NEW GUARD.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXIV, Issue 939, 8 December 1933, Page 5

NEW GUARD.

Campbell Expelled But Refuses to go. “ TAWDRY THEATRICALITIES.” (Special to the “ Star.”) SYDNEY, December 1. An important development in the process of evolution through which the New Guard is passing was recorded last Monday night. A conference of 120 delegates, representing fourteen of the nineteen principal localities or sections of the New Guard, carried “ unanimously, amid great excitement,” the following resolution: “ That this meeting, no longer reposing any confidence in Mr E. Campbell and his executive, do from this date declare them removed from their respective positions and also from membership of the New Guard. We also affirm our intention of cleansing the New Guard of all subversive elements and tawdry theatricalities, combining with this our determination to bring back into the movement those ideals and principles for which the Guard once stood; and we also affirm as our objective the recovery of that respect for the movement which once existed in the public mind.” This might seem impressive to the average citizen, but it appears to have made no sort of difference to Colonel Eric Campbell. He wrote at once to the newspapers to say that Monday’s conference, at which he was expelled from the movement, was not a meeting of the New Guard, but of “ a number of men who over a period had been found unsuitable to the movement or untrue to its principles, and who had been dismissed the organisation in accordance with the regulations.” Apparently Colonel Campbell’s position is that everybody who has resisted his authority or refuses to desist from asking “ impertinent ” questions about finance and such matters, has ipso facto ceased to be a member of the New Guard. He therefore declares that there is “no truth or substance ” in the report of his removal, and he proposes to “ carry on.” assuring the general public that “ the New Guard was never stronger or more united.”

Colonel Campbell is trying to reconstruct the movement on new lines by means of a “ Centre ” party which is to hold absolute authority over it and to organise political representation for it. In this connection it is interesting to notice that, speaking last Saturday at Newcastle, at a W.E.A. Conference, Colonel Campbell thought it necessary to inform his audience that “ if a position arose where force had to be used in Australian politics, the organisation was in existence, and force would be used, though reluctantly.” It was not likely that a Newcastle gathering—in which Langites and Communists would be about equally represented—would allow anybody to “ get away with '’ this sort of thing, and Campbell was promptly told that force could be met by force —“ and by sanguinary force,’’ added somebody else. It may be that there was in Colonel Campbell’s mind some faint recollection of a statement made by Mr Baldwin in the House of Commons last week to the effect that, “ if any attempt were made to create a dictatorship either by the Right or the Left, force would be met by force.” And Colonel Campbell ought to understand that the dictatorship which he has been trying to establish is just as alien from the spirit of democracy and just as offensive to all true democrats as Langism or Marxism or Bolshevism. “I Want 5000 Members.” However, to get back to the New Guard. When those who had led the revolt against Campbell learned from an interview which he gave “ Smith’s Weekly ” that he regarded their criticism as “ impertinent ” and that he refused to recognise their right to challenge his authority, they proceeded to take him at his word and “ get on without him.” Several of the malcontents have published their views at length, and their strongest objection to him seems to be that his rule is arbitrary and despotic—in fact, that it has now become an experiment in Fascism. One of them quotes a state- ! ment made by Campbell on October , 13. in the presence of fourteen members of the organisation: “Men, all I want is 5000 members, but they must I be men who are prepared to submit to j iron discipline and be prepared to carrv out my commands. 1 will then be able I to put this country on its feet.” This i sort of stuff—along with the Fascist j

salute and the rest of the Hitlerite paraphernalia which Campbell has tried to import here—is naturally disgusting to the average Australian, and the attitude that he has adopted since his return from Europe has been quite enough to explain the “ revolution ” in the New Guard and to guarantee its effectiveness. Splitting Anti-Socialist Vote. But the more thoughtful and intelligent of the “ rebels ” are anxious to keep within the limits of their own regulations, and this is the line of argument that they follow: They point out that, as originally constituted, the New Guard was to be severely nonpolitical and that the chief object of its existence was to check and thwart the forces which at that time seemed likely to establish Socialism in this country. Now Campbell is organising his new Centre party for a directly political purpose, and by attempting to run candidates at the next general election it will split the anti-Socialist vote and thus play into the hands of the New Guard’s most dangerous eneThese acts constitute in the opinion of the rebels “ a definite departure from the aims and objects of the New Guard movement.” They are therefore determined to get along without him, and if they make much more headway he will speedily find himself “ a dictator without any followers to dictate to.”