REVOLUTIONARY CLIMAX IN FRANCE

"The red flag of communism and the black flag of anarchy fluttering over the student occupied Sorbonne University have become something more menacing than a symbol of youthful defiance" - The Age, Melbourne, May 21.

France may well be near that point of complete internal collapse which precedes the final takeover by the Communist revolutionaries. The picture painted by the press that such a situation is opposed by De Gaulle could be quite wrong. Opposition to Communism in France has been ruthlessly destroyed by De Gaulle since he obtained power, and his policies have been those of acceptance of the belief that Communism is historically called to rule the world. In the American reprint series The Tragedy of France ($1.13 posted) a conversation between De Gaulle and General Beaufort was republished from the original publication of La Nation Francaise, edited by Pierre Boutang.
In this reported conversation De Gaulle tells Beaufort "The evolution towards Communism is unavoidable… One must be absolutely crazy to try to oppose it. Yet to arrive at her present state, the U.S.S.R. had to go through indescribable suffering".

His subsequent policies of destroying NATO, (military exercises and maneuvers by NATO in France have been banned by De Gaulle, but French and Soviet forces now train together in France! (On Target November 24, 1967) recognition of Red China, his support of North Vietnam indicates that the above conversation has a basis in reality.
De Gaulle demonstrated in Algeria he is prepared to unleash all the terrors of Communist revolution accompanied by the murder of innocents, and the massacre of those remnants opposing Communist rule.

All this was widely understood in the Soviet and explains the hysterical welcome given De Gaulle when he visited the U.S.S.R. in 1966. The French people were tricked into giving De Gaulle dictatorial powers to save them from the political chaos of the late fifties.
The corruption that inevitably results from the concentration of power is now to express itself in its finality.

WALLACE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN GAINS MOMENTUM

In this report from the U.S.A. Mr. Eric Butler deals with the 1968 American Presidential contest: After attending a Wallace rally in Los Angeles, California, I feel that ex-Governor Wallace of Alabama has much better prospects than I thought previously. But the Wallace campaign is like David pitted against the Goliaths of the two major parties, the Democrats and Republicans.
The Wallace campaigners openly, almost cheerfully, admit that they lack large-scale financial support and that they have only a handful of full-time workers at the national headquarters in Montgomery Alabama. But they have plenty of optimism and are confident that coming events will favour the candidate.
I find it most significant that the mass media is attempting to silence all news about the Wallace campaign. Even the tragic death of Mrs. Wallace and her funeral was given comparatively little coverage. Lurleen Wallace was, after all, a State Governor, one of the few women ever to be elected to this position. And she had fought a brave fight against the cancer, which eventually killed her.

There are many complicated barriers to be overcome in the U.S.A. before a new party can get on the ballot in most States. But the Wallace organisers have taken a major step forward by ensuring that Wallace will almost certainly be on the ballot in every State. Only a few weeks ago in Texas, Wallace drew an enormous audience of 70,000 but this was almost completely ignored by the national news media. Wallace is drawing bigger audiences than any other Presidential candidate. I feel that if Wallace is attacked through the news media in the same way that Goldwater was attacked in 1964. Wallace will score heavily, as he is a much more astute and able politician than Goldwater.

Wallace desperately requires national publicity. And he lacks at this stage the necessary finance to pay for it. Wallace must win in the big States like California to have a chance of winning in November.
It is significant that the polls show that he would poll best at the moment against Rockefeller as the Republican nominee.

It is generally agreed that in California there would be a big switch of conservative Republicans to Wallace if Rockefeller were the Republican nominee. He is regarded by most conservatives as a liberal internationalist, very soft on Communism. Large numbers of conservatives fear that if Richard Nixon were the Republican nominee and won, this would be a dangerous development which would lull large numbers of Americans to political sleep. There is a deep distrust of Nixon.

Present indications are that Rockefeller could now obtain the Republican nomination, although there is some evidence that Reagan may yet be a candidate. Many conservatives are losing their faith in Reagan. They argue that his performances as distinct from his statements, merely demonstrate that he is still a great actor!
Robert Kennedy has clearly lost some ground recently. But if he can make a deal with the McCarthy group, he should defeat Vice-President Humphrey.

The large international financial institutions, which raised so much money to defeat Goldwater in 1964, are now engaged in raising money to support the Humphrey campaign. The Kennedy family is already pouring millions of dollars into the election battle.
I am satisfied that there is a large silent vote for Wallace.

Such is the State of America today that there is widespread fear, many fearing even to register as Wallace supporters. The loudest applause at the Los Angeles Wallace rally was for two Negroes who have opened a Wallace office in Watts. The Negro vote for Wallace could prove surprising. But unless a miracle happens, Wallace has only an outside chance of winning. However, if he doesn't many thoughtful and responsible Americans are convinced that their nation faces a greater crisis than the Civil War.

INDIAN PRIME MINISTER IN AUSTRALIA

"India welcomed Australia's growing involvement in the affairs of Asia, the Indian Prime Minister (Mrs. Indira Gandhi) said today - The Age, Melbourne, May 21.

India and Mrs. Gandhi are receiving the usual V.I.P. treatment handed out by the press on such occasions. India is being presented as a friend who could be of some significance in the future when national alignments are sorted out. On her record since "independence", there is little indication that Australia could expect India to be a significant factor in opposing the world forces ranged against the traditional British way of life, which is our heritage. Apart from the hag-ridden nature of her enormous economic and political problems her foreign policy record offers little encouragement to us.

India has placated the Communists whenever possible in the U.N. Her record of opposition towards the British, Portuguese, South Africans and Rhodesia is clear. The British lost nothing by going from India, but left a working civil service and a network of roads, bridges and irrigation channels, not to mention a payment of £500 million sterling in "reparations".

Peaceful and well ordered Portuguese Goa was annexed by military force in the face of every fundamental principle recognising the rights of self government and independence which belonged to the Goanese; which they had made clear they preferred to pursue in association with Portugal.

South Africa and Rhodesia have been castigated continuously by India even though both support a sizeable minority of Indians who are assured of peace and protection under both governments. The fact is that the present tour can be no more than a form of Public Relations exercise which tends to gloss over the realities.
The internal problems of India must be their first consideration.

It has been said that India is incapable of solving her own problems; the sense of national fatalism, despair and ineptitude destroys the national will to do so. The Communists undoubtedly see a situation in India, which can be exploited to their advantage whenever they decide to make the move. Already the Chinese are exploiting the India-Pakistani rift, while the Soviet is ingratiating herself with the Indians. Neither has India's or Pakistan's welfare at heart. They merely wish to maintain the animosity of the two, Pakistan and India, so they can lift the lid off the situation at any time suitable to them.

AFRICAN REALITIES

DELUDING THE WEST : COMMUNIST PRETENCES

"Leaders of East Europe's five remaining hard-line Party regimes have conferred urgently in Moscow on crumbling Communist unity" - Daily Telegraph, Sydney, May 10.

Great propaganda value has flowed to the Communist cause by the deliberately engendered picture of the Communist world collapsing in ruins. There is no doubt the tyranny of Communism must produce reaction and resistance from humanity wherever they are subjected to such barbarity. Even at the cost of great personal danger, and no matter how terrible the consequences, there will always be people who would rather sacrifice life than remain in slavery.
There is a good deal of evidence to lead us to believe there are plenty of such people behind the iron curtain. But whether they have a cohesive leadership and the necessary resources to bring about a successful revolt is quite another factor.

We might start answering the question by asking ourselves from whom would they receive moral and physical support - the West?
How tragically unreal, Czechoslovakia for example.
Could she expect help from France in chaos herself and slavishly implementing Communist policy?
Britain! Whose Government is busy destroying its military defences and physical resources as well as its moral strength, and whose leaders fly first to Moscow when they need advice.
Or America who is busy building bridges of understanding through trade, cultural exchanges etc, as we ourselves are in Australia.

All the real evidence suggests the Communist conspiracy is in full control of the situation, and that they are staging a mock retreat to further lull us into a sense of false security.

BRITISH SHIPPING AND AID TO NORTH VIETNAM

"The British tanker Anco Queen was attacked by Viet Cong today near Saigon and authorities reported the vessel took at least two rockets on her superstructure" - The Age, Melbourne, May 20.

After the many bitter recriminations which have been exchanged over the use of British shipping taking supplies from Hong Kong to Haiphong it is ironic the Communists who have received such a large measure of help from the British should inadvertently turn their guns on a British ship. However we may rest assured that even such an incident as this will not serve to remind the present British Government who are their real friends.

In a recent article in Human Events U.S.A., May 11, Professor Anthony Bouscaren reveals the duplicity of both the British and American Governments over the question of helping maintain the war in Vietnam. Professor Bouscaren, professor of Political Science at LeMoyne College, points out that "in 1943 the American forces operating in South East Asia denied the Japanese the use of the Port of Haiphong by placing 43 mines in the harbour, but no such mining has been allowed in the present conflict".
He points out that 20 per cent of the shipping going to North Vietnam comes from Hong Kong. (The complete article with figures and details will be published in the June issue of Intelligence Survey)

Every ship going into Haiphong helps ensure the ability of the Communists to maintain the casualty rate of our fighting men.

The Gorton Government has every right to insist that the British cease trading the lives of Australian and American servicemen in exchange for Communist gold.