STUDENT REVOLUTION

"I believe a small group of students - 250 at the most is conducting a deliberate and callous campaign to wreck Monash University as it now exists" - Alan Trengrove, in The Sun, Melbourne June 24.

The eruption of political revolutionary activity in Australia's Universities parallels similar activity in America, France, Germany and England. All key countries in what many observers believe to be the final round in the fight for civilisation against the advance of material barbarism, the main expression of which is International Communism.
The main figures involved openly advance the cause of revolutionary Marxism.

As Trengrove reports when speaking to Michael Hyde, (son of Methodist Minister, Rev. Dudley Hyde) who was wearing his Maoist and National Liberation Front badges; Hyde said, "The university is a means of revolution".

A few weeks previously another cleric, Rev. J.P. Stevenson, amongst those many mis-leaders in the Church these days, tarnished the memory of true patriots when speaking at a service at the Shrine for the Dunkirk Veterans Association, he praised so-called Student Protests, saying "At Dunkirk we were protesting against those who sought to lead all Europe in the wrong direction.... Today, this august task of protest has passed into other and younger hands - the hands of students"The Sun, June 3.
We have no doubt where the Michael Hydes and his ilk would have been in the dark days of 1940, had Dunkirk been another Vietnam with the welfare of the Communist world state an issue.

The "Student Power" we are witnessing in the Universities is the fruit of many years of the destructive inroads of Fabianism in one form or another, whose policy was permeation, resulting in force and revolution as Whittaker Chambers in our "Thought for the Week" clearly points out. The key factors are the concentration and irresponsible use of power, financed by the victim - the taxpayer. The result is spiritual death, but not only in the Universities but amongst those whom the State uses as the host body for its parasitic feeding.

The first step towards rehabilitation of our Universities is to re-establish the principle of responsible financial control through the parents of would-be students. Having been stripped of their independence through taxation, parents can no longer control and select their children's educational programme, nor their activities. Such responsibility would soon lead to a challenge to the dark forces amongst the professorial and tutorial staff now corrupting the minds of the young.
Through responsibility and freedom there is a return to reality, which has spiritual foundations.

The issues involved at our Universities were aptly pinpointed by C.H. Douglas when he wrote, "Socialism, Communism and Atheism are all of a piece, as are Christianity, private decentralised property and respect for family tradition as part of respect for the individual. There is no compromise possible - either there is no Christ, or Socialism and Communism are of the devil. The essence of them, with out exception, is that the group giveth and the group taketh away: blessed be the name of the group. Anyone with experience of life knows that the group giveth; yes, in exchange for the soul".

In today's Universities we are witnessing the full expression of group culture.

DO CANADIANS FACE THREAT TO FREE SPEECH?

Mr. Eric D. Butler is at present covering the Canadian Federal Elections. He provides the following report on one aspect:

While in Vancouver recently I was shown a letter written by a prominent Liberal Party delegate to the conference, which elected Mr. Pierre E1liott Troudeau as party leader, and Prime Minister. The letter was to a young married woman who had merely asked some courteous questions about Mr. Trudeau's background. She was astonished to receive a most abusive letter ending with the threat that people like her would be dealt with when certain legislation was introduced at Ottawa, and that she had better now consider her past record.
The lawyer's letter clearly referred to proposed legislation to prevent the distribution of "hate" literature in Canada.

During the Canadian election campaigning there has been a massive press, radio and TV campaign against all those distributing literature outlining Mr. Trudeau's background. There has been widespread reference to "hate-mongers" and suggestions that it must be stopped. I find that there is widespread apprehension that this could happen. My attention has been directed to a recent attempt at a Canadian Mayors' Conference to have a resolution carried urging the Federal Government to enact proposed legislation to deal with "hate" literature. When the last Canadian Parliament was brought to an end, a special Senate Committee to Study Hate Propaganda was taking evidence concerning the proposed legislation, known as Bill S-5.
It is clearly based upon similar proposed legislation attempted in the United States, indicating that there is an international campaign being developed to attack conservative anti-Communists by describing them as "hate mongers."

In the proposed Canadian legislation there is no definition of hate propaganda, The Bill starts by stating that genocide must be opposed. Every sane person agrees with this. But even this could be dangerous, as the Americans have been charged with practicing genocide in South Vietnam. The individual charged would have to prove that he was innocent, thus reversing the traditional British concept of justice. An individual could find himself involved in expensive and exhausting litigation, thus silencing an individual for a lengthy period of time.

There is a widespread view in Canada that the proposed legislation is directed mainly at Mr. Ron Gostick and his Canadian Intelligence Publications, which have become such a thorn in the side of the Communists and their allies. Particularly disturbing has been the role of the Political Zionists who by their aggressive opposition to Mr. Gostick's work create the impression that they are working hand in glove with the Communists - even if this is not true.

In studying the massive Canadian campaign against the "hate-mongers" I have been struck with the evidence of the application of the Communist principle of reversal: charging your opponents with what you are doing yourself. It is true that there are real hate-mongers: there are, for a start, the Communists, who preach hatred and violence in their propaganda. Mr. Gostick and his supporters have been termed "sick", which surely is a gutter type, of abuse. But I can find no evidence that anyone has proposed to outlaw Communist hate literature.
As for really "sick" literature, dealing with every form of violence, sex and other perversions, the bookstalls are full of it. The opponents of conservative anti-Communist "hate" literature express no concern that the flood of pornography and perversion is directed primarily at immature teenagers.
When this matter is mentioned the cry goes up that there must be no interference with free speech!

WHITHER FRANCE?

"President de Gaulle's supporters appeared headed today for an overwhelming majority in the French National Assembly after strong gains in the first round of the national elections"… Frightened by weeks of student violence and nation-wide strikes in May, the French people heeded President de Gaulle's theme of 'Gaullism or communism' and elected 142 of his followers yesterday" - The Age, Melbourne, June 25.

Trying to anticipate future developments in France is a risky undertaking. If de Gaulle is genuine in his announced revulsion of Communism it will be a true reversal of form. There are some indications that he may be sincere. His recent release and pardon of 14 members of the French Army whom had been imprisoned for life may be an indication of sincerity. Men such as General Roul Salan, the most highly decorated officer of the French Army, and Colonel Antoine Argoud led popular opinion against de Gaulle when he turned over Algeria to the Communists. Such men were dangerous to de Gaulle and had to be removed. To win the elections just concluded de Gaulle released his former enemies and appealed for the "reconciliation of all patriots" for the elections on June 23.
His Prime Minister, Georges Pompidou has specifically urged "those who had opposed General de Gaulle's Algerian policies" to support him now.

As all such men are proven anti-Communist fighters, it could be a genuine attempt by de Gaulle to compensate for past policies. However, so many times in the past he has used with equal facility words of an equal depth of sincerity and appeal, which only precluded another act of treason. Should he show in the future an equal zeal to eliminate the communists as he did General Salan and his fellow patriots in the past, then this will determine his sincerity.

USING PUBLIC FUNDS FOR REVOLUTION

"Any genuine plan to equalise Aborigines with the rest of Australian society meant spending millions of dollars. 'I would say that at least $100 million is needed for a start'" - Charles Perkins, The Age, Melbourne June 15.

We return to Mr. Perkins' essay in Civil Rights after reading a news item from U.S.A. from where Mr. Perkins returned not so long ago after consulting with other "black power" leaders who have obviously shown him the way to obtain large sums of money from the government.

"Senator John L. McClellan (Democrat-Arkansas) charges that two Negro gangs in Chicago that have been involved in at least 18 killings so far this year have received nearly $1 million in 'antipoverty' funds from the Office of Economic Opportunity. The Senator adds that the Permanent Investigation Subcommittee which he heads will begin an investigation of the grants later this week" Washington, June 18, Review of the News.

We can hardly visualise our Australian Aboriginals being used for successful revolution, an aspect that Mr. Perkins lamented himself some years ago. However the threat of such violence is being used by Mr. Perkins to obtain "hard cash".
Given such funds, and going on the pattern in the U.S.A. there is no doubt that revolutionary activity of some kind will be organised. Easy money and criminality goes hand in hand.

DIALECTICAL THINKING ON RHODESIA

"No doubt Sir Wilfrid and his Rhodesia lobby will take fresh heart from the action of the Conservatives in the House of Lords - but nothing could be more effective to encourage communist propaganda and activity and to isolate Australia from world opinion than any attempt to follow their example" - Edward St. John M.P. in a letter replying to Sir Wilfrid Kent-Hughes in The Age, Melbourne, June 22.

In defending the attack on Rhodesia, whether by International lawyers, or Communist terrorist thugs, Mr. St. John exhibits that facility for perverting justice, which is associated with the doctrine of dialectical materialism. Thus by opposing the Communist policies designed to turn their country into another Nigeria, the Rhodesians are adopting an incorrect policy if they desire peace. In other words they should let the Communists and their representatives in if they want Mr. St. John's concept of peace.
The Rhodesians well realise they would get peace alright, the peace of the grave.

Mr. St. John also appeals to what is most debased in humanity. That we should deny our fellow man his rights and justice in Rhodesia if we are not "to encourage communist propaganda and activity and to isolate Australia from world opinion…"
In this opinion Mr. St. John has revealed very clearly his own thinking, and has at the same time acknowledged that the chief enemy opposing the Rhodesian stand is International Communism, which he at the same time defends. Such makes a mockery of his professed standing within the Liberal Party that he joined the party as an anti-Communist.
However in the Liberal Party's attitude towards Rhodesia is exposed the fatal weakness in dealing with such people as Mr. St. John.

There is no doubt that if there was complete honesty on this matter, as Sir Wilfrid has appealed for, such people, as Mr. St. John would find their stay in the party very short indeed.

REALISTIC THINKING ON FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONSHIPS

The Victorian Minister for Education (Mr. Thompson) yesterday condemned Federal Government Incursions in 40 State activities as an "undesirable form of constitutional aggrandisement", The Age, Melbourne June 24.
Mr. Thompson went on to say, "It is surely morally, if not legally and politically, indefensible for one unit of the Federal System to be consistently effecting takeover operations at the expense of financially embarrassed State Governments".

In pointing to the technique of the financial weapon as that being used to destroy State Sovereignty, Mr. Thompson was quite correct. However the answer to the dilemma of State Politicians lies in the political sphere. We suggest a start by looking at the Senate.