to serve long prison sentences?

It is small comfort for those who cherish their traditions of Christian justice and morality that these "Liberal" betrayers of Western culture are the first to be eliminated by the Communists when they obtain power. After all Communists are not fools and know the truth expressed by Christ: "If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon who will commit to your trust the true." The dedicated Communist knows where he is going. He has thrown his weight on the side of evil. There should be no surprise therefore that his actions produce suffering, chaos, death and injustice.

TRAITORS IN THE FREE WORLD

It was General Douglas MacArthur, the brilliant American patriot, who observed that it was fatal to enter any war without the will to win it. The modern "Liberals", typified by Walter Lippmann and assorted academics and clergymen with leanings towards the left are doing all they can to see that this will is undermined throughout the West.

Many of these "intellectual" leaders have an unbroken record of support for Communist objectives. Some, like Mathematics Professor Stephen Smale of the University of California, U.S.A., are even sure enough of press support that they openly admit their allegiances. At a recent Berkely, U.S.A., demonstration against the American military intervention in South Vietnam, in which known Communists and Red Professors took part, Smale was interviewed by one really objective reporter, Marguerite Higgins, When asked, "Do you want Peking and Hanoi to win?" Smale replied "Of course!" "It's very simple", said Smale, "we want the Vietcong to defeat the United States for international reasons."

The most significant feature about all the "peace" demonstrations is that they are never directed against Communist aggression, and that they become most frequent when Communist revolutionary forces look like receiving a set-back.

Australian Universities, and the press, are riddled with Smales and Lippmanns vigorously indoctrinating the young and the lazy. The very fact that they can recruit support for their ideological masters through these two channels is evidence of the powerful backing behind revolution. Treachery in the West also extends into many of the so-called bastions of free enterprise, where there is either passive or active support for Communist aims. Very few captions of industry anywhere are lining the front in the struggle against Communism. Some even look with keen anticipation to more trade with the Communist criminals.

INFILTRATING THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH

"To understand the position in the Communist world today, it is necessary to appreciate a number of things. The first is that except for the Baltic States, which were annexed, nearly all of the Communist countries were in a very bad condition when the Communists took over. In a desperate situation, Communism proffered a desperate remedy."

This is an extract from a dangerously plausible article in "The South Australian Methodist" of January 14, by a Mr. Ross Terrill, until recently a tutor in political science at the Melbourne University, but now furthering his studies in the U.S.A. The Terrill article is typical of a development inside the Methodist Church, which is causing many Methodists the greatest alarm. Communism did not come to power in Eastern Europe because the nations were in "a bad way", but because it was imposed by the Red Army. Mr. Terrill makes no reference to the "desperate" efforts of the Hungarians in 1956 - but these were against the Communists. We wonder how many young minds Mr. Terrill poisoned at the Melbourne University. And how many more he may poison in the future.

MR. IAN SMITH'S BLUNT QUESTION TO MR. WILSON

The Rhodesian Prime Minister has taken the initiative against Socialist Harold Wilson, asking him is he a fellow-traveller of the Communist conspiracy, and drawing attention to the fact that while Mr. Wilson's Government is engaged in economic warfare against an anti-Communist Rhodesia, British ships are supplying economic aid to the Communist enemy in North Vietnam through the port of Haiphong. Mr. Wilson has told the Americans that he is strongly opposed to any American bombing of the port of Haiphong. Mr. Ian Field has pointed out that Australians and New Zealanders are being killed in Vietnam fighting an enemy being economically assisted by the Wilson Government. This ugly truth doesn't appear to concern the Australian and New Zealand Governments. They are prepared to support a blockade of friendly Rhodesia, but not of the Communist enemy in Asia.

Australians and New Zealanders might well follow Mr. Smith's lead and ask their Governments are they also fellow-travellers of the Communists. The perilous situation demands Mr. Smith's blunt type of speaking.

"DEMOCRACY" IN NIGERIA

ON TARGET BULLETIN
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION

"Socialism and Communism" · There is a great amount of confusion concerning this subject. Some people who call themselves Socialists also declare their strong opposition to Communism. The truth is, as many Communists have clearly stated, that Socialism is the Communists first objective: State control of the means of production, distribution and exchange. It is claimed that Socialism ultimately leading to pure Communism, when the State "withers away". But all Socialists, and there are different varieties, share one common faith: that the problems of man can only be solved by increasing the power of Governments. Increasing the power of governments automatically lessens the power of individuals. This in turn undermines the individual's belief in the importance of freedom and personal responsibility.

It was the famous Socialist theoretician Harold Laski of the London School of Economics, who said when seeing Stalin that the Communists and Socialists were seeking the same objective by different routes.

"Moderate" Socialism produces conditions, which can be exploited to justify further centralisation of power. Communists invariably support any policy, which centralises power.

Questions: Can Socialism act as a bulwark against Communism? Can Socialism be democratic?