UN BLUEPRINT FOR WAR ON SOUTH AFRICA

"Each of the 114 representatives of the United Nations has in their possession a complete blueprint - worked out to the last detail - for an attack on, and invasion of South Africa. This is a 170 page document, the result of long experience, research and thought by people sponsored by The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in New York and published in March, 1965 ... The publication read calmly and objectively is so astounding and so frightening that one's faith in truth is negative, and one can have no other opinion but that the organisation whose imprimatur is on the title page embraces and encouraged people of unparalleled wickedness." - John Turner in the October issue of Mufti, official journal of the Victorian Returned Servicemen's' League.
Further information concerning those responsible for the infamous blueprint for war on South Africa, is provided in the November issue of The Canadian Intelligence Service, which observes that "It is significant that three of the main contributors to this U.N. document...were top members of the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR.)

This quasi-official organisation was investigated by the U.S.A. Senate Internal Security Sub Committee during 1951 and 1952. It was found that the IPR had planted Communists in key positions in Peking and Washington and had dominated American Far Eastern policies for 15 years.
The Senate Internal Security Sub Committee concluded that the Institute of Pacific Relations was a vehicle used by the communists to orient American far eastern policy toward communist objectives.

Three former members of the IPR played prominent roles in producing the Carnegie Report on South Africa: Joseph E. Johnson, who wrote the document, Professor Vernon McKay, responsible for three chapters, and Professor William 0. Brown, who wrote chapter 2.
Mr. Johnson is President of the Carnegie "Peace" Foundation. No one should be surprised about this. After all America's most notorious Communist agent, Alger Hiss, former top State Department official, first Secretary-General of the United Nations, was also President.

Professor McKay is now director of African Studies at the John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, while Professor Brown is professor of Sociology and director of African Studies Centre, Boston University.
Following the exposure of its pro-Communist activities, the IPR had a difficult time in the U.S.A. and moved to Canada In 1960. Its secretary-general, William L. Holland, was appointed head of the Department of Asian Studies at the University of British Columbia. But ex-IPR members clearly believe that they can now do their most effective work through the UN and its agencies.

Having succeeded in having China conquered by Communism, they are now concentrating on the vital strategic target of Southern Africa. The unforeseen Rhodesian resistance is holding up the assault on South Africa. Therefore Rhodesia must he dealt with first. The UN General Assembly has, by an overwhelming majority, called for force against Rhodesia. The stage is being set for the type of situation envisaged by the authors of the Carnegie blueprint invasion plan of South Africa.

LABOR LEADERS ADVOCATE NATIONAL SOCIALISM

"Federal and State Labor leaders yesterday proposed that the Commonwealth should take control of university financing and coordination, and teacher training. They also agreed that all revenue from fuel taxes should go to road building and proposed a national commission to plan the development of Australia's natural resources. The proposals are part of a six-point scheme to revise Commonwealth-State responsibilities agreed on at the conference in Adelaide..." - The Australian, Nov. 6.

In essence the six-point scheme proposed is that there should be a further drastic concentration of financial power at Canberra, which would use this power for "national planning.

Those who have studied the considered views of Fabian Socialist Mr. Gough Whitlam will not be surprised to find him enthusiastically supporting a programme which would place education, "national development", housing, railways and roads under federal control. The far-reaching implications of the Adelaide conference can be seen by examining point 6 which, as reported in The Australian, reads:
"The financial agreement between the Commonwealth and the States would be recast to give the Commonwealth responsibilities for raising local government finance. All revenue from tax would be paid back to local government authorities as non-repayable grants instead of loans."

If this policy were implemented, it would mean in practice that both the States and Local Government would be completely dominated by the Federal Government. The whole basis of responsible government would be further undermined, with State Members and Municipal Councilors spending monies, which they were not responsible for collecting.
The New South Wales Labor leader, Mr. Renshaw, provided a classical example of double-speak after the Adelaide conference when he denied that the conference decisions would hand more State power to the Commonwealth. "We merely faced the reality because of the enormous influence now in the Commonwealth's hands", he said.
There was no suggestion that this power should be decentralised back to the States and to Municipal Government in order that the individual could have more control over his own affairs.

Mr. Whitlam said after the Adelaide conference "much of what was decided would become policy if Labor became the Federal Government."
That statement should be carefully heeded by those Australians who understand that every step towards more centralised power at Canberra takes Australia closer to the National Socialist State.

SOVIET DETERMINED TO WIN IN VIETNAM

"On the eve of the 50th anniversary of the Communist Revolution, the chairman of the Soviet Communist Party, Mr. Brezhnev, compared the American atrocities in Vietnam to 'the atrocities of the Fascist Brutes."
Brezhnev promised the Soviet Union would keep on giving North Vietnam whatever military assistance it needed until the U.S. with-drew its forces from that country." - James Reston of the New York Times in The Herald, Melbourne, November 6.
Once again the Soviet leaders have left no doubt about their role in Vietnam: it is to fight the Americans by proxy, the Vietnamese doing the fighting, and dying, while the Soviet provides the necessary military and economic aid.

Leningrad celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Communist Revolution in Russia had a harsh anti-American tone. Mr. Dang Tran Thi, a member of the central committee of the National Liberation Front, was wildly cheered by thousands of Communists from around the world when he unfurled a Viet Cong flag and presented it to the city of Leningrad. If James Reston is right, and all the evidence confirms his report

"The Johnson Administration has been very generous in its estimates of Soviet policy in Vietnam over the last couple of years. It has been saying that Moscow is unhappy about the war, wants to end it, but has limited influence on Hanoi, and cannot really abandon a Socialist ally under bombardment by the US.
Accordingly Washington has gone along on the assumption that it could gradually increase the military pressure on Hanoi and force it to settle the war on our terms, and that Moscow would acquiesce in such an accommodation."

The fact that this treacherous nonsense has been accepted in Washington, and presumably at Canberra, provides further frightening evidence of conspiracy. There is no obscurity whatever about Soviet strategy. It seeks to conquer the world. The Marxist-Leninists enter the second half of a century of revolution and subversion even more determined to achieve their objectives than they were in 1917.
So long as the morale of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese stands, and the Americans and Australians continue to reject American military leaders' policies for winning the war quickly, (the first major step being the complete blockade of Haiphong) the Soviet leaders believe they can match every American buildup producing a stalemate during which their propaganda and psychological war can further divide the Western nations and erode the American and Australian will to continue.

The longer the war continues the better from the long-term Soviet viewpoint. And the Soviet is paying relatively little in comparison with the Americans to keep the war going. The Soviet is spending 1000 million dollars a year to sustain North Vietnam, while the U.S.A. is spending thirty times that amount, 30,000 million dollars, to sustain South Vietnam.

PEKING INFLUENCE IN NEW GUINEA

"A Queensland Baptist Evangelist, the Rev. R.E. Jarrott, said here (Christchurch, New Zealand) yesterday that churches in Australia and New Zealand were still largely in the 'horse and buggy' days of Evangelism, although they made 'token use of modern media'... Few people in the church were expert in the use of newspaper, radio or television publicity, he said. 'Peking supplies transistor radios in the jungles of New Guinea which are permanently beamed to Peking. Are we equally up to the minute in supplying the message of the church?"' - The Northern Daily Leader, October 27.

There have been unconfirmed reports for some time of growing Red Chinese influence in Papua New Guinea. But the above is the first definite statement we have seen. The Age, Melbourne of November 6 reports a warning by the Mayor of Cairns, Alderman Fenridge, who states "Enemy spy ships could operate in North Queensland waters without the Australian navy knowing. ...Alderman Fenridge said he had it from 'authentic authority' that more than one Chinese ship has been operating off North Queensland in recent months."
There is no doubt that the Red Chinese are vitally interested in Papua-New Guinea and all surrounding islands.

"EXPERTS" MISLEAD ON COMMUNISM

"It was Lenin…who made the first break with his own orthodoxy. Whatever Mao says, Lenin was the first revisionist. His New Economic Policy restored an element of capitalism to the peasants. It was a wise thing to do and is a minus only in terms of dogma. But Stalin was even more revisionist. Although the Communist International continued to function, Stalin made Russia isolationist. He emphasised Russian nationalism, not communist internationalism, and he used the Red Army, not revolution, to build a protective buffer of satellite states," - Robert Duffield, Foreign Editor, The Australian, November 7.

The above is typical of the columns of misleading comment by "experts" in the daily press on the 50th anniversary of the Communist revolution in Russia. The Marxist-Leninists must be secretly delighted. So far from being "revisionist", Lenin's New Economic Policy was a practical application of Communist dialectics - one-step backwards, two steps forward. When Stalin won out in the power struggle against his fellow Marxist-Leninist, Trotsky, the "experts" of that time hailed this as a great victory for the "moderate" Stalin over the revolutionary Trotsky. As outlined in his basic works, The problems of Leninism and The Foundation of Leninism, Stalin made it clear that his 'nationalism' was another dialectical step to first establish a firm base from which an international revolutionary movement could be built.

Judged by results, Stalin was an outstanding promoter of international revolutionary warfare.
We would suggest that Mr. Duffield and his colleagues brush up a little on the real history of the past 50 years.

EXPANSION FUND OBJECTIVE IN SIGHT

Yes, we can make it! With still only a handful of supporters contributing, the fund has advanced to 15, 470 dollars. Six contributions of 500 dollars or more shows the average contribution has been very high. A member of the armed forces in Vietnam sets an inspiring example with a pledge of 40 dollars for the fund.

Urgent! There is now only ten days left in which to fill the fund. 1000 supporters making an average contribution of only 10 dollars each can conclude the campaign.
Election comment authorised by Eric D. Butler, Alma Road, Panton Hill.