THE ATTACK UPON THE AUSTRALIAN FLAG

"The Prime Minister, Mr. McMahon, favours green and gold as colors for a new Australian flag. He indicated this in a letter last week to the Australian National Anthem and Flag Quests Committee chairman, Mr. John K. Lavett". - The Sunday Australian, November 7th.

The importance of symbols cannot be overstressed. 'Language is a form of symbolism. Every advertising authority understands the significance of symbols. An attack on, or perversion of a symbol, is directed at the reality behind the symbol. While we have no doubt that some of the support for a change in Australia's national flag comes from those superficial people who have been caught up by the philosophy of change merely for the sake of change, we are also of the firm conviction that behind the campaign for a new national flag, and a new National Anthem, there are those who are consciously determined to down-grade the essential historical values of the Australian nation by changing the symbols of those values.

It is disturbing that the Australian Prime Minister is, apparently, lending his name to a campaign to change the Australian flag. It is true, as Mr. McMahon is reported to have said in his letter, "Green and gold is the combination by which Australia is best known in the international sphere because it is the traditional combination used in international events either in Australia or abroad ". We presume that Mr. McMahon is speaking of sporting events. But the suggestion of incorporating green and gold into the flag is merely one of the tactics being used to take the Union Jack out.

A study of how this was achieved in Canada, without any direct reference to the Canadian people, is instructive. The Red Ensign, which reflected the reality of a Canada partaking of two streams of European history and culture, British and French, came under open attack from the flabby internationalist Lester B. Pearson, the man who opened the gates to his successor Pierre Elliott-Trudeau. It was appropriate that after his disastrous contribution to Canadian history, Pearson should have moved to the World Bank. All the arguments against the Red Ensign are now being re-hashed in the campaign against the Australian flag. The Canadians were left with a maple-leaf and no reference to their historical roots. Many of them cynically describe the flag as "Pearson's pennant'.

A flag is something more than a sporting pennant, and Australians should be proud of the fact that the maintenance of the Union Jack not only symbolises the reality of Australia which historically is British, but also serves to remind Australians of their Christian heritage through the crosses in the Union Jack. We trust that the Prime Minister will return to a barrage of questions on his reported statements, and that every Member of Parliament is also questioned.

We are well aware that no mere verbal support for the present Australian Flag means anything unless there is generated a much greater conscious support for the values and history symbolised by that flag. But by permitting symbols to be torn down, or drastically altered, we aid and abet campaigns against what those symbols reflect.

We suggest that the question of the campaign against the Australian flag is one, which the newly formed Australian Heritage Society might well take up as one of its first projects.

NOW FOR THE COUNTER-PUNCH

DANGEROUS DELUSIONS ABOUT RED CHINA

"Australia had moved away from the theories of containment of China and active hostility towards Communism, the Prime Minister, Mr. McMahon, has told Americans. This was not because the Australian Government had ceased to be anti-pathetic to Communism, he said at a private lunch in New York. But Australia now accepted the need to live with Communism and to find an accommodation with Communist States". - Laurie Oaks, travelling with the Australian Prime Minister, in The Sun, Melbourne, November 1st.

When President Nixon, advised by Dr. Henry Kissinger, announced his dramatic about face on Red China, he not only announced the death knell of Taiwan's membership of the United Nations, he dealt a severe blow to the hopes and spirits of the 800 million Chinese who live not only in Communist-dominated mainland China, but on the off-shore islands, in Singapore, in Indonesia, in Malaysia, on Taiwan and in the Philippines. President Marcos of the Philippines made the appropriate comment that "If the United States can do this to Nationalist China, it can do it to any one of us".

With the Nixon-Kissinger signal that the future of Asia belonged to Mao Tse-tung, there was immediate scramble towards "accommodation". The Socialist politicians everywhere particularly in Japan, were delighted. Attempting to extract the major political advantage out of his visit to Washington, Mr. McMahon has spoken of the rapport established between Canberra and Washington. But when the dramatic Nixon-Kissinger change on Red China took place, Mr. McMahon was given no more consideration than Japan or Taiwan. However, he quickly attempted to jump aboard a bandwagon which ALP leader Gough Whitlam was already riding with smug satisfaction.

It was not long before members of the McMahon Ministry started to reflect the new line. The Doncaster-East Yarra, News, an outer suburban Melbourne paper, of October 19th, carried as its main headline,
"EMERGING CHINA IS NOT HOSTILE POWER SAYS PEACOCK".

The Hon. Andrew Peacock, Minister for the Army, and a man who sees himself as a future Prime Minister, is, like Mr. Billy Snedden and so many others, a "with it' type of politician. He told 400 matriculation students at a Doncaster Seminar "Emerging China is not seen as a hostile power, but one ready to make overtures with the United States. The China-American relationship is one of great importance to the world. We see a situation developing where the scare diplomacy once adopted by China may be giving way to a different type of diplomacy".
The press report continued, "Australia desired normal relations with Mainland China and was working steadily towards that end through normal channels, he said."

The hard-nosed men in Peking must be smiling broadly as they watch the wishful politicians of the non-Communist nations jostling one another as they seek to "find an accommodation". It is a chilling reality that the very students Mr. Peacock addressed could be called upon to pay a terrible price for the inane policies being supported by the McMahon Government.

Politicians are experts at eating their own words if they feel that this is necessary for political survival. Writing in The Wanderer, U.S.A., of August 19th, 1971, Mr. William Buckley Jr. recalls the following words of President Nixon: "What was really at stake was that admitting Red China to the United Nations would be a mockery of the provisions of the Charter which limits its members to 'peace-loving nations'. And what was most disturbing was that it would give respectability to the Communist regime, which would immensely increase its power and prestige in Asia and probably irreparably weaken the non-Communist governments in that area."

Presumably Dr. Henry Kissinger persuaded President Nixon that the leaders of Red China are now 'peace-loving'. And clearly the Australian Minister for the Army also believes this to be true.
It is just six years ago that Mao Tse-tung's Minister for National Defence, Lin Piao, formally outlined Marxist-Leninist strategy for conquering the whole world for Communism, concentrating upon the global "rural areas of the world, Africa, Asia and Latin America" to encircle the global "cities of the world" which, cut off from raw materials and progressively paralysed through revolutionary ferment from within, could be expected to collapse without too much resistance. (See The Red Pattern of World Conquest, by Eric D. Butler, price $1.07, post-free).

In January 1932 top experts from both Peking and Moscow met at the famous Tricontinental Conference in Cuba and agreed to advance the Lin Piao strategy. There is a mass of evidence that the strategy has been, and still is, being advanced. Unless the Nixons, McMahons, Peacocks and other similar politicians can produce evidence that the Marxist-Leninist global strategy has been scrapped by Communist leaders, they stand self-condemned as the guilty men who are prepared to sell the past for a mess of political pottage. These are times when patriots must speak in robust terms so that there is no chance of being misunderstood by the politicians.

THE ROLE OF DR. HENRY KISSINGER

"Henry Kissinger already the second most powerful man in the nation has become America's 'super-spy'. He has been appointed chairman of the National Security Council Intelligence Committee, with the responsibility for guiding and directing every branch of America's domestic and international spy system". - From Peter Costigan, Washington, in The Herald, Melbourne, November 8th.

It was reported that Prime Minister McMahon was "almost stunned" by what he heard from President Nixon and his personal adviser, Dr. Henry Kissinger, during his Washington visit. We wonder if Dr. Kissinger told Mr. McMahon of his secret trip to the Soviet Embassy in London after his secret first visit to Peking?
If the Washington Observer is correct, Kissinger met with the mysterious Kremlin agent who is known as "Victor Louis", to report on what transpired in Peking. Louis was in Chile prior to the Marxist Allende taking over. He arranged to have the controversial Khrushchev memoirs published in the United Stares. In May Louis secretly met Israeli Premier Golda Meir in Finnish Lapland when she was attending a Socialist conference in Helsinki. It is reported that he will be visiting the U.S.A. shortly to address Jewish organisations. But some are asking whether this will be only a cover for further discussions with Dr. Kissinger before the Nixon visit to Peking.

One further question: Was the Fabian-Socialist Dr. H.C. Coombs appointed as Mr. McMahon's "guiding philosopher" because of Dr. Coombs' international contacts in the world of international finance, particularly contacts amongst Red Chinese bankers? One thing is clear: Our "Brave New World" is being fashioned by men like Henry Kissinger, Victor Louis and Dr. Coombs. The politicians are little more than front men.

SELLING AUSTRALIA OUT

"Canberra - Australia needed continued foreign capital for rapid economic development, two Federal Ministers said yesterday. They are the Interior Minister, Mr. Hunt, and the Treasurer, Mr. Snedden. Mr. Hunt told a luncheon at Grove that the Government encouraged foreign capital inflow. Otherwise the economy would be smaller and income lower, he said . . .. Mr. Snedden told Mr. Hayden (Labor Q.) that Australia would not he able to generate time-desired capital from its own resources. - The Sun, Melbourne, October 29th.

Mr. W.J. Herbert of Brisbane, and several other more informed economists, have drawn attention to the basic fact that most of the much publicised "capital inflow" into Australia is in fact the creation of contra-credits, book entries, in Australia against credits made in Central Banks overseas. Australia is, therefore, "selling off the farm" at an accelerating rate to obtain credits from overseas which could just as easily be created in Australia, thus maintaining Australian control of Australian assets.

The DLP is to be congratulated on its move to have a full-scale inquiry into foreign investment in Australia. But more than an inquiry is wanted; there must be a change of financial policy to ensure that the development of Australian resources is financed, primarily from financial credit made available only from within Australia. We trust that Sir Basil Embry, now President of the Farmers' Union of West Aust. can take this matter up, charging that Sir William Gunn should not be allowed to continue as Chairman of the Wool Board while at the same time he was actively engaged in transferring control of big tracts of land to overseas interests".

ON TARGET BULLETIN The Use of Social Credit

We shall conclude the extracts from this article by C.H, Douglas next week.

Subject for Discussion: "POLICIES AND PHILOSOPHIES"
It is essential to understand that all policies stem from philosophies. It is interesting to note that the words policy, politics, and police have a common root, each stemming from the word "power. " "Policy" might therefore be described as the purpose to which power is directed. The question of the purposes to which power might be directed, and whether the individual should have real independence to make choices concerning the use of power, goes right to the very core of the problem of the individual living in society. How power should be used involves the question of philosophy. An individual's philosophy is what he believes, his conception of reality; what he believes about the nature of man, his purpose, and his relationship to his fellow man and the Universe. An individual's policies stem from what he believes. "By their fruits ye shall know them". We judge a man's philosophy of life by his actions - his policies - not necessarily by his words. Satisfactory policies are those rooted in a philosophy of Truth, of realism. An unrealistic philosophy, one that is a faulty conception of Truth, gives rise to unrealistic and unsatisfactory policies. It is still impossible to get figs from thistles.