PERTINENT QUESTIONS ON THE LUTHER KING MURDER

"So far no arrests have been made for Dr. King's murder, Mr. Ramsey Clark, the Attorney-General in Memphis, said today that a suspect had been found. Agents had a man on the run, he said. But they were not sure that he was the right man." - The Australian, April 9.

The violent assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King is already having reactions, which are tantamount to panic in the American legislature. Actions, which must lead to a greater inflammation of racial conflict, and pose important questions related to Dr. Luther King's murder. The highly controversial Civil Rights Bill being debated in the House of Representatives was passed with little debate after weeks of indecision in the committee stages. The Bill provides stiff penalties for persons intimidating or injuring civil rights workers and introduces "open housing", making it unlawful to refuse the sale of homes in a white community to Negroes.
It is highly doubtful that such a Bill, which must increase race friction, would have passed had it not been for the emotional impact of the nation-wide hysteria resulting from Luther King's assassination.

The rules committee chairman in the House of Representatives, Representative W. Colmer was reported in The Australian April 11, as saying he saw a definite connection between the assassination and the passage of the legislation. Answering the allegation that he and his committee, and the House of Representatives were legislating under the gun, he said, "I don't think there's any question about it. Thursday afternoon, before the Martin Luther King assassination, the leadership did not have the votes to pass the Senate Bill. On the contrary it would have gone to conference."

Our Canadian edition of On Target, April 8, asks some pertinent questions.
Who planned and who executed the assassination? In the case of the Kennedy tragedy, an incredible chain of events beclouded this aspect. Is this to be repeated?
Why have Dr. King's early associations with Communist groups been concealed from the public? And why have the press not published the fast-and-loose game he has played in recent years with certain Black Power elements?
Why was it that everywhere Dr. King went with his campaign of "non-violence" the immediate result was so often violence and lawlessness?
Why are Stokely Carmichael, Rap Brown and other revolutionaries who openly organise to burn and destroy America and violate the law and the Constitution every day of the week, not dealt with according to the law of the land, as other non-revolutionary Americans would be?

CANADA'S FIRST MARXIST PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Eric Butler reports from Canada on the amazing election of Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau as the new Canadian Liberal Party leader and the next Canadian Prime Minister:

"The election of Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, 46 year old wealthy bachelor radical, as the youngest Liberal Party Prime Minister in Canadian history, has demonstrated the frightening power of the modern mass media. There is no argument that Mr. Trudeau, only elected to the Canadian House of Commons in 1965, won the Liberal leadership at the recent convention primarily because of the nation-wide campaign of support through the mass media. Those who masterminded this campaign have been named by Social Credit Member Robert Thompson as the same 'far-out' CBC personnel responsible for TV programmes, which disgusted large numbers of Canadians.
"The most incredible feature of the Trudeau campaign was the contemptuous attitude towards what appear to be well documented charges of Mr. Trudeau's pro-Communist background. This question is going to become the basis of a decisive national debate.
As yet many Canadians have flatly refused to believe that Mr. Trudeau wrote of Chinese Communist leader Mao Tse-tung as a 'superb strategist', and that he and fellow Socialists joined the Liberal Party to advance Socialism.

Previously Mr. Trudeau 'had supported the NDP, the openly-declared Socialists, and in campaigning against the Liberals in 1963 described them as 'idiots.' Some feel that in view of what has happened, Mr. Trudeau is quite correct:

"In a statement in the Canadian press on April 9, the federal secretary of the NDP said that Mr. Trudeau 'expressed his political philosophy in terms identical to those of the New Democratic Party … it is comforting to the NDP that the prime minister designate is following the practices of his predecessors in borrowing CCF and NDP ideas.'
This statement indicates that the NDP Socialists are confident that Mr. Trudeau will advance Socialism through the Liberal Party.

"The decisive moment in the Trudeau campaign came at the Liberal Party Convention - an orgy of American-type ballyhoo which I hope is never introduced into Australia - when Finance Minister Mr. Mitchell Sharp announced that he was withdrawing from the contest to throw his support behind Mr. Trudeau. This announcement gave Mr. Trudeau the backing of a man generally regarded as sound and conservative. It damaged those striving desperately to have publicised and accepted Mr. Trudeau's long record of pro-Communist activities. But a press report of April 9 states that Mr. Sharp's approach to economic problems is similar to that of Mr. Trudeau, both having attended the London School of Economics. Both then have come under the influence of Fabian Socialism.

"It is clear that the election of Mr. Trudeau as Prime Minister marks an event of great historical importance. It remains to be seen whether Mr. Trudeau can successfully apply his Socialist ideas as outlined in his own writings, and then win the next Federal Elections against the Progressive Conservatives.

One thing appears clear: The Trudeau victory will seriously damage the NDP, many of its supporters now voting for the Liberals led by their former idol, while more conservative Liberals will turn to the Progressive Conservatives. Canada faces a period of great crisis."

"MANCHESTER GUARDIAN" ADVOCATES FORCE AGAINST RHODESIA

"…the British Government, in spite of all its scruples and anxieties, ought to make up its mind to the use of force."
What force and where?
In the past the Guardian, along with Mr. Jeremy Thorpe and others, has advocated bombing the oil supply lines inside Rhodesia. That would have been a cheap and simple way to make the oil blockade effective…but its effect would have been slow. Today, faster and more direct action is required. Today, the Government ought to carry out the direct invasion…This means the rapid build up of an assault force in East Africa: and it must be an assault force strong enough to be sure of success. It means also the use of carrier-borne Buccaneers to neutralise the Rhodesian air force at the start. An invasion will be resisted. But, if adequate force is seen to be deployed, the resistance will not last long." - The weekly special airmail edition of the Manchester Guardian, England, March 14, 1968.

The above is a sickening example of the type of action being advocated against Rhodesia, not only by the Communist criminals but also by those who claim to speak in the name of enlightenment and progress. The Manchester Guardian is, like the New York Times, held up as a mouthpiece of modern liberalism. But it is this very liberalism, which is playing such a vital role in eroding what little sanity remains in the modern world.
Its supporters were well described by Edmund Burke the great British statesman, philosopher and historian:

"They appear tame, and gentle and loving, even caressing. The slightest severity of justice made their tender flesh creep. The very idea that war existed in the world disturbed their delicate sensibilities and their repose. All this while they plotted the massacres and the confiscation we have seen, and will see:"

Burke might have been describing those who are opposed to violence against the Communists ("forces can solve no problems") while advocating force against Rhodesia. They weep tears when brutal murderers in Rhodesia are hanged and speak in the hypocritical language of Harold Wilson, who talks of the Rhodesian Government operating "in the shadow of the gallows."
The issue of the Manchester Guardian from which we quote has a cartoon of Ian Smith running along with a shovel erecting a line of gallows. The inscription underneath is "The road to independence."

The road to Rhodesian independence was started back in 1923 when the Rhodesians by referendum decided not to become a province of South Africa. From the beginning Rhodesia has had for all practical purposes internal self-government. Rhodesians thought that when they voted for the 1961 constitution they were voting for complete sovereignty. Constitutional government has been the feature of Rhodesian development, along with the rule of law and an independent judiciary. To claim that Rhodesian society operates "in the shadow of the gallows" reveals the depths of viciousness to which journals like the Manchester Guardian will descend.
But we should be thankful that we have been warned about the real nature of the breed of modern liberals.

The Communists may be contemptuous of them, but they know their value as a corroding influence in society, softening it up for the eventual Communist kill. Communist strategists know that a stable and civilised Rhodesia is a barrier to their plans to obtain control of South Africa. But they are relying upon those who think like the Manchester Guardian to remove the barrier for them, people like Canadian Minister for External Affairs, Paul Martin who states that the Smith Government in Rhodesia must be "smashed"
This is all music to the ears of the Communists.

COMMONWEALTH LITERARY FUND

SUBSIDISING THE RADICALS

"Tony Morphett, Craig McGregor, and Thomas Keneally are writers working mainly in the chancy field of fiction… all they have in common is that each . . .. Helped by the Commonwealth Literary Fund, is working full time at writing. - Sandra Hall. The Bulletin, March 30.

The Commonwealth Literary Fund, inaugurated by the Liberals under Sir Robert Menzies donates taxpayer's funds to help "struggling" young Australian writers. Some of the Liberal Government's "generosity" (how easy it is to spend other people's money!) were Judah Watch and the late Vance Palmer, to name two. The former, a member of the Communist Party and a regular contributor to the Communist Guardian, gained a great deal of "respectability" from being accepted as an Australian writer. Such respectability enabled his works to be used in senior school English classes, carrying with them his class warfare theme.
Vance Palmer was also the darling of the leftist press and those literary critics who saw him as a great protagonist of "social" causes. That his social causes were strongly Marxist also were never mentioned as such.

Some of the "social" causes of our new batch of struggling young writers carry a similar imprimatur. Tony Morphett referring to the hero of his new novel, says, "One of his professors gets involved in McCarthy type persecution just as Socrates was condemned for corrupting the youth of Athens." The accusers of Socrates like the late Senator Joseph McCarthy did not approve of anti-patriotic homosexuals. Anyone wanting to know how Socrates corrupted the youth should read Plato's dialogue Symposium.
Another of the writers, Thomas Keneally was commissioned to write the play Childermas by the Australian Committee of Responsibility for the Children of Vietnam. Shielah Rowley described as Acting Treasurer. ACORFCOV, writes, Nation March 30, page 16,
"we did not attempt to dictate to Mr. Kenneally how to treat the subject. We can see now he served our cause in a far more subtle way than we could ever have proposed."

Finally Craig McGregor was in 1966 one of the two editors of Comment a magazine which makes sophisticated Marxist journals such as Outlook and Arena look lilywhite by comparison. Sponsored by the Commonwealth Literary Fund and the Myer Foundation, a Writers Retreat is to be held at the University of New England from 19th May to 1st June, The Australian March 30. 1968.

For the fifteen young authors selected, free board, accommodation and informal tuition will be provided. One of the tutors will be Judah Waten! Is this another twist to the Lenin dictum that we would buy the rope by which to hang ourselves?