RHODESIA A REPUBLIC

"Without ceremony or celebration, the birth certificate of the new Republic of Rhodesia was signed and sealed in four minutes flat in Salisbury yesterday." - The Australian, March 3.

There is an old saying to the effect that foul deeds are done in indecent haste. Four minutes was all that was needed to destroy a heritage much more precious than the gains made. Many who have poured out tremendous effort and made great sacrifices will regret a move, which in a historical framework is hasty and ill considered. Symptomatic of such feeling is the resignation of Lord Salisbury from the Anglo-Rhodesian Society.

Those who have lead Rhodesia through the most critical years of her history have shown strength, decisiveness and purpose; and have defeated the petty schemes of Harold Wilson and his fellow world socialists at every turn. Now they have handed him his greatest victory, the destruction of Rhodesia's heritage in exchange for a mess of pottage, the myth of material gain and security.

In an interview shown on the ABC - TV Four Corners programme March 7, Mr. Ian Smith revealed that the Republican issue was reached by the desire to placate Rhodesia's new friends who had made it clear that their faith in Rhodesia would strengthen if they assumed republican status. Mr. Smith made it equally clear that Rhodesia was dependent upon such "friends" for trade and economic support. The British Monarchy is still the greatest bulwark against world tyranny. It will have to be destroyed before Harold Wilson and his fellow one worlders can claim ultimate success. Better that the Rhodesians had told him, "you can destroy your heritage; the likes of your kind will never force us to destroy ours."

LIBERALS PURSUE THE SOCIALIST PATH

"In short, under a Labor Government, the IDC will be used for the democratic socialist purposes I outlined in my policy speech and the act which established this corporation will be amended by us to secure those purposes." - Mr. Gough Whitlam reported in The Age, March 7, when speaking in his Address-in-Reply to the Governor-General's speech in Parliament.

The Australian Labor Party has long cherished the concept of an Economic Council to control Australian trade and commerce. The Liberal Party's plan to inaugurate the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) is a major step towards this objective. The key architect of this socialist concept is Mr. John McEwen who has also been the main force in tying Australian agriculture to International Agreements, which inevitably suit the aims of International Socialism. In fact Mr. McEwen has been a willing tool of International Socialism, and if he had been a genuine protagonist of free enterprise he would have understood how socialists use international agreements for the purpose of imposing socialism at home. It makes us wonder if Mr.McEwen is all that he has always protested to be.

A cartoon in The Australian, March 3, summed up the Governor-General's speech outlining the increased doses of socialism being prepared under Mr. Gorton's leadership. With the Governor-General Sir Paul Hasluck on centre stage announcing increased Federal inroads into education, hospital and health, the IDC and other items, to the applause of the audience calling "author, author", both Mr. Gorton and Mr. Whitlam prance on to the stage. The press has endeavoured to give Mr. Gorton a new image, but in an interview with John Sorell in the Melbourne Herald the genuine article shone through bright and clear. When asked about his penchant for one-man rule he replied. "I will do what I think is right. If people don't like it they can face the consequences. I don't like people telling me what to do. Sure I'll listen to the wind, but I'll make my own decisions."

It would appear so even to the extent of tearing up traditional Liberal Party policies and replacing them with the authoritarianism of John Gorton's particular brand of socialism.

VIOLENT REVOLUTION CONTINUES IN U.S.A.

Mr. Eric D. Butler reports from the West Coast of the U.S.A.

Supporters of the Nixon Administration argue that the intensity of violence is not as great in the U.S.A. as it was when I was here last year. This may be true, but in opening a packed meeting I addressed in Los Angeles two days after arriving in the U.S.A., the chairman provided a graphic account of his experiences during that day on the campus of the University of California, Santa Barbara, where rioting students applied all the well-known arts of revolutionary warfare. Young girl students used four letter words in their abuse of the University President.

Shortly after my meeting I watched on television the use of violence by the revolutionaries as they attempted to take complete control of Isla Vista adjacent to the University of California. The highlight of the revolutionary activities was the gutting by fire of the local branch of the Bank of America and a laundry. Law officers fought desperately to prevent the students setting the bank alight, but were driven back by a barrage of rocks. Governor Ronald Reagan brought in the National Guard and a semblance of order was temporarily achieved. But the ugly episode left me with the feeling that the challenge to law and order in the U.S.A. is still most formidable.

A new manifestation of revolutionary violence was provided by the Chicago trial of those charged as a result of the Chicago riots at the time of the Democratic Convention in 1968. The court itself was turned into a revolutionary battle ground, with one of those charged being strapped to his chair and gagged: The judge fought desperately to retain control of the situation, as even the lawyers representing the accused joined in the court campaign against the judge, making the most incredible accusations. Police fought with rock throwing demonstrators outside the court building.
A nationwide campaign has been launched to raise funds for an appeal by those convicted. There has been some skilful distortion of what really happened in the Chicago trial, and I have no doubt that many gullible Americans will become convinced that those convicted were denied their "constitutional rights."

A New York judge responded quickly when accused revolutionaries attempted to upset the normal judicial processes in his court: he ordered the accused to be confined to goal until they indicated that they were prepared to allow the court to have them tried in the proper manner. According to the New Left, that judge is obviously a "Fascist beast."

I watched with fascination a Los Angeles revolutionary who runs a newspaper, arguing in a most brilliant manner that it was the judge who was really to blame for the violent outbursts from the accused in the Chicago trial. Incidentally this man looked like a reincarnation of Leon Trotsky. Trotsky would have admired this man's dialectical skill, as he claimed that the accused in Chicago were left with no other option by the judge than to protest as they had done. And, of course, they should not even have been charged.
It had been Mayor Daley's "brutal police" who had produced the violent situation in Chicago!
This story was widely circulated internationally by gullible journalists like Mr. C. W. Tipping of The Herald, Melbourne, and associated papers.

My initial first-hand observations of the American scene do not convince me that the Administration is as yet anywhere near on top of the surge of revolutionary violence, which I have recorded over recent years. President Nixon's administration is trying desperately to project a conservative image, realising that the conservative electors are the backbone of its support, but on the other hand is angering large numbers of Americans with attempts to force integrated education by busing children from their own areas to schools in other areas. Forced integration between European and non-European children is beyond doubt one of the most explosive issues in the United States.

One final impression in this first report: While it is most unlikely that Senator Edward Kennedy will be the Democratic nominee for the Presidency in 1972, it is almost certain that he will be making his bid in 1976. Not, unless, he has another party too close to 1976! It is astonishing what the mass media - and adequate finance - can accomplish in the art of whitewashing.

EDWARD HUNTER ON WILFRED BURCHETT

In his book Brainwashing published in 1956, world authority, Edward Hunter, recounts the personal testimony of Frank Noel, American press photographer who was captured in the Korean War and subjected to brainwashing and torture by his Chinese captors. Noel told Hunter of his contact with Burchett and "the revolting English communist reporter Alan Winnington," and how Burchett and Winnington "helped edit self-criticisms and confessions which turned innocent men into renegades like themselves."
Noel chided Burchett about his communist propaganda articles published in the Shanghai "Evening News" "Can't you write any better than that," Noel asked. "Sure I can, but Peking changes it", Burchett snapped back.

Hunter described Burchett's role in the brainwashing of prisoners. "When a prisoner was in an agony of loneliness, aching to see another white man, or browbeaten so that he felt utterly helpless, Winnington or Burchett would show up, as if by chance. Burchett was more skilled at creating a sympathetic front, for Winnington was unable to conceal the bitterness eating his insides. Burchett would bustle about at once to make the fellow's lot a bit better offering to assist him in whatever was giving him trouble. Usually he would discover that the difficulty was a touchy point in a self criticism or confession. "You're not a writer and I am, so I'll fix it up for you, he'd say. He'd fix it up all right! The poor prisoner would be edged delicately toward treason. Burchett was an old hand at this.

Noel kept refusing the offer of a camera from Burchett who wanted to send propaganda pictures of the prisoners of war back to America. Noel later accepted so he could get included in the photographs landmarks of the area they were imprisoned. "Because of this attitude of mine, before the camera arrived, Burchett wrote me a letter saying I would not be forced to snap anything I did not want, and that everything I did was voluntary. This was Red double-talk, but I beat it by giving it my own slant. That letter became my most valued possession. Whenever anyone tried to interfere with the way I was taking a picture, or whenever they tried to get me to take one of their fake propaganda scenes, I'd pull out this letter and say, 'I don't have to do it. Here's a letter from Burchett saying so. He ranks higher than you in the Communist Party. " Hunter commented, "Frank was quite ignorant where Burchett ranked in the Red network, but it must have been high as his signature was always effective."

It is well that the Australian people should know the type of man Dr. Cairns and his kin embrace in pursuit of their common objectives.

FARMERS BAND TO FIGHT COUNTRY PARTY

"A growing - and angry - organisation of West Australian farmers and graziers, claiming a membership of thousands, could become a new and significant political force. The organisation is the United Farmers' and Graziers' Association. Its members are fed up with the Country Party. It has been effectively in existence for only six months, and, according to its president, Boyup Brook farmer, John Rogers, is still growing fast. "Strong interest has been shown from other States. We expect that our organisation will become a National body," Mr. Rogers said yesterday. The Association's basic aim was to retain the economic family farm and rural trade business he said." The Independent( Perth) March 8th 1970.

There is no doubt that there has been a good deal of complacency amongst Country Party members about the fact that they did much better on the surface than did their Liberal partners at the last Federal election. But they are starry-eyed, to say the least, if they feel that they enjoy the confidence of the country voter. Given any sort of alternative, the rural electorate will indicate their disillusion at any future election in no uncertain manner.

Is this to mean, then, that the Country Party National Policy, is the wrong one?. ..By no means. But Country Party members should be challenged to provide evidence that they have pursued any of the objectives contained in the Policy document. Not one objective has been achieved in any degree. So great is the divergence between policy and performance, that one can be excused for believing that the only use the Party see for Australia's major export item, wool, is to pull it over the eyes of the long suffering farmer.

One question in particular must be hammered with increasing urgency at Country Party spokesmen. How can a Party whose Policy refers to the necessity of increased incentives to independent farmers even contemplate the Reconstruction schemes which are denuding the country of its rural population, and eliminating the family farm? The Country Party still has the opportunity of leading the country back to sanity. But to do so, it must start honouring the obligations contained in its own National policy.

ON TARGET BULLETIN

SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

We do not intend to discuss this proposed Corporation from the technical viewpoint, but as another example of developments, which take place when certain policies become fixed objectives. Many of you will have received letters from MP's, which tell you "it is now popularly accepted that the Federal Government should retain control of national economic policy." All this claim is is that individuals must be subject to one central authority in matters pertaining to economic activity in broad national policy. But as this one control at the centre inevitably affects the factors, which formulate the decisions reached by individuals over their personal lives, the power at the centre is all pervading. It intrudes into every facet of the life of the individual.

One of the Communist witnesses at the famous Canadian spy trials, which resulted from the Gouzenko revelations, remarked on the way one control leads to another. The IDC is a perfect example. As the Government has found itself adopting more and more of the suggestions of its "experts" in the managing of the economy, strengthening the Commonwealth Bank at the expense of private banks, then creating the Reserve Bank to control all other banks; using the Reserve Bank in conjunction with international trading arrangements which then become binding on the Parliament; gradually there has been built up a process of power feeding upon power.

We have now logically arrived at another stage of increased central control over one of the few remaining avenues open to individual action, the introduction of foreign based capital for the development of Australian industries and resources. Previously this was open to a certain amount of individual action. The IDC will however, not directly, but certainly indirectly make it increasingly impossible for those other than the bureaucrats directing the IDC to select what money shall come in (we have already pointed out previously the fallacies associated with the theories about the necessity to import money) and on what it shall be spent. This is perfectly in line with socialist doctrine of using the financial mechanism to control industrial development.