The Communist Parti Québécois Elects a New Communist Leader:  Jean-François Lisée (7 October 2016)

Who is Lisée?

Jean-François Lisée, new leader of the Communist Parti Québécois

Jean-François Lisée was elected the new leader of the Communist Parti Québécois on October 7th, 2016

On Friday evening, October 7th, 2016 in Lévis, Québec, the Communist and unconstitutional Parti Québécois elected Communist Jean-François Lisée as its new leader.  The Montreal Gazette online (October 8, 2016 updated 12:12) announced that on the second ballot Lisée “squeaked to victory with 50.63 per cent of the vote” with “a turnout of 75.09 per cent”, “higher than in the 2015 race”.

The mainstream (controlled media) of the corporate socialists will never tell Canadians that the PQ’s 1972 manifesto plans a Communist state of Quebec with devolution of powers to Soviet-style megacities on the model of Moscow.  Nor have they told you that Lisée himself is a Communist.


In 1995, at the time of the Quebec referendum, Lisée is a hired advisor to the Communist Parti Québécois whose 1972 manifesto, in French only, reveals to party militants (the far-left) the PQ’s true hidden plans for a fully Communist state of Quebec (i.e., the PQ itself is far left, a fact suppressed from the news).  Free enterprise will be abolished.  There will be socialist planning conducted by expanded and revalorized metropolitan regions.  A form of Yugoslav-style Communism will be implemented with worker self-management.

At the present stage of the mass immigration which is harmonizing Canada with the Soviet Union, the metropolitan regions will be multicultural.

Government after a UDI will therefore bear no resemblance to Confederation.  It will have no ethnic connection whatsoever to the self-government of the French Canadians.  The French Canadians will indeed be just one more ethnic minority amongst the hundreds of unconstitutionally mass-immigrated ethnic minorities (i.e., majorities from elsewhere).

In Communist Quebec, the citizen will have his “place” and will not be indicating his political preferences to elected representatives, nor telling the planning “experts” what to do.  If any vestige of a “parliament” remains, it will be on the Soviet model for the purpose of rubber-stamping the planning decisions of the experts.

Jacques Parizeau, leading the de facto  PQ government, has put Lisée on staff, on taxpayer’s nickel, to be his 1995 referendum strategist.

Lisée comes up with:

[a]  the tripartite agreement — a glitzy media-covered public “signing” by the three “separatist” political party leaders, of the scenario for Quebec “sovereignty” on a Yes.  (Where there is no legal power to act, find an interesting “procedure” to distract the audience.)

[P.S.  The third “separatist” leader, Mario Dumont, has no clue what’s really going on.  He’s being taken advantage of, and doesn’t know it.]

[b]  and, Lisée writes the 1995 referendum question.

P.S. again  The 1995 referendum was more than likely very highly rigged.

A Communist Country from Coast to Coast

Jean-François Lisée is a “former” Marxist-Leninist “leader” who in his youth — like Gilles Duceppe (a “former” Marxist-Leninist-Maoist “leader”) — desired with all his heart and soul to make of Canada a Communist country from coast to coast.

Two quick sources identify Lisée with this objective.

The first is a book review of the French book by Jean-Philippe Warren entitled ‘Ils voulaient changer le monde.  Le militantisme marxiste-léniniste au Québec’.  My translation: ‘They wanted to change the world:  Militant Marxist-Leninism in Quebec’.  The pertinent extract of the review — again, my translation (original French below)1 — reads as follows:

“It is not a question, one would have understood, of the end of the affair.  But as long as one is satisfied to seize the adventure of the extreme-left by its most delirious and most disastrous end (celebration of the regime of Pol Pot, sectarian organisational practices, the fanatic battle against the revisionists), one will not be able to understand the reasons which led a cluster of educated and politicized young people — today occupying eminent positions in the media, the universities and the political parties (Jean-François Lisée, Gilles Duceppe, Robert Comeau, Alain Saulnier) — to give body and soul to the construction of a communist society from coast to coast.”

The reviewer means coast to coast of Canada.  (Obviously, at minimum, as there is North American Union and Western Hemispheric Union to be completed on the way to World Union, where all cultures and all races will be homogenized to eliminate any distinctions, and thus all trace of the ethnic principle of national sovereignty.)

My other quick source is a page from the French web site of the Parti Communiste Révolutionnaire (Revolutionary Communist Party) of 20-11-2005, being their Drapeau Rouge Express No 71  [translation:  Red Flag Express No. 71.  This issue explores the life of then recently deceased former FLQ terrorist leader, Charles Gagnon, (who was in fact employed by Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Gérard Pelletier at their pro-Soviet review, Cité Libre, along with his fellow future co-leader of the FLQ terrorists, Pierre Vallières, before the two “left” Cité Libre to launch their own FLQ terrorist cell).

In the course of its necrology on Gagnon, the Red Flag Express mentions both Jean-François Lisée and Gilles Duceppe.  We now find that both of these men have been involved throughout their well-heeled careers in the so-called Quebec “secession” movement — which is a front to “negotiate” the dismantling of Canada for the EEC-EU system, i.e., for the Communist regional union begun in Europe and acknowledged by Mikhail Gorbachev as the “New European Soviet”.

In the course of its necrology on Gagnon, the Red Flag Express mentions both Jean-François Lisée and Gilles Duceppe.  We now find that both of these men have been involved throughout their well-heeled careers in the so-called Quebec “secession” movement — which is a front to “negotiate” the dismantling of Canada for the EEC-EU system, i.e., for regional union.  Both Lisée and Duceppe are involved in pulling off the North American regional union.

Après la dissolution de l’OCML EN LUTTE! en 1982, Gagnon s’est exilé quelque temps au Mexique et s’est retiré de la vie politique active. Contrairement à bon nombre d’anciens dirigeants des organisations M-L des années 1970 qui se sont intégrés dans les hautes sphères de la classe politique bourgeoise après avoir expié leur «crimes» et exprimé leur repentir (les Gilles Duceppe, Pierre-Paul Roy, Jean-François Lisée et autres Robert Comeau de ce monde), Charles Gagnon, s’il a lui aussi renié le marxisme, a eu le mérite de s’en tenir à certaines positions de principe : ainsi a-t-il toujours tenu à dénoncer l’hypocrisie de la bourgeoisie, en particulier de l’intelligentsia nationaliste québécoise.

After the dissolution of the OCML EN LUTTE! in 1982, Gagnon went into self-exile for awhile in Mexico and withdrew from active political life. Contrary to a good number of former leaders of Marxist-Leninist organizations in the 1970s, who joined the upper spheres of the bourgeois political class after having atoned for their “crimes” and expressed their repentance (Gilles Duceppe, Pierre-Paul Roy, Jean-François Lisée and other Robert Comeau’s of this world), Charles Gagnon, even if he too had disavowed Marxism, to his credit stuck to certain positions of principle:  thus he always made a point of denouncing the hypocrisy of the bourgeoisie, in particular of the Québécois nationalist intelligentsia.

When the Red Flag Express refers to the “national question”, it means of course the “sovereignty” of Quebec.  However, according to my original research, Quebec’s alleged hot pursuit after “sovereignty” is a front for getting the “negotiations” done to dismantle Canada for North American regional union.

We are expected to believe that these “former” Marxist-Leninist “leaders” “repented” of their “crimes” and joined the “Establishment” in politics.

I think that is a myth like the Cold War and the fall of Communism.  These two men are carrying off the revolution, right now.  They are replacing the population, changing the form of government, eliminating the national boundary (North American Union on the pretext of 9/11 2), altering the ruling ideology, forming the regional union.

Everything they are doing now in “Establishment” politics was their quest as Marxist-Leninists and Maoists.

Could it be that the Establishment has fooled the Marxist-Leninists?  Or have the Marxist-Leninists fooled the Establishment?

In the end, will there be a power struggle between the Establishment and the Marxist-Leninists for control of the Communist region they will have worked so feverishly together to create?  Perhaps a combination of Sino-Soviet military power, both of which are currently in expansion, will answer that question.


Read my exclusive English remedial translation of Jean-François Lisée’s “The Secret Committee at Power” where we learn that PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU and fellow REDS under Soviet agent Lester Bowles Pearson in the prime minister’s office of Canada, sitting on a “secret committee” on the premises of Power Corporation, ordered Communist Lévesque to organize and set up the PARTI QUEBECOIS …
1 Numéro : vol. 11 no. 1 Automne 08 – Hiver 09:

“Il ne s’agit pas, on l’aura compris, de la conclusion de l’affaire. Mais tant qu’on se contentera de saisir l’aventure de l’extrême-gauche par son bout le plus délirant et le plus funeste (célébration du régime de Pol Pot, pratiques organisationnelles sectaires, lutte fanatique contre les révisionnistes), on ne pourra pas comprendre les motifs qui ont conduit une pléiade de jeunes éduqués et politisés – occupant aujourd’hui des positions éminentes dans les médias, les universités et les partis politiques (Jean-François Lisée, Gilles Duceppe, Robert Comeau, Alain Saulnier) – à se donner corps et âme à la construction d’une société communiste from coast to coast.”

2  in fact the Communist PQ was in New York on 9/11 with a cultural trade mission at the Towers.  Source:  Le 11 septembre et nous  by André Duchesne (Boréal)

Peter Worthington Whitewashed Communist Pierre Trudeau; Paved Way for Justin’s Coronation


This article may be a little bit “jagged” because it has been written and rewritten since 2012, and finally published now. It was first drafted when Justin Trudeau was running for the Liberal leadership. It was revised when he began to campaign for the last federal election. And it’s been touched up again. Very hard to get a smooth feel to it, writing it in coffee shops on the free wifi, surrounded by dozens of other gabbing customers. So tonight, I’m finishing it. It’s as done as it’s going to get for now. I hope you get something out of it, nonetheless. (I will fix the shifted html tables another day…. God willing. That’s one of the horrors of WordPress: not compatible with other basic editing languages. And though the tables all work in WordPress installed in xampp, they don’t work here online, who knows why.)

The Real Justin Trudeau: Red Like His Daddy

Please notice that Justin Trudeau, while running for his father’s former job, supports referendums for Quebec to “secede”. However, as we know from the 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois (PQ) (in English exclusively at this web site, see the sidebar for the free download), Quebec is not becoming “sovereign”, it is becoming Communist. The referendums of 1980 and 1995 were precisely to get this done. See in particular my feature post, Singing Tomorrows, to make this clear.

The referendums are a front and a grave deception in which Trudeau Junior, from a family of Castro-worshippers, is a willing shill:

As reported in the French daily Le Devoir (Justin Trudeau on Quebec referendums) online on 10 August 2015, Justin supports the “secession” of (veiled Communist) Quebec:

Discours référendaire

Referendum position

Il a également ramené à l’avant-scène la position de son adversaire néo-démocrate à l’effet qu’une majorité simple (50 % plus un vote) serait reconnue par Ottawa en cas d’un référendum sur la souveraineté en affirmant qu’elle ne visait qu’à gagner des « points politiques ».

He also brought to the forefront the position of his New Democratic adversary to the effect that a simple majority (50% + 1 vote) would be recognized by Ottawa in case of a refrendum on sovereignty by affirming that it would only seek to win “political points”.

« M. Mulcair a choisi de ramener cet enjeu-là pour faire des gains au Québec, a affirmé M. Trudeau. La réalité, c’est que les Québécois ont besoin d’un nouveau premier ministre conscient de la réalité des défis et [capable de] rassembler le pays au complet. »

“Mr. Mulcair has chosen to return to this issue to make political gains in Quebec,” affirmed Mr. [Justin] Trudeau. The reality is that Quebecers need a new premier who is aware of the reality of the challenges and [capable of] pulling the whole country together.”

Sur cette question, le chef du PLC s’est vanté d’être clair, rappelant que la Cour suprême avait dit que « les chiffres » devront être fixés lors d’un prochain référendum.

On this question, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada brags that he is clear, recalling that the Supreme Court had said that “the figures” must be set during the next referendum.

Lors du premier débat des chefs, la semaine dernière, la question de la clarté référendaire avait donné lieu à un échange mordant entre M. Mulcair et M. Trudeau, ce dernier accusant son rival de diriger un parti qui menace l’unité nationale en raison de sa position.

During the first leaders’ debate, last week, the question of referendum clarity led to a biting exchange between Mr. Mulcair and Mr. Trudeau, the latter accusing his rival of leading a party which threatens national unity because of his position.

By “national unity” is meant the complete restructuring of all of Canada on the model of the EUSSR after a “Yes” in Red-led Quebec.

The fact that Justin Trudeau supports the referendum deception proves that he is as much a Communist as his father was. In fact, his father’s becoming Prime Minister and the Parti Québécois being created, were both part of a single scheme hatched by Pierre Trudeau and other federal cabinet ministers from Quebec in the “Liberal” government of Soviet agent Lester Bowles Pearson in 1967. (Search for Pearson’s FBI file at this web site.) Pierre Trudeau’s end of the scheme was to “negotiate” the restructuring of Canada with his Communist friend René Lévesque, who set up the PQ solely on the orders of Pierre Trudeau and the “secret committee” of Power Corporation. The two elements — another prime minister under full control, and a Communist party masked as merely “separatist” were created as a single mechanism to overthrow Canada.

Subscribe to this blog and you will soon learn how veiled Communist and co-founder of the Communist PQ, Guy Bertrand, now plans to force the “secession” of Quebec directly into structural Communism (i.e., Moscow-style expanded and consolidated metropolitan REGIONS (to replace the nation-state) as described by Communist sociologist Morris Zeitlin in “Planning is Socialism’s Trademark,” an article in the November 8, 1975 issue of the Daily World, the journal of the Communist Party of the USA.)

Peter Worthington Whitewashed Communist Pierre Trudeau; Paved Way for Justin’s Coronation

Toronto Sun's Peter Worthington whitewashed Justin Trudeau's Communist father to Justin's political advantage

Toronto Sun’s Peter Worthington whitewashed Justin Trudeau’s Communist father to Justin’s political advantage

Toronto Sun’s Peter Worthington whitewashed Justin Trudeau’s Communist father to Justin’s political advantage[/caption]On Tuesday night, October 12th, 2012 in the Liberal riding of Papineau in Montreal, federal member of parliament (by which I mean the non-sovereign parliament after the 1982 coup d’état  by his father), Justin Trudeau, held a rally to announce his bid for the Liberal leadership.

Press and media, notably the Washington-based Huffington Post, appeared to be aiming at another “Trudeau coronation” like that of Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1968. Huffington hard-sold the inexperienced and unaccomplished 41-year-old Trudeau knock-off the way the father had been sold in 1968: as masculine.

American anti-Communist, Alan Stang, in the April 1971 offprint of American Opinion, reported the 1968 federal election campaign of Pierre Elliott Trudeau this way:

“The story starts with Prime Minister Pierre-Elliott Trudeau who, as your newspaper has told you, is irresistibly charmant. By now you know that those admitted to his presence leave forever enchanté. His wit is like champagne, his learning immense. He adores pretty girls. They adore him. His overpowering masculinity may well destroy the Women’s Liberation Front.”

Again, in 2012, as in ’68, all question of the Trudeaus’ support of Communism was either stifled by the press ignoring it, or countered in advance by unexpected apologists. Stang records the bizarre press-laundering of Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s Communist views and background in his 1968 run for the Prime Minister’s Office:

Early in 1968, Pierre announced his availability. Mike [Soviet agent and prime minister, Lester Pearson] dropped the word that Pierre was his choice. And suddenly, with the precision of the New York Philharmonic, the Canadian Press began to sell Pierre to the people. His Communist record was simply ignored. Attempts to discuss it were branded as “hate.” Canadian women read instead about his intense masculinity. So blatant was the blackout of Pierre’s Communist background that the Calgary Herald refused an anti-Trudeau ad composed of passages from his own writings. The Toronto Globe & Mail and the Toronto Star also refused ads to detail his Communist background. And so complete has been the blackout that in January, 1971, former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, of the Progressive Conservatives — who correspond roughly to our Republicans — demanded an investigation of the government-owned C.B.C. network.

According to Stang, there were “notable exceptions” to the 1968 media blackout of Pierre Trudeau’s blatant Communism. Among them were “Peter Worthington and Lubor Zink of the Toronto Telegram”.

Sad to say, Peter Worthington – who, during Justin Trudeau’s 2013 Liberal leadership campaign was a vigorous 86 year-old-blogger with the Toronto Sun – has been crossed off the list of “exceptions” to the flagrant media cover-up of the pro-Communist Trudeaus.

Sadder still, Worthington became not merely a Trudeau apologist, but a willful subverter, concealing by silence as to the facts, Pierre’s forced march of Canada into North American Soviet Union under an incoming Red World Order. In this way, Worthington cleared the path for Justin to the Canadian Throne.

In the February 26, 2013, Toronto Sun, Worthington baldly declares (without proving it) that so-called “Liberal” Justin, who was then running for the Liberal leadership, is not the (Communist) that Worthington had presumed his father was [Whatever Justin Trudeau is, he isn’t his father“.

Worthington went further:

“It wasn’t Pierre Trudeau’s flamboyant style that was offensive to people like me, it was his policies and ideology that were alien to our traditions and potentially damaging to the country.” [Emphasis added.]

Trudeau didn’t like the military, ducked serving in the Second World War and instead mocked it as a youth of military age. He aligned himself with Marxists, attended a post-war, Soviet-sponsored, so-called economic conference in Moscow for fellow travellers, and then falsely claimed he’d thrown snowballs at Stalin’s statue (in April). [More emphasis.]

(That latter story is the source of the domain name,

He revered Mao Tse-tung (now called Mao Zedong), admired Castro, felt the KGB was similar to the RCMP, and he seemed to reject the overwhelming evidence that the Soviet Union was obsessed with world domination and with subverting democracies.

Worthington says the “economic conference” in Moscow in 1952 was “Soviet sponsored”. He says Trudeau merely “attended” that conference as a “fellow traveller”. Anti-communist Alan Stang in 1971 is more clear. Stang revealed that Trudeau led a Communist delegation at Moscow, all expenses paid by Canadian Communist Party nickel. Quebec historian Robert Rumilly has colorfully dubbed Pierre a “pilgrim of Moscow“.

Worthington said Pierre “revered Mao Tse-tung”; he forgot to mention the details. Alan Stang supplements in CANADA How The Communists Took Control (offprint, American Opinion, April 1971):

“Pierre apparently had developed a taste for leading delegations to Communist countries. In 1960 he led another — to Communist China. He participated in a Communist “victory celebration.” He met his idol, Mao Tse-tung. He collaborated on a book called Two Innocents In Red China. (Toronto, Oxford University Press, 1968.)”

There is a big difference between being a “fellow traveller”, or a curious inquirer, and in fact leading Communist delegations at Moscow and in newly conquered Red China.

Cuban President Fidel Castro an Pierre and Margaret Trudeau look over a photo album during their state visit to Cuba in this January, 1976 photo (CP)

Cuban President Fidel Castro an Pierre and Margaret Trudeau look over a photo album during their state visit to Cuba in this January, 1976 photo (CP)

Pierre Merely “admired Castro”?

The entire Trudeau family adopted Cuba’s Red Butcher as their “faithful friend”. The entire Trudeau family are Red shills and useful idiots.

The Last Days of the Patriarchby Alexandre Trudeau illustrates the intimate, bizarre relationship of the whole Trudeau clan with a Communist dictator. Justin’s brother, Alexandre, unselfconsciously reveals the depth and effects of that relationship in his heart-felt elegy in 2006 to Castro which he penned in English for Peter Worthington’s own Toronto Sun, and in French for La Presse.

The occasion was the birthday of dictator, Fidel Castro, who had turned 80 and transferred his responsibilities to his brother, Vice-President Raúl Castro. (Raúl assumed the full presidency in 2008.)

The personal friendship of Pierre Trudeau and of his wife and three sons with Fidel Castro, is politically problematic. What, precisely, was the effect on Justin Trudeau of this close personal family relationship with Castro?

One son (the late Micha) was a personal favorite of Castro’s; the other son — Alexandre — is clearly under the Castro spell. The mother who raised her sons to adore Fidel, had herself declared that Castro was the ‘sexiest man alive’. Add to this that the mother’s mental instability is well known.

Alexandre’s 2006 article is not only remarkable for its lack of normal moral discernment, but for the apparently thorough Communist brainwashing of its author that it reveals. Responsible journalists should be questioning the frame of mind of the author’s brother, the Liberal candidate for Prime Minister in the upcoming October 2015 (de facto) federal elections, Justin Trudeau.

Responsible journalists should be questioning the frame of mind of Liberal candidate for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, raised by Castro acolytes

Responsible journalists should be questioning the frame of mind of Liberal candidate for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, raised by Castro acolytes

Raised in the same environment, with the same special Cuban friend, by two parents who uncritically adored Castro, Justin — a man with no particular accomplishments but his ability to spend his father’s money — would like to be Prime Minister of Canada.

To that end, in the February 26, 2013 Toronto Sun, journalist Peter Worthington concluded, while offering no proof:

Whatever Justin Trudeau is, he isn’t his father“.

Further on, Worthington finishes: “The fact that Justin is likely to be Liberal leader come April 14 (2013) reflects poorly on the lack of potential leaders in that party. But the country already knows that!”

Worthington says that Pierre Trudeau was only “potentially damaging” to Canada. He thus ignores a mountain of discoverable facts which indicate that Prime Minister Justin would scale the Canadian heights in time to complete his father’s work of destroying Canada culturally, politically, and constitutionally for Pierre’s goal of a regional union under a one-world government.

Fact #1: Secession is a Communist tool for restructuring power in target countries

Pierre Trudeau in fact led the preparations for the 1980 Quebec referendum to “secede” from the Prime Minister’s Office, with his Communist pal, René Lévesque, stepping in tune. (The “secession” of Quebec was intended to facilitate the Communist restructuring of all of Canada by “negotiation” of Communist Lévesque with Communist Trudeau – two Red moles working together at two different levels where each had seized government outside the law, as will be clear below.)

Sshhhh! This is not secret information!


This is not secret information. In the multi-volume set, Reports on Separatism1, hard-bound in university libraries, we read that in 1977:

Trudeau challenges Lévesque and Quebecers
Prime Minister Trudeau, speaking to the Quebec Chamber of Commerce Jan. 28 in Quebec City, challenged Premier René Lévesque to hold a single, binding early referendum on Quebec’s separation.”

Reports on Separatism continues:

“The overriding theme of the speech was a call for Quebec to come to a final decision now, after 20 years of uncertainty about its national identity. “The choice must be definitive and final. If the referendum is lost, it should not be reopened for 15 years,” Mr. Trudeau said.

“It’s not only exciting, it’s a challenge,” he said. “What is not possible is to constantly remain indecisive, to constantly be afraid to make a choice because then others will make it for us.

“Let us demand of our provincial politicians, and of our federal politicians, that the choices be put before us soon, very soon.”

There are no “choices”. The Constitution forbids “choices” and establishes permanent unity in Canada (more clear below in regard to the Long Title, Crown, etc. of the Constitution).

22 February 1977 - Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s “New World Order” address to Congress.

22 February 1977 – Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s “New World Order” address to Congress.

The following month, on February 22, 1977, Red Mole Trudeau gave a speech to the U.S. Congress under the Jimmy Carter (Rockefeller Trilateral-CFR executive-branch-coup administration). In the United States Congressional Record of February 22, 1977 at page 4905, de facto Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau declared:

“we have failed to mobilize adequately the full support of our electorates for the construction of a new world order.”

New World Order is Communist terminology.

At page 4904, speaking of René Lévesque’s veiled Communist Parti Québécois – which had seized power “democratically” (but nonetheless subversively, its very platform of secession negating and proving the invalidity of every last oath among these Red usurpers in the Quebec Legislature) Trudeau tells America and the world:

“I am confident it can be done. I say to you with all the certainty I can command that Canada’s unity will not be fractured. Revisions will take place. Accommodations will be made; We shall succeed.”

“I can command”: this Communist infiltrator placed himself above the Constitution of Canada, claiming unlimited, arbitrary power to destroy it. Indeed, in 1982, he took major step one, towards doing so. Read: Patriation and Legitimacy of the Canadian Constitution. A fellow conspirator of Trudeau’s publicly confesses in a pair of Cronkite Lectures that the so-called “patriation” was not legal, but a coup d’état.

In other words, Communist Pierre was “confident” that Canada would be restructured after a “Yes” in the upcoming 1980 unlawful, unconstitutional, impossible referendum to “secede”.

But, Communist Lévesque, while a “Liberal” cabinet minister in the Quebec government of Jean Lesage, on 10 November 1964, had already called for the “fundamental restructuring” of all of Canada. See “René Lévesque’s Communist Compromise: Fundamental Restructuring of all of Canada”.

The 1972 manifesto of the Communist Parti Québécois (in French only; but in English exclusively at this web site), makes a couple of things quite clear. First, The Quebec “Liberal” government of Jean Lesage was attempting to construct a Communist plan to run Quebec as early as 1961.

La notion de Plan a été galvaudée au Québec. Depuis 1961, sous une forme ou sous une autre, la mise au point d’un plan de développement est demeurée un objectif pourchacun des gouvernements qui se sont succédé au pouvoir, à l’exception du dernier qui a finalement abandonné l’idée. L’on comprend aussi bien l’engouement initial pour la planification que le désenchantement qui a suivi.

The notion of a Plan has been tossed around in Quebec. Since 1961, in one form or another, the elaboration of a development plan remained an objective for successive governments, except for the last which finally abandoned the idea. One can just as well understand the initial infatuation with planning as the disenchantment which followed.

Secondly, the manifesto explains the demand of these veiled Communists for the “sovereignty” of Quebec: (all the powers to construct a plan):

Ce que révèle ainsi l’expérience des années 60, c’est que sans les instruments nécessaires, un Plan ne sera jamais autre chose qu’une étude plus ou moins adéquate, plus ou moins bien présentée, mais rigoureusement platonique. Or, les instruments qui manquent sont ceux-là même qui découlent de la souveraineté. Tant que le Québec ne sera pas indépendant, tant qu’il ne disposera pas de tous les moyens fiscaux, législatifs et incitatifs d’un État souverain, c’est au mieux l’expression d’une grande candeur, au pire une façon peu coûteuse de neutraliser un désir croissant de participation, que d’agiter l’étendard de la planification.

What is revealed by this experiment of the Sixties, is that without the necessary instruments, a Plan will never be anything but a more or less inadequate study, presented more or less well, but rigorously platonic. The missing instruments are precisely those which result from sovereignty. As long as Quebec is not independent, as long as it does not possess all the fiscal, legislative and mobilizing powers of a Sovereign state, to wave the banner of planning is at best the expression of a great lack of guile, or at worst, a fairly cheap way to neutralize a growing desire for participation.

Source: Quand nous serons vraiment chez nous, the 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois for a Communist state of Quebec, and exclusive English translation.

If you thought Quebec was trying to secede to protect French-Canadian language, culture and ethnicity, you were wrong. The self-serving Reds, however, have used that fiction as their battle-cry in a bid to destroy Canada for Communism.

Summary: the reason for the “secession” of Quebec is to seize the powers of the Parliament of Canada, to use them in constructing a communist PLAN.

Communist Voting (courtesy of Freaking

Communist Voting (courtesy of Freaking 2

Yet, here we have Pierre Elliott Trudeau in the 1977 Congressional Record publicly assuring the world that Canada will, indeed, be “restructured,” supposedly to save its “unity”. The supposition being not that there is a provincial “power” to “secede”, but that in blatant defiance of the clear constitutional denial of such a power to both  levels of government – a denial of secession, a denial of a federal power to allow it – the act will be consummated nonetheless on the backs of the electorate, conscripted to vote “democratically”, thus allowing the Reds to dismantle Canada.

Said Trudeau in the same Congressional Record:

Problems of this magnitude cannot be wished away. They can be solved, however, by the institutions we have created for our own governance. Those institutions belong to all Canadians, to me as a Quebecker as much as to my fellow citizens from the other provinces. And because those institutions are democratically structured, because their members are freely elected, they are capable of reflecting changes and of responding to the popular will.

Slight correction to Prime Minister Trudeau: the “members” of provincial and federal legislatures are not in office simply by means of the popular vote, i.e., “freely elected”. The “democratic” vote is not sufficient to show a Member to his seat. No duly “elected” Member can sit and vote laws in Parliament or in a Province without a valid oath of allegiance:

128. Every Member of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Governor General or some Person Authorized by him, and every Member of a Legislative Council or Legislative Assembly of any Province shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Lieutenant Governor of the Province or some Person authorized by him, the Oath of Allegiance contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act; and every Member of the Senate of Canada and every Member of the Legislative Council of Quebec shall also, before taking his Seat therein, take and subscribe before the Governor General, or some other Person authorized by him, the Declaration of Qualification contained in the same Schedule.
Source: The British North America Act, 1867; 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3.

“Handwashing” ceremony at Hull, Quebec: Communist Gilles Duceppe signs counter-oath to eliminate oath sworn to sit in federal parliament (1990)

“Handwashing” ceremony at Hull, Quebec: Communist Gilles Duceppe signs counter-oath to eliminate oath sworn to sit in federal parliament (1990)

Nor is the oath of allegiance a “technicality”, as Marxist-Leninist Maoist Gilles Duceppe, for one, alleged while publicly washing his hands of it in a ceremony at Hull, Quebec, in 1990. In the United Kingdom – whence Canada’s Constitution comes –

“The administering of unlawful oaths [i.e., taking oaths from people who are manifestly lying] is an OFFENCE AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, and PUNISHABLE BY PENAL SERVITUDE. The following statutes relate to this offence: 37 Geo. III. c. 123 ; 39 Geo. III. c. 79 ; 52 Geo. III. c. 104 ; 57 Geo. III. c. 19 ; 1 Vict. c. 91.” Source: Wharton’s 7th edition, p. 573.

Wharton’s is a reference cited by the judiciary in court adjudications. And look who’s being punished with “penal servitude”!  The person foolish enough to depose (swear in) an obvious liar, because it makes that person and the government a party to perjury.

A false oath is perjury. This legal and constitutional fact, that some people cannot be sworn in, was evidenced by precedent in the British case of Clarke v. Bradlaugh, 7 Q. B. D. 38. The British House of Commons quite correctly refused to allow Mr. Bradlaugh, who had been “democratically” elected, to take the oath, because he manifestly could not take it, his being in conflict with the law of that time.

On the first day of the session of 1883, the British Attorney-General gave notice of a Bill to amend the The Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866, 29 Vict. c. 19 to allow Mr. Bradlaugh to be sworn by making an affirmation of allegiance. But on 3 May 1883, that bill was rejected by the Commons by three votes. An Oaths Act entitling persons who professed no religious beliefs, or who even might be atheists, to be sworn by solemn affirmation, was finally passed in 1888 (51 & 52 Vic c 46).

Can anyone tell us when the constitutional oath of allegiance in the Fifth Schedule to the British North America Act, 1867, was amended to allow Communists to sit and vote laws for Canada, when their obvious allegiance is to Moscow? And their publicly stated aim is to dismantle Canada in contempt of the Constitution?

The unlawful seizure of a government, by swearing in, for example, hordes of people of all political stripes who do not and cannot bear true allegiance, is a form of coup d’état. In such a case, Parliament is not duly constituted. As such, it is not Parliament but some other entity usurping the role. Moreover, the issue is legal, not political.

It is public knowledge that the PQ Reds intend to dismantle Canada; they therefore were lying in 1970 when “sworn in” and again in 1976, and every time thereafter. It is unmistakable from their platform of “secession” and of restructuring Canada, that they seized power in Quebec outside the Constitution.

When the veiled Communist Parti Québécois seized office in Quebec in 1970, and took over the government in 1976, under protection of Pierre Elliott Trudeau; Trudeau, too, was a usurper who had set up the PQ behind the scenes with his fellow Reds.

Trudeau’s collaboration with, and his blatant federal leadership and encouragement of the Communist Parti Québécois set up by him to allow him to dismantle Canada proves that the Government of Canada had been seized outside the law by elite insurgents, themselves under “unlawful oaths”.

They, too, therefore had no right to sit and vote, no right to form a federal government, no right to pass acts in the Parliamentary Legislature of Canada. All their acts are void, because all their oaths are void.

In the La Presse  newspaper of Wednesday, 15 August 1990 at page B1 in the National section, in an article entitled “[Translation: Swearing allegiance to the Queen is ‘a technicality’ he (Duceppe) says”]:

“La Presse spoke with an historian from the University of Ottawa who was then the author of a volume on nationalist movements in Quebec. The historian, Mr.Michael Behiels, is reported to have said that the oath presents an obvious conflict for anyone who promotes independence.

“One cannot profess to serve the State while at the same time trying to dismantle the State” said Behiels. “It’s a contradiction.”

Mr. Behiels is right. Moreover, rules of interpretation exist which permit a competent court to show the door to anyone who has presumed to sit and legislate for Canada or a Province without a valid oath. No member of a federal or provincial legislature, no group of such members, nor even an entire legislative assembly composed of traitors, has any constitutional powers beyond those announced in the Constitution. There is no discretion, no privilege, and no inherent power to conduct themselves in a manner inconsistent with the constitutional functions of the legislative and governmental bodies created by the Constitution. All such activity proves void oaths, as grounds to judicially remove these Red usurpers.

It is the OATH which entrenches and protects Parliament and the Constitution.

Communists cannot swear a valid one.

Let’s have another example of the commonplace truth about the legal effect of the oath. In the Indian case of Golak Nath & ors vs. State of Punjab & Anrs, AIR 1967 SC 1643, W.P. No. 153 of 1966, decided on 27-02-1967, AIR 1967 SC 1643, Chief Justice Subba Rao, writing for an extended bench, said:

“Parliament today is not the constituent body as the constituent assembly was but a constituted body which must bear true allegiance to the Constitution as by law established.”

In the same case at 1655-1656, Chief Justice Rao said:

Every institution or political party that functions under the Constitution must accept it: otherwise, it has no place under the Constitution.”

In other words, the oath requires the submission of every elected Member to the Constitution; and thus to the limits on action imposed by  the Constitution.

Consequently, the Parti Québécois “has no place under the Constitution” of Canada.

19 October 2015 Federal Elections - Incapable of being sworn

NO VALID OATHS – 19 October 2015 Federal Elections – Incapable of being sworn:
Harper, Mulcair, Trudeau, Duceppe, May

Neither have the pro-Soviet Liberals, the Red Greens, the “Progressive” Conservatives, the Marxist NDP, the Bloc (federal counterpart of the Communist Parti Québécois), the CAQ or any of the half-dozen other socialist and “separatist” parties that now clutter the federal and provincial hustings. Because they all support either dismantling Canada for Quebec “independence” (Communism), and/or merging Canada into the North American (Communist) Regional Union — underway, now.

The Constitutional Oath of Allegiance and Limits on Action

In the lawful Constitution of 1867, specific limits on action are levied by the federal-provincial division of powers; and overall limits are imposed with respect to the statutory purpose of Confederation. These overall limits are blatantly evident in the Long Title of the British North America Act, 1867, and in the interpretive Preamble. The Long Title of an act, including the Constitution, is used to determine the statute’s purpose, so that courts rule in accordance. Canada’s Long Title, similar to the famed “supremacy clause” at Article VI of the US Constitution. reads as follows:

An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the Government thereof; and for Purposes connected therewith

“THIS UNION”, not any other UNION, nor DISUNION, is what the Long Title says.

“The British North America Act, 1867” is merely the short title of the Constitution; whereas the Long Title embodies clear legal restraints: no “purpose” contrary to the Union established in 1867, i.e., not “connected therewith,” can be lawfully entertained by either federal or provincial governments.

The Long Title excludes expressly all activity contrary to the Union created in 1867. To be precise, two things in particular are excluded by the British North American Union: secession of any part of Canada, and annexation of Canada into a different  union.

Communist Straight Jacket Over Canada: <i>Quand nous serons vraiment chez nous</i>: 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois for a Communist state of Quebec

Communist Straight Jacket Over Canada: Quand nous serons vraiment chez nous: 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois for a Communist state of Quebec

Communist Straight Jacket Over Canada

Yet, for decades, Canadians have been caught in a straight jacket outside the lawful Constitution by one de facto government after another since Trudeau. All of them are allowing, authorizing, and organizing campaigns for referendums by the Communist Parti Québécois to dismantle Canada east-west; while purporting to sign “treaties” such as NAFTA, designed to “deep integrate” Canada into the USA and Mexico, north-south, obviously forming a regional union.

The Long Title of 1867 is confirmed by the “Declaration of Union” (a statutory declaration is a statement of effective law) at section 3 of the Constitution:

3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after a Day therein appointed, not being more than Six Months after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly.”

Our interpretive preamble of 1867 was often called in aid, correctly, by our perceptive judiciary. (But, that was long before the Soviet invasion of our institutions.) The opening paragraph of the Preamble states:

“WHEREAS the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom’s Constitution is unitary. The United Kingdom is a unitary state. The British Crown shared with Canada is unitary. Kingship in the British Constitution on which ours is based is unitary. Therefore, in 1867, a unique merger of two leading systems took place, and in consequence: a unitary Crown reigns above an indivisible (unitary) federal state in Canada. This is not an accident; it was planned that way by the statesmen who founded Canada.

For background on the unconstitutionality of secession in Canada, visit the Alliance of the Founding Peoples of Canada – Alliance des peuples fondateurs du Canada ( and look in particular for John George Bourinot, John A. Macdonald, W.P.M. Kennedy and others to come.

Fact #2: Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Federal Liberal Cabinet Ministers under Soviet Agent Pearson are the true Founding Fathers of the Communist Parti Québécois

They ordered it to be set up!

This fact was published in both French and English by Marxist-Leninist “leader” and adviser to the Jacques Parizeau de facto  PQ Communist government on the 1995 referendum to “secede”, Jean-François Lisée. In his 1990 book, In the Eye of the Eagle, Lisée quotes Claude Frénette, then president of the federal Liberal Party.

“the Committee encouraged René Lévesque and his sympathisers within and outside the Liberal Party of Québec to set up a distinct party, which would be soundly defeated in an electoral showdown.”

“Electoral showdown” obviously means referendum, the tool that has been used by the Parti Québécois from the time of its full usurpation under false oaths of the powers of government in Quebec.

Frénette, cited again by Lisée in the same interview, identified three members of the “Committee” that urged Lévesque to set up the Parti Québécois, whose 1972 manifesto (sidebar) clearly reveals it to be a Communist party. Said Frénette:

“Within the [federal] Liberal Party – a secret committee has been established in order to undo separatism. The Committee, which includes federal ministers from Québec such as [Jean] Marchand, [Pierre Elliott] Trudeau and [Maurice] Sauvé, has adopted a multi-volleyed plan which for the moment is working as anticipated.” Before being recruited by Paul Desmarais, Frénette was the assistant to Minister Sauvé.

Pay attention! Their “multi-volleyed plan” to “undo separatism” was to CREATE A COMMUNIST PARTY which would hold repeated public votes to DESTROY CANADA.

If Pierre Elliott Trudeau was not a Communist, and if, as Worthington indemnifies in the Toronto Sun in 2013, Trudeau did not “damage” Canada, then how did Red Mole Pierre happen to sit on a secret Committee advocating the set-up of a COMMUNIST PARTY in Quebec whose mandate was and is today to dismantle Canada for refederation on the model of the New European Soviet forming across the Atlantic?

At the time this Quebec Communist party had been established on orders of Trudeau and his Communist friends on a secret committee of Power Corporation, Reports on Separatism, in its extract entitled “Economic union called contradiction”, quotes economist Saul Simon Reisman (also on the RCMP’s list of suspected Communist subversives):

“Mr. Reisman said the European Economic Community is used by Premier René Lévesque as his model for the proposed economic union.”

In other words, the EEC – referred to by former President of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev, as the “New European Soviet, is also the model of Communist Trudeau, Marchand and Sauvé, and of the federal “Liberals” under them – and thus of Power Corporation which hosts and owns them – for the refederation of Canada. In other words, Quebec is not “seceding,” it is being used to restructure Canada on the European neo-Soviet model.

This RED REGION in place of Confederation is what Communist Trudeau means when he tells the Jimmy Carter Congress in 1977:

“I am confident it can be done. I say to you with all the certainty I can command that Canada’s unity will not be fractured. Revisions will take place. Accommodations will be made; We shall succeed.”

That is the FRAUD being sold to Canadians as maintaining “Canadian unity“: refederation as a “compromise” after a “Yes” in a referendum conducted by the Communist Parti Québécois, launched by Communist Lévesque in 1968 on orders of Red Mole Trudeau and his Communist friends on the secret committee of Power Corporation.

North American Soviet Union

North American
Soviet Union

Reisman, who, along with his colleagues all have hijacked the federal Parliament, thus acknowledges precisely what the Parti Quebecois is really planning. Not “secession”, but secession as a tool to refederate Canada on the Red European Prototype. The only reason for the initial “secession” is to create international personality for the Province, enabling it to harness the “rest of Canada” into treaties modeled on those used to merge Europe, and necessary to form this top-most part of the North American Soviet Union. A treaty cannot be signed without a national existence, which alone confers a treaty power.

The conclusion is inescapable that the Quebec referendums of 1980 and 1995 were initiated not by life-long Communist René Lévesque – who is nothing but a tool and a front man – but by Communist agent Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his fellow Federal Reds.

Fact #3: The North American Union is modeled on the European Community Formula used by Trudeau-Marchand-Sauvé-Lévesque and Power Corporation to set up a Communist state of Quebec linked to Canada

Thus corroborating the late Christopher Story when he said:

When Gorbachev visited London briefly, for a day, on the 23rd of March, 2000 – and, during that visit he made a statement which – I repeat it at every opportunity – he acknowledged and stated that the European Union is the “New European Soviet”; and I quote.

The organism under construction in North America via “trade” deals and the post-9/11 SPP is a North American equivalent of the “New European Soviet“.

The “North American Union”, called also the “North American Community”, has its direct precursor is the “Canadian Union”, also called the “Canadian Community”, aimed at by the Communist Parti Québécois and planned years before the latter’s founding.

This aim is clear from a public statement of René Lévesque conveyed by a Montreal Gazette reporter in December 1964, one month after Lévesque had appeared on CBC French television calling for the “fundamental” “RESTRUCTURING … of this whole country we call Canada“.

“This country, which could be called
The Canadian Union

In audio Episode 5 of “Du PLQ au PQ” (Translation: From the Quebec Liberal Party to the Parti Québécois), Montreal Gazette reporter, Robert McKenzie, told Radio-Canada:

This country, which could be called the Canadian Union...

Épisode 5 : Du PLQ au PQ. Featured quote by Robert McKenzie, a young journalist at The Montreal Gazette, citing words of René Lévesque: “Ce pays qui pourrait s’appeler l’Union canadienne.

[Translation:] “I received a call from someone: ‘Go to the Liberal Party meeting in Lévesque’s riding tonight (18 September 1967), something major will happen, he’s going to take a stand.” I arrive. There are about 300 people. … I looked at the text for a long time, and finally, he (René Lévesque) concluded with these words:

“This country which could be called The Canadian Union.

It finished just like that: “which could be called The Canadian Union.”

The text McKenzie was reading was possibly Lévesque’s manifesto entitled Pour un Québec souverain dans une nouvelle union canadienne (Translation: For A Sovereign Quebec in a New Canadian Union).

Levesque’s 1967 demand for a new “Canadian Union” precedes the formation of the European Union by approximately fifteen years. The European Union began as a Coal and Steel “Community”, which became an “Economic Community”. The nations of Europe were once independent. They were not federal. Canada is federal. The aim appears to have been to push federal Canada directly into the “EU” stage by “negotiation” following a “Yes” in a referendum. Certainly, the night before the illegal 1980 referendum, Pierre Trudeau offered this to Lévesque3; and therefore, the Red negotiations would not have been for less  than this: a full-blown Red refederation of Canada with an EU-style politburo on the Soviet model where unelected bureaucrats, beyond dismissal by the electorate, make most of the laws for the formerly sovereign European nations.

“not only associate states but even—
do you remember, a sort of new Canadian community.”

Authors Graham Fraser and Ivon Owen in their book, René Lévesque and the Parti Québécois in Power (McGill-Queens University Press, 19xx) quote Lévesque in a subsequent PQ Congress in [[[xxx year]]] (year):

Throughout the day René Lévesque had not intervened in the debate, saving his speech to the end. […]

“We have, for all intents and purposes, gone back to our roots,” he said. That is to say that we are still, as we have been since the begining, sovereignists, but with the realism that the special situation that history and geography have made in Quebec demands. It is not for nothing that from the beginning, seventeen years ago, we evoked not only associate states, but even—do you remember, a sort of new Canadian community.”

Building A North American Community (BANC) -- Restructuring North America into the Soviet regional system, eliminating the nations of Canada, USA and Mexico.

Building A North American Community (BANC) — Restructuring North America into the Soviet regional system, eliminating the nations of Canada, USA and Mexico.

Lévesque invoked not only the term “associate states” (origin of the term “Sovereignty Association”) and referring to the European Economic Community (EEC), but also both the “Canadian Union” and the “Canadian Community“. Community is therefore not a mere synonym for Union.

What did the word “Community” mean to Communist René Lévesque, selected by a secret committee of “Liberals” at Power Corporation in 1967 (including Pierre Elliott Trudeau) to organize and lead the veiled Communist Parti Québécois?

In the French book, Enfant du siècle, a biography of René Lévesque by xxx xx, published by Boréal in (year) [ISBN], we learn at page 80 that René Lévesque signed his own name under his father’s name on the top right corner of the cover of a book annotated by his father (who was a Communist). René Lévesque, we are told, will always retain certain of these annotations, chief among them:

«Ne pas confondre la liberté physique avec la liberté morale. On a la liberté physique de faire le mal.» — «A égalité de capacité, égalité de droit.» — Communauté, c’est-à-dire par tous les gens pris ensemble. Communisme n’admet pas d’autorité civile.» “Do not confuse physical freedom with moral freedom. One has the physical freedom to do evil.” — “To equality of capacity, equality of right.” — Community, i.e., all people taken together. Communism does not admit civil authority.”

The notion of a dictatorship of the proletariat (all people governing together) is an impractical fantasy. But, for René Lévesque, all people taken together were a “Community” which, for him, represented Communism, which defies constituted authority. Therefore, when he spoke of a “Canadian Community” formed within a new “Canadian Union“, Lévesque had to mean a Communist Community; which is proved by the fact that the 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois is Communist. Read my exclusive English translation of the CBC Radio Roundtable of 1972 discussing the manifesto.

NSIM Free Public Service Announcement No. 1

NSIM Free Public Service Announcement No. 1

Knowing that the Parti Québécois is Communist; and that all its leaders have necessarily been Communist, we therefore know that Pierre-Marc Johnson, who succeeded Lévesque as leader of the Parti Québécois, and who occupied the office of Premier of Quebec, was therefore also a Communist. He led a party that sought a Communist state of Quebec, and a new “Canadian Community” and a new “Canadian Union“. Pierre-Marc Johnson signed the 2005 plan of the corporate-fascist Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) sponsored by the Marxist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in the USA, to form a North American Community comprised of Canada, the USA and Mexico; also known as the North American Union.

Congressman Lawrence Patton McDonald (Circa 1983): The Council on Foreign Relations is seeking Regional Union and One-World Government

Congressman Lawrence Patton McDonald (Circa 1983): The Council on Foreign Relations is seeking Regional Union and One-World Government

VIDEO: CFR Seeks World Government

“But, as a member of Congress, I have seen the massive, powerful groups in Washington at work on a daily basis. And I have seen national groups, in their writings and activities and their memberships and members, such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission and others, which are working to transfer our national sovereignty into some type of regional government on the road to a global, one-world governmental structure.”

The dictatorship of the proletariat is obviously impractical. But the dictatorship of the international bankers and their clients, the multinational corporations apparently is not.

Peter Worthingon, Toronto Sun founder and journalist

Peter Worthingon, Toronto Sun founder and journalist

All the information on the North American Union was on the table for journalist Peter Worthington for about a decade before he died. And yet, rather than warn us, he kept quiet. And when the Communist father of anti-nationalist Justin Trudeau needed white-washing to assure the rise of the son to finish his father’s work, Worthington ignored the impending termination of Canada initiated by Pierre Trudeau, and exonerated the Communist.

As if Canada is not on the brink of dissolution into a Communist regional union (for which purpose Trudeau himself ordered Lévesque to set up the Communist PQ so that he could “negotiate” with it to dismantle the country.)

His genetic descendent will apparently inherit that opportunity.



And yet, journalist Peter Worthington (you know, one of those people who are supposed to tell us the facts), in 2012, publicly absolved Pierre Elliott Trudeau by declaring that “his policies and ideology that were alien to our traditions” were only “potentially damaging to the country”.

In other words, looking back on over four decades of criminal subversion, including:

(a) two divisive and illegal referendums (1980, 1995) whose real purpose was to create a COMMUNIST State of Quebec, and which damaged the economy, cost jobs and sent families flying across the continent to escape the potential aftermath;

(b) the ongoing erosion of Canada instituted by Trudeau’s co-creation of the Communist Parti Québécois to dismantle Canada;

(c) and all this while we are now on the brink of the final dismantling for annexation due to Trudeau’s continental “policy” of north-south integration through so-called “trade deals” with Red friends in America such as Red Ronnie (i.e, Communist Ronald Reagan, who was groomed by General Electric, of the infamous Broadway triangle, to merely appear conservative) …

… according to Worthington, no damage whatsoever was done to Canada by our de facto, not de jure, Communist prime minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

Said Worthington, clearing the royal road to the top for Justin:

Whatever Justin Trudeau is, he isn’t his father“.

The Edmund Burke Society once called Peter Worthington an “armchair anti-communist”.

It is obvious to me, that newspaperman Peter Worthington was never an anti-communist at all. Nor was he a journalist worthy of the name.


1 Reports on Separatism, subtitled “the indexed digest of events across Canada concerning Confederation, national unity, bilingualism and biculturalism”, (published twice monthly).

2 We have Communist Voting in Canada. For real. It’s called the Quebec referendums. The Reds call it “democratic”, but the purpose of the vote, a COMMUNIST state of Quebec, has never been mentioned in the QUESTION. And, certainly, the “secession bench” of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1998 never mentioned it. Isn’t that odd? And it doesn’t come up in the so-called Clarity Act.

And, if you do not eventually vote YES here in Canada, as required, there is always the underlying threat that FLQ-style violence may return. After all, in 1964, René Lévesque was reported in the daily press as having told two different groups of high-school students that if the “rest of Canada” refuses to give Quebec “associate state” status, the children could resort to “guns and dynamite”. So, the guy in the picture with the gun (at left), and the basket piled with YES votes beside the empty NO basket — that’s how we do it here in Canada, too. (In fact, there’s good reason to believe the Communists STUFF the “YES” vote. But that’ll be another post.)

3 :French original:

Épisode 5 : Du PLQ au PQ
En décembre 1964, René Lévesque, alors ministre dans le gouvernement de Jean Lesage, en choque plus d’un en déclarant qu’il n’est pas séparatiste mais qu’il pourrait le devenir. Après la défaite du PLQ en juin 1966, René Lévesque et des collègues du parti — le Groupe de la Réforme — commencent à définir ce que serait la souveraineté-association. En juillet 1967, Charles de Gaulle lance les fameux mots incendiaires : « Vive le Québec libre! ». En octobre cette même année, René Lévesque et son groupe de fidèles quittent le Parti libéral. Cet épisode retrace aussi la création du Parti québécois, en octobre 1968.
— “Point de mire sur René Lévesque”, Radio-CBC, Première chaîne (Radio en profondeur)

– 30 –


Communist Guy Bertrand’s New Plan to Smash Quebec into Communist Regions (Part I)

Part I

My exclusive English translation of Quand nous serons vraiment chez nous, the 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois for a Communist state of Quebec, is almost complete. Only about 10% remains to be done; it has been drafted, and needs to be polished. Please visit the sidebar to read the English version of this hidden Communist plan to use Quebec to dismantle Canada by taking the powers out of Parliament for use by the new Communist country of Quebec.

A young Guy Bertrand, candidate for the Communist Parti Québécois

A young Guy Bertrand, candidate for the Communist Parti Québécois

It is also very important, before you read the manifesto, to read the CBC Radio Roundtable of the same year, 1972, discussing the manifesto. This makes it absolutely clear, from the criticisms brought by professional employers and business people, that the PQ manifesto is Communist, on the model of a Soviet satellite in Eastern Europe. Then read the manifesto.

Obviously, people who have been pretending to be “separatists” are not separatists at all, they are Communists. If we look up the background of René Lévesque, for example, it’s obvious that he is a Communist. He was known to be a Communist at the time he first ran for election, and for that reason, he had a hard time getting in.

However, other people have been portrayed as “separatists” or as “federalists” over the years, who really are Communists. Language has been abused in order to shield them, and to obscure the fact that they are not “opposed” to each other, but are working together from seemingly opposite vantage points. It’s a bit like the dunking you might get at a birthday party. Someone grabs your feet, someone grabs your shoulders, and while you are helpless, they rush to the water’s edge and toss you in.

Founding of the Communist Parti Québécois with René Lévesque and Guy Bertrand. Bertrand is in the middle, right behind the sign. Lévesque is to his left, which is right in the photo.

Founding of the Communist Parti Québécois with René Lévesque and Guy Bertrand. Bertrand is in the middle, right behind the sign. Lévesque is to his left, which is right in the photo.

Communists have grabbed the feet and the shoulders of the country, and are rushing to toss it into the new regional pool. They are all after the same thing: dismantling Canada, dismantling the Provinces, dismantling the Territories, destroying the Provincial and Territorial Legislatures and the last vestige of the Parliament, for a regionalized, Sovietized, continental, multicultural regional union that has nothing to do with the British North America Act of 1867, and will end in the full recolonization of Canada and the destruction of its Founding Peoples.

Quebec City lawyer, Guy Bertrand, who has been infamous with his “separatist/federalist” flip-flops, pretending in 1995 that he had “changed sides” to defend Canada against the 1995 referendum in Quebec, is neither “federalist” nor “separatist” but Communist. This is clear because he is a co-founding member of the Communist Parti Québécois with René Lévesque (see the photo above with Bertrand right behind the sign at the moment of founding the Communist Parti Québécois). He ran for the leadership of the Communist Parti Québécois in 1985. You can match the face to his portrait on the red, white and blue election poster, scanned above.

I also know for a fact that Bertrand’s 1995 “law suit” is a farce and a fraud. It was part of a tactic, together with the Communist-controlled Parti Québécois, and their aiders, abettors and allies at the federal level, in order to manipulate the appearance of “law” to entitle Quebec to international state recognition after an expected “Yes”.

Quebec City lawyer, and veiled Communist, Guy Bertrand

Quebec City lawyer, and veiled Communist, Guy Bertrand

I have studied Guy Bertrand’s so-called law suit1 in depth. One of the judges used in that fraud is a man who actively participated behind the scenes in the first major stage of the final overthrow of Canada — the fraud of the so-called “patriation” of 1982, which was not a patriation, but a constitutional and parliamentary coup d’état. I’m referring to Quebec Superior Court judge Robert Lesage who took part in the Canadian Bar Association’s criminally seditious “Committee on the Constitution” from 1976-1979, financed largely by a tax-free foundation, and stage-managed by Rhodes Scholar and future judge of the post-coup Supreme Court of Canada, Gérard Vincent La Forest.

You’ll find the name Robert Lesage, Q.C. (Quebec), cited by La Forest in the article penned by Rhodes Scholar La Forest describing the work of that committee for the September 1979 issue of the Canadian Bar Review. (See the footnote at page 494.) The Committee’s project was called “Towards A New Canada“. La Forest’s article in Volume 57 of the Canadian Bar Review, (journal of the non-governmental Canadian Bar Association), was entitled “Towards A New Canada: The Canadian Bar Association’s Report on the Constitution“. You can also read it online at the web site of the Canadian Bar Association if you have a university library account.

The fact that the patriation was indeed a coup d’état is admitted in his own words by a chief architect and adviser to the coup executive, Barry Lee Strayer, in a pair of lectures he delivered to a College of Law within months after the 1982 coup d’état. You can read those lectures online, with my introductory comments: Patriation and Legitimacy of the Canadian Constitution. And it was a coup d’état of the Left, all linked to the Communist world-government crowd at the Socialist International (SI), including the New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP) which has held executive positions in the Red, Red, Socialist International. If you search this present web site, you will also find information on the Socialist International, and the ties to it of the Parti Québécois. I have in particular translated an article on the subject by Philippe Poulin, “Attempt of the Parti Québécois to Join the Socialist International,” on which I will one day post a few comments. And you will find at this present web site René Lévesque’s 1982 letter to the Socialist International, seeking entrance of the Parti Québécois.

With respect to Bertrand’s phony “law suit” in 1995, without going into all the fine details: in Quebec, under the Code of Civil Procedure, whoever wants to institute a law suit must comply with strict fundamentals. The first fundamental is called “interest“. You must have a real, existing, personal “sufficient interest” in the point which you are raising before a court in Quebec. At Title III, “Rules Applicable to All Actions”, Chapter I, “Actions, Parties to Actions and Attorneys,” (in French: Titre III, Règles Applicables À Toutes Les Demandes En Justice, Chapitre I, De L’action, Des Parties, Des Procureurs), you will read:

55. Celui qui forme une demande en justice, soit pour obtenir la sanction d’un droit méconnu, menacé ou dénié, soit pour faire autrement prononcer sur l’existence d’une situation juridique, doit y avoir un intérêt suffisant.

55. Whoever brings an action at law, whether for the enforcement of a right which is not recognized or is jeopardized or denied, or otherwise to obtain a pronouncement upon the existence of a legal situation, must have a sufficient interest therein.

1965 (1re sess.), c. 80, a. 55.

1965 (1st sess.), c. 80, a. 55.

If you don’t meet that legal requirement of “sufficient interest“, you therefore do not have a “law suit”. Your documents, which you have filed into court, regardless that you paid for a court stamp, regardless that they have all been rubber-stamped at various desks, regardless that a bailiff may have claimed to “serve” it (there is no “legal service”, either, where there is no legal “interest”), regardless that a name or citation is given to the file in official courthouse records, it remains nothing but a file folder full of documents. It has never become a “law suit” in the legal sense, and therefore can never attract the jurisdiction of the court to deal with it, because you have no personal, immediate and existing “interest”. There is plenty of case law in the library to explain what “sufficient interest” means in Quebec law. Ask a reference librarian for the annotated volumes on Code of Civil Procedure/Code de procédure civile.

Guy Bertrand and André Joli-Coeur in the 1996-1998 Quebec Secession Scam at the unconstitutional non-judicial, section 53 advisory board of the post-1982 coup Supreme Court of Canada

Guy Bertrand and André Joli-Coeur in the 1996-1998 Quebec Secession Scam at the unconstitutional non-judicial, section 53 advisory board of the post-1982 coup Supreme Court of Canada

A thorough analysis of Mr. Bertrand’s 1995 file indicates he has no “interest”. Therefore, the also spurious “judgments” of Robert Lesage, and of Judge Robert Pidgeon in that file, are legally non-existent because they never had jurisdiction in the absence of “legal interest” — meaning “sufficient interest” — by Mr. Bertrand.

After that, the file, which attained a surreal existence entirely from media coverage, becomes very tactical on many levels, and I won’t get into it, because I will be pleading at court to throw it out, as part of the network of subversion behind the phony 1998 “Secession” Reference. Bertrand’s scamming in this file, with his fellow Communists running the Parti Québécois at the time of the 1995 referendum, plowed a direct path to the phony 1998 “Supreme Court of Canada” Quebec “Secession” Reference and its “unwritten principles” compelling Canada to negotiate its own dismantling with the Quebec Communists. (I will also be throwing out the phony Clarity Act, which is based on the phony “unwritten principles” when I get to court. And, yes, you can still do it even though the courts have been hijacked under the 1982 coup d’état.)

Mr. Justice Gérard Vincent La Forest -- another of the 1982 coup plotters who got himself a high judicial job under the "new" constitution he himself helped to impose on Canada.

Mr. Justice Gérard Vincent La Forest — another of the 1982 coup plotters who got himself a high judicial job under the “new” constitution he himself helped to impose on Canada.

As to Mr. La Forest and the CBA committee’s “Towards A New Canada” of 1979, there is no legal authorization in the lawful British North America Act of 1867 to replace Confederation with any other entity, including one so vaguely referred to as “A New Canada”, and obviously meaning Communism.

In addition, the La Forest-CBA project of “A New Canada” was intended to “constitutionalize” (impose) multiculturalism  as Canada’s “New Constitution”. Multiculturalism is Soviet-Zionist, not British North American, and manifestly not “Canadian”. It is the hijacking of Canada by the “New World Order” for ends opposed to Confederation. It destroys the self-government of the Founding Peoples of Canada, established for them permanently in 1867. If you are interested in the true constitution and the rights of the Canadian Founding Peoples, you may wish to visit the web site of the Alliance of the Founding Peoples of Canada / Alliance des peuples fondateurs du Canada, and subscribe.

Said Mr. La Forest in the September 1979 Canadian Bar Review at p. 500 of his article, “Towards A New Canada“:

For other language and ethnic groups far less can be done as a practical matter, but the Committee felt that in addition to the preambular statement on multiculturalism, the constitution should explicitly recognize the right of the federal and provincial legisla­tures to assist these groups in promoting their languages and cultures.

Why would a lawyer who is attempting to influence the draft of a new imposed constitution say that?

Precisely because he knows very well that Canada belongs to the Founding Peoples of the country for whom the Provinces were created in which they were the local majorities at the time, and should still be today. Canada is legally an ethnic federation. Whether the United States of America is also legally an ethnic federation, I couldn’t tell you; but Canada is, and that is the basis of our rights, because the purpose of Confederation was to preserve us and our cultures for all time. That fact is all over the Hansard (Debates on Confederation of 1865) and the other relevant history of the British North America Act.

Now, the local or Provincial Legislatures are legal jurisdictions belonging principally to the ethnic majorities who obtained them at the time of Confederation. The purpose of these legal jurisdictions is the preservation, promotion and self-government of each of the Founding Peoples, without undue external interference, i.e., from other cultures and ethnicities. That was the whole point in 1867.

Lawful immigration can therefore only be assimilative of the immigrants; it cannot be used the other way around, to assimilate the Founding Peoples into a new multicultural system.

The constitutionally lawful use of these legislative and governmental jurisdictions can therefore only pursue the preservation and self-government of the Founding Peoples. Rhodes Scholar Gérard Vincent La Forest and his CBA “coup committee” therefore knew  that “copying and pasting” the constitutional structure of Confederation into the upcoming “New” constitution would not alter these legal jurisdictions and their purposes. It would alter their constitutional sovereignty and change their character, and subject the Founding Peoples to the “government of judges” under the “new” Charter, but it would not authorize any legislature or government in Canada to govern for the sake of the preservation and promotion of other peoples; in particular 200+ foreign races and their cultures whom these Reds planned then to mass-immigrate; and whom they have indeed mass-immigrated.

Those words required by La Forest were never added to the “New” constitution of 1982. Why they failed to stuff them in at the time of the phony “patriation,” I don’t yet know. But they did fail. There is therefore neither “preambular statement” nor “explicit recognition” of “the right” (“right” means constitutional power) of the federal and provincial legisla­tures to “assist” mass-immigrated groups of hundreds of other races in promoting their languages and cultures.

Foreigners have no “Confederation” here. If they can be assimilated, they must be assimilated, or there is no place for them. Quebec and a few outlying areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia is all that remains of New France. Quebec — all of it, not just a corner in the Gaspé — belongs principally to the French-Canadians; secondarily to the other Founding Peoples who were a minority in Lower Canada (Quebec) in 1867.

Confederation belongs to the Founding Peoples for our benefit. This is the only country we have; these mass immigrants already have countries elsewhere. Moreover, they outnumber us, in some cases more than a million to one, in those countries. They are not endangered species; we are. The Founding Peoples of Canada have no obligation to destroy ourselves, our country, our culture, our Constitution, our Parliament, our Legislatures, and our respective unique institutions of 1867, to serve other people and other purposes.

As a consequence of the complete lack of express language in the “new” 1982 coup constitution to such effect, meaning the complete absence of either a “preambular statement” or any words to authorize all the various provincial and federal “departments” or “ministries” to cater to the mass-immigrated newcomers, and to “multiculturalism” and to “interculturalism,” their doing so is “unlawful” under the coup constitution. And it could never be lawfully done under the British North America Act, 1867. The BNA Act was and still remains Canada’s only lawful Constitution, for whose true Parliament and Legislatures the proper writs have not been issued in many a year.

Brian Mulroney, signer with veiled Communist and Rockefeller mouthpiece, Red Ronald Reagan) of NAFTA (the latter being a stage toward North American Soviet regional union), once appeared on TV and ripped up the “constitution of Canada”. Well, he can rip up his 1988 so-called “Canadian Multiculturalism Act”2, which is a fraud and VOID because there is nothing in the constitution — either in the coup constitution or in The Real Constitution, on which to pin it. Notably, there is no express power to pass it, as it undermines and destroys the rights of the Founding Peoples of Confederation.

The true Constitution needs to be restored in order to restore lawful self-government of the Founding Peoples of Canada to whom the Provinces and the Parliament legally belong.

Bertrand’s Regionalized Red Republic of Quebec

I got off on a tangent — albeit an interesting one — with respect to coup conspirator, Robert Lesage. Now, back to Guy Bertrand and his plan to convert Quebec to a Communist-style regionalized federal republic.

Guy Bertrand's "Liberté-Nation" Project for a Regionalized Federal Quebec

Guy Bertrand’s “Liberté-Nation” Project for a Regionalized Federal Quebec

On Monday, 8 April 2014, Guy Bertrand published a “New Edition” of his French book entitled Projet Liberté-Nation, subtitled: “Plan d’affaires pour réaliser l’indépendance du Québec tout en conservant notre part du Canada“. Translation: Liberty-Nation Project, Business Plan to Achieve the Independence of Quebec while Conserving our Share of Canada.

At first glance, therefore, it reeks of the same old “Sovereignty Association” (1980 referendum) and “Sovereignty Partnership” (1995 referendum), whose object was to flypaper Canada into a Communist regional union by “association”.

Now, the word is not “partnership” or “association” but “conserving our share of Canada“. The Reds are still trying to attach a Communist Quebec to the unconscious and snoring “rest of Canada”.

I’ve translated the book cover (next, below) so you can get the gist of what Communist Guy Bertrand of the Parti Québécois and the 1995 referendum, is up to, now.

Guy Bertrand's Liberty-Nation Project, Business Plan to Achieve the Independence of Quebec while Conserving our Share of Canada

Guy Bertrand’s Liberty-Nation Project, Business Plan to Achieve the Independence of Quebec while Conserving our Share of Canada

The Liberty-Nation Project

To make Quebec independent is
to make a part of Canada

Then, in the sidebar of the book is a MAP of a subdivided Quebec, entitled:

Invitation to the regions
to a changing of the guard
from the provincial

The footer over the map says: Heading towards regional federated states in a Republic. The book’s contents are in point form under the map:

  • Study of needs and expediency
  • Market study and impacts
  • Feasibility study
  • Strategic marketing and communications plan
  • Scale model of the country of Quebec
  • Action plan

A) Regions
B) Liberal Party of Quebec
C) Parti Québécois

The title on the top of the picture of the Quebec Provincial Legislature is the subtitle of the book: “Business plan to achieve the independence of Quebec while conserving our share of Canada”. The caption below the Legislature reveals the well-worn tactic of labeling the Reds as being merely “independentists”, i.e. “separatists”. It reads:

The independence of Quebec requires a strong consensus among the population. History clearly demonstrates that the independentists will never be a sufficient majority of the population to make a country of Quebec.

In other words, even when they stuff the ballot boxes, they can’t win.

By that, I mean: the 1995 referendum may well have been rigged. Up to a quarter million phony identities of “new citizen” immigrants are alleged to have been flooded onto the Quebec electoral roles in the handful of years leading to the 1995 referendum.

Certain Quebec election workers in the office of the Director General of Quebec Elections insist that “a file exists” at the DGQE which documents the fact that a couple of hundred thousand “voters” who had registered for the 1995 referendum… had evaporated into thin air when the roles were updated two years later for the next provincial election!

These workers in the DGQE, and other sincere French-Canadians, presumed that the federal government of Canada, which had supplied the identities of these “new citizens” to the DGQE, had used them to register a couple of hundred thousand “NO” votes to “save” Canada.

A “secret committee” of Communist cabinet ministers from Quebec in the federal government of Soviet Agent Lester Bowles Pearson, met Friday nights in 1967 at Power Corporation in Montreal. It was they who conceived the Parti Québécois and appointed Lévesque to organize and lead it.

A “secret committee” of Communist cabinet ministers from Quebec in the federal government of Soviet Agent Lester Bowles Pearson, met Friday nights in 1967 at Power Corporation in Montreal. It was they who conceived the Parti Québécois and appointed Lévesque to organize and lead it.

What these people do not realize is that a “secret committee” of the Communist-infested federal Liberals, in the reign of Soviet agent Lester Bowles Pearson (Prime Minister in 1967), met on Friday nights in downtown Montreal on the business premises of Power Corporation of Canada. That secret committee created the Parti Québécois. They instructed René Lévesque to set it up as a coalition of the left and the far left, while calling it “moderate”, and lead it so that the federal level could “fight it”… in a referendum.

The CEO’s of Power Corporation sit on the Board and Senate of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs (CIIA), now called “Open Canada” in honor of billionaire George Soros who finances revolutions, Communism, and his Open Society Institute (meaning no more national borders). The CIIA used to brief the Reds recruited into Canada’s federal civil service and External Affairs Department by Soviet Agent Oscar D. Skelton. Among Skelton’s early recruits was Lester Bowles Pearson, who at one point became the president of the CIIA.

The CIIA, as a branch of the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London (headquarters of the international bankers behind the U.N. and world government), and as the Secretariat of the Institute of Pacific Relations (led by Communists taking instructions from the Kremlin and created by the Council on Foreign Relations in the USA) — used to brief Soviet Agent Oscar D. Skelton’s Red recruits into Canada’s External Affairs and Civil Service. Among Skelton’s early recruits was Lester Bowles Pearson, who at one point became the president of the CIIA.

It is the Reds up top, Pearson, Trudeau, Marchand, Maurice Sauvé and many unnamed others, who are behind the Communist Parti Québécois. They have been using it as a pretext to Communize Canada by “negotiation” to “save” “Canadian unity” after a “YES” in a referendum.

Therefore, if the ballots were stuffed (electronically, for example) in the 1995 referendum, they were stuffed by the Red Fed … with “YES” votes. Not with “NO” votes.

It is alleged that the election workers who discovered the “vaporized” quarter-million 1995 “voters” were eventually required to sign promises of secrecy, and were re-assigned to other departments.

Now, back to Bertrand’s book. The cover continues with the following text in two columns:

The strategy aiming to convert the federalists to indepen­den­t­ists to obtain a majority vote in favor of independence has to this day not given the expected results and must be abandoned. The referendum approach preferred in 1980 and in 1995 has divided the Québécois into two opposed clans rather than uniting them in a common project. The effort for Quebec in­dependence unfortunately can be summed up by a debate in the course of which the independentists try to impose their needs and their solutions upon the federalists. However, the independence of Quebec must at one and the same time meet the needs of the independentists and the federalists, which is to say, those of all the Québécois.

This reconciliation of needs is not based on a series of compromises, but on the recognition of Québec for what it really is for each of us.

When I assert that “to make Quebec independent is to make a part of Canada independent“, I recognize that the independence of Quebec is not limited to the independence of a Canadian province and its separation from Canada, but to the independence of our part of Canada with all that this implies for our own identity.

In short, the independence of Quebec does not consist in oblit-erating all Canadian character from Quebec, as one bleaches a garment in javel water.

The footer of the book cover, in white text on a blue ground, says:

“The final effort to save the French language in America.”

René Lévesque's Communist Compromise: restructure all of Canada for French-Canadian "economic, <b>ethnic</b>, linguistic, aspirations

René Lévesque’s Communist Compromise: restructure all of Canada for French-Canadian “economic, ethnic, linguistic, aspirations

Let’s put that appeal to a “final effort” in historical context and see how the pretext for Quebec “sovereignty” has been changed over time. On 10 November 1964 in an old black & white film clip, Communist René Lévesque — who was then a minister in the Quebec Liberal government of Jean Lesage (that had been furiously working on a Communist Plan to run Quebec since 1961) — called to “fundamentally restructure” all of Canada. During the interview, an obviously leftist and partisan CBC journalist prompted Lévesque:

“The current Canada is much too centralized, does not take account of the economic, ethnic, linguistic aspirations of French Canada.”

To which Lévesque replies:

“One can say that, yes. To simplify and to keep it short,
it’s pretty much like that; I believe.”

A second journalist interjects:

“There is a middle-of-the-road solution for Quebec, what shall it be?”

That’s the punch line Lévesque has been waiting for. He says:

“A – a renewal – a restructuring, if you like, of the federation, of the Canadian Confederation.”

That “middle-of-the-road solution” is really Communism. For obvious reasons, they never use that word, or the word “dismantling”. It’s always “renewal”, as if they are just “improving” it. But what they are doing is destroying Canada.

They want to remove not only the national border, but the provincial internal borders. They are changing the population by mass immigration, which affects the internal borders by blotting out the original Canadian Founding ethnicities federalized by these borders, and which these borders signify. In effect, they are eradicating the lawful Constitution by attrition — unless the Founding Peoples wake up and fight back.

By 2014, when Bertrand is publishing the “New Edition” of his “Liberty-Nation Project“, Quebec has been the dumping off point for over 200 foreign races speaking over 135 foreign languages at home and on the streets. One small immigrant child told her father, “Canada’s not a country, it’s a refugee camp“.

Communist Bertrand, an ideological heir and successor of Lévesque, is now trying to save, not the “economic, ethnic, linguistic aspirations of French Canada (meaning the French Canadians). Now he is trying to save the “French language in America”.

In the early era of the Communist attack on Quebec, the effort was supposedly to “save” the French Canadians themselves “from” Canada. Save them, their ethnicity, their culture, and their language. Much of their culture derived from their Catholic roots. However, in the mid-1960s in Quebec, the Reds eliminated the constitutionally mandated Catholic and Protestant public schools, also called “separate schools”. This paved the way for mass immigration of hundreds of foreign races of all religious beliefs. Essentially, you can teach anyone to speak French, but the authentic culture of the French Canadians had its rug pulled by Rhodes Scholars working with the left for Communist world government.

Thus, the order of the day is to force all these foreigners to speak 200+ kinds of pidgin French, while distracting everyone from the fact that Communists — above and below — are dismantling Canada.

As long as everyone speaks French, the Reds can still pretend Quebec is a “distinct society” (although not because it’s French Canadian) for the purpose of “international state recognition”, and “secede” to force the “rest of Canada” to “restructure itself” into the top half of the Communist regional union: the North American Soviet Union, under construction in North America for decades. However, it is lagging behind Mikhail Gorbachev’s slowly restructured New European Soviet.



1 Bertrand c. Québec (Procureur général), filed 11 August 1995 (S.C. 200 05-002117-955) (1995), 127 D.L.R. (4th) 408, (sub nom. Bertrand c. Bégin) [1995] R.J.Q. 2500, 1995 CarswellQue 131 (Que. S.c (4th) 408, (sub nom. Bertrand c. Bégin) [1995] R.J.Q. 2500, 1995 CarswellQue 131 (Que. S.C.)

2 Canadian Multiculturalism Act ( 1985, c. 24 (4th Supp.))

= = =

Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism with Ben Wattenberg (Think Tank)

In large part, Canada has America to thank for our little headache up here with socialism. This neat historical film identifies the “grass roots” of the CCF and the NDP in a well produced and interesting 5 minutes 19 seconds.

There is a marvelous web site for the film, with all kinds of resources:

Visit and enjoy it!  But watch this, first!


[ Voice of ROBERT BOTHWELL, Author, Canada and the United States: ]

As the Socialist Party faded from the U.S. political scene, some of the farmers who had embraced its ideals would take their politics north, to Canada.

Today, Americans think of Canada as a lot more radical, a more socialist place. But the irony is that Canada’s first socialist politicians, Canada’s first socialist intellectuals, are Americans. And that is something that people today have forgotten. Uh — socialism, when it comes to Canada — in an effective way, is an American import.

[ Moderator: ]

Between 1898 and 1915, nearly a million people emigrated from America to Canada. Lured by cheap farmland, most settled in the Western Canadian Provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba: the last North American frontier.

They brought their knowledge of how to wrest a living from the soil, and a set of political convictions rooted in their experience.

[ Voice of Robert McMath, Author, American Populism: ]

Farmers in the Prairie Provinces of Canada and the northern Great Plains of the United States all faced similar problems in the early 20th Century. They were all growing wheat. They felt that they were being gouged by the railroads, by the bankers. They felt that the market conditions were working against them.

Rather than seeing this in terms of impersonal market forces, they personalized it and viewed bankers, railroad men, lawyers as the enemy.

[ Voice of ROBERT BOTHWELL, Author, Canada and the United States: ]

The way you express your protest at the turn of the Century is, “Hey, wait a minute, why don’t we nationalize these things?”

And from that, as the institutions resist, you move fairly logically and pretty quickly towards radicalism.

And they’re radicalized in Canada in the same way, by the same people, and the same organizations, as they are in the United States. But let me emphasize, these organizations start not in Canada, but in the United States.

[ Moderator: ]

Every major U.S. farmer’s organization would resurface in Canada in some form. By the 1920s, these organizations and their successors began to make their voices heard throughout the Prairie Provinces.

[ Voice of Robert McMath, Author, American Populism: ]

They were very soon able to influence electoral politics in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, simply by the power of their numbers.

But it’s really not until the Great Depression begins on the Prairies, really in the 1920s, not the 1930s, with drought, with the collapse of the wheat market, that farmers began to contemplate forming their own, independent political force.

[ Moderator: ]

In 1932, a new political party emerged from a conference in Saskatchewan, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. The CCF.

[ Voice of ROBERT BOTHWELL, Author, Canada and the United States: ]

The CCF is a kind of Big Bang among radical groups. Radical farmers, socialist labor unions, and radicalized socialist intellectuals, many in the universities, many also in the Protestant churches. And they get together, and they write a platform that calls for the socialization, essentially, of the means of production and the means of finance.

I mean, it’s, it is a classic socialist platform.

The party would later moderate its platform to appeal to a broader base. In 1944, the CCF swept the provincial elections in Saskatchewan, becoming the first socialist government in North America, and leaving a lasting imprint on Canadian politics.

[ Voice of ROBERT BOTHWELL, Author, Canada and the United States: ]

Well, CCF stayed in power in Saskatchewan until 1964. And one of its last acts was to bring in a socialized medicine scheme for the Province of Saskatchewan, which they imposed in the early 1960s and which had such tremendous appeal that it actually pushed Canadian politics in that direction later in the 1960s.

The CCF’s ideas were adopted by the governing Liberal party of Canada, amd the Liberals were the ones who finally brought in national medicare in Canada.

[ CONCLUSION — Voice of Ben Wattenberg: ]

Socialism found more of a following in Canada than in the United States.

In 1961, the CCF became the New Democratic Party. It is still largely socialist in its convictions, and still a force in Canadian politics.

In America, some of the ideas championed by socialists also found their way into the mainstream. Ideas like unemployment insurance, social security, and the 8-hour work day. But socialism, itself, never took root.

Be sure to join us for the second episode of Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism.

For Think Tank, I’m Ben Wattenberg.


The Real Pierre Elliott Trudeau — A Child’s View, in Retrospect

The Real Pierre Elliott Trudeau - A Child's View in RetrospectForeword:

The cartoon-girl is supposed to be me, but actually, I had curly hair. I just couldn’t draw curls in Windows Paint to save my life. And if my grandmother had seen that short red dress, she’d have been letting the hem down overnight and sneak it back into my closet before the morning. But the house and the school are kinda cute, very close to the real things where I grew up and where

I studied for the first seven years of school at Saint Augustine’s of Canterbury. The school was right next door to our Catholic church of the same name, whose bells could be heard ten blocks away in bed, every Sunday morning.

I wrote the script and drew the initial cartoon slides in 2011, intending to make a video. Then my Dell D600 hard drive crashed.

I have learned the hard way not to entrust my hard drives to repair technicians. They have an unfortunate habit of deleting the contents. (Especially when I pay them using my bank card, which is being traced.)

I therefore had to learn (a) to repair my own D600 with second-hand spare parts and “How To” videos from YouTube, (b) instal Windows XP Pro SP3, (c) configure all my own programs, and finally, (d) use various kinds of recovery software to rescue my files from crashed hard drives.

It took me until late in 2013 to recover the drive that crashed in 2011. Among the treasures that I dredged back up was this old, incomplete animated video, a Child’s View of Trudeau.

Only two minutes of the video had been finished out of the 8-10 minutes planned. It would take too long right now to finish it, so pardon me if I grab a few slides to illustrate the gist, and give you the script, below.

Animation and cartoons aside, this is a real story about The Real Pierre Elliott Trudeau — A Child’s View in Retrospect.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The Story

When I was about 12 or 14 years old, and home from school for the afternoon, I switched on our old black and white floor-model TV, and there was Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

This would be around 1965-1967. Trudeau was not yet Prime Minister. As I was not a political kid, I couldn’t tell you what he was at the time. But, from my reading today, I would say that during that broadcast, he had probably already been recruited by Soviet spy, Prime Minister Lester Pearson, and had been or would soon be elected to Parliament as a so-called “Liberal” and enter Pearson’s cabinet.

This was on channel 6 or 12 (CBC or CTV in Montreal, Canada). We had rabbit ears and picked up only channels 2 and 10 (which were French), and 6, 12, 3 and 5 (which were English; but 3 and 5 were American, ABC and NBC).

So, I suspect that Trudeau was on channel 6 at the time, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a national “news” and entertainment network formed by federal statute, the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936 and By-Laws. (In other words, looking back, this was Canada’s Pravda.)

So, there was Trudeau in a suit being interviewed. He was describing his ideal society. And, again, looking back, he must have been testing the waters; for, as he never openly discussed it again, in these terms, he must have decided that viewer response was not sufficiently favorable to openly  inflict Communism on Canada.

I know I remember this pretty well, because after the show, I quickly descended the basement stairs of our wholly-owned non-mortgaged duplex at 2264 Hingston Avenue in NDG to the old Underwood manual typewriter, and I wrote a funny story about Trudeau’s ideal society.

I called my story “CLANADA”, with an “L” in it; that’s not a typo.

However, back to Trudeau — and keep in mind, I could write this as an affidavit.

In Trudeau’s ideal society, there would be no private property. You would own nothing. You would not even own the chair you sat in to watch Mr. Trudeau on television. And obviously, you would not own the television.

Because, said Trudeau, there would be no stores. You could not buy things any more. Instead, you would go to a central warehouse run by the government where you would receive all you need, which is to say, all that government decided  you need. You would exchange a chit for this, which the government had issued.

For example, said Trudeau, in this warehouse there would be only a few models of couches, beds and chairs, and a limited assortment of pictures to put on your wall. The purpose of this limitation in style and variety was “equality”. Said Trudeau, people would be “equal” only if they all owned nothing and had the mere use of pretty much the same “things”.

Keep in mind, this is coming from a man who when he finally left the home owned by his mother, bought himself a mansion which he later fitted with an indoor swimming pool. Newspaper columnist Peter Worthington suspected the pool was at Canadian taxpayers’ expense, although it was said to have been a gift of wealthy businessmen. (If the latter is true, perhaps the wealthy capitalists were “equalizing” one of their own with themselves.) Therefore, Mr. Trudeau, his wife and his own children, did not have to mingle with the “equal” people at the low-brow community swimming pool.


Mr. Trudeau certainly did not live the lifestyle he recommended for others.

One would therefore have to think that Trudeau did not consider himself “equal” to others. Apparently, in his ideal society, he would be “more equal” — as no doubt would friends of his who also lived up the hill in pool-equipped mansions, or in posh Westmount homes.

As a kid, I didn’t know what Communism was, so I really just thought Trudeau was crazy.

I snorted and chuckled with amusement as I banged out my child’s satire of the great man’s views for Canada on my grandfather’s old Underwood — which in Trudeau’s ideal world, I would not have the use of, due to abolition of inheritance, and more importantly, laws against criticizing Communism. (As a child-intellectual with all the wrong views, I’d have been quickly sent for “re-education”. But I know for sure, it wouldn’t have worked. I’d have ended up, like Vladimir Bukovsky, in lunatic asylums for penning politically incorrect views about the North American Union, and slurring the Canadian Commisars.)

The story I wrote was of Trudeau’s ideal country, where you didn’t even own the bed you slept in.

Moreover, in my story, you had to share  your bed with a neighbour, because it rolled through the wall in the morning, into the next apartment, to be slept in by someone else coming home from his shift at the workplace.

I no longer have a copy of that story, and I can’t remember any more details. But, obviously, today, I know for sure that Pierre Elliott Trudeau was a Communist. Which is to say, he merely advocated  Communism for the rest of us. (It just took Alan Stang to remind me.)

– 30 –


UPDATE 26 November 2015: Researchers can now DOWNLOAD files of all chapters of the 1972 Parti Québécois Manifesto for a Communist State of Quebec, that I have translated into English to date. That is 90% of it, more than is currently posted online in html. This links expires in 5 days from 26 Nov 2015. I will try to replace it as necessary:


Soviet Agent Oscar D. Skelton Recruited Soviet Agent Lester Bowles Pearson into the Civil Service of Canada


In his 1982 pamphlet entitled “Inside the Featherbed File? … “, former undercover RCMP Officer, Patrick Walsh, gave a cameo image of Oscar D. Skelton.

Walsh reports that in the “Featherbed” file, other RCMP Officers claim to have established that the “Father of Canada’s Civil Service”, meaning Skelton, was a Soviet agent, a recruit of Louis Kon of the USSR’s infamous Comintern.

Walsh also alludes to a short reference on Skelton in Peter C. Newman’s The Canadian Establishment. Said Walsh:

In his best-seller, The Canadian Establishment, Peter C. Newman gives only a superficial thumbnail sketch of comrade Oscar Skelton: “During the next 16 years, Skelton founded and built up Canada’s External Affairs department and as MacKenzie King’s closest adviser became the most important civil servant in Ottawa.” In his Appendix I dealing with Ottawa’s Mandarins, there is only a mere mention of Skelton’s belonging to the Rideau Club and having taught at Queen’s University, and no mention of his membership in the Canadian-Soviet Friendship Society & how he also enticed* MacKenzie King to join!

Walsh continues:

Skelton was careful to groom only pro-Soviet civil servants in the External Affairs Department. Most of them were being briefed by the Canadian Institute of International Affairs (CIIA), the Canadian branch of the notorious pro-Soviet Institute of Pacific Relations. Many of them (including Lester B. Pearson) saw service in Washington & London where their counterparts were also members of Soviet espionage rings.

According to declassified parts of the infamous Silvermaster spy file, Elizabeth Bentley, an American who had worked for the Soviets in military intelligence defected back to America and was debriefed on a number of occasions, including by the U.S. McCarran Committee and by agents of the New York Office of the FBI in 1951.

Bentley revealed that Lester (akaMike”) Pearson, a “highly placed Canadian government official” in “the Canadian Embassy in Washington” in 1943 and 1944, fed information to Soviet military intelligence (i.e., Bentley, herself) on “top level British policy and political matters” through Hazen Size, a “member of the Canadian Film Board in Washington, D. C.” with whom Pearson was “very friendly in Canada”, the two being “connected with left wing circles in that country”.

“By confidential memorandum dated August 27, 1951, Inspector Bayfield of the RCMP was advised of the identical information provided to the Department of State and the Department of Justice under letters of that date” by Elizabeth Bentley.

Nonetheless, Soviet agent Lester Bowles Pearson, who at some point was President of the infamous Canadian Institute of International Affairs (CIIA) which was “briefing” the pro-Soviets hired by Skelton, rose to become Prime Minister of Canada.

The following black and white archival video footage documents the fact that Red agent, Oscar D. Skelton, recruited Red agent Lester Bowles Pearson into Mackenzie King’s federal civil service.


Lester (Mike) Pearson, M.A.

Lester (Mike) Pearson, M.A.

Narrator: Armed with his M.A., Mike (aka Lester Bowles Pearson) returned to Canada, and the next few years found him lecturing in history and coaching sports at the University of Toronto.

But, off in Ottawa, a Dr. O. D. Skelton was Deputy Minister of a new department called External Affairs.

He intruded into the academic life and asked Mike to write a civil service examination.

O. D. Skelton and Lester (Mike) Bowles Pearson

O. D. Skelton and Lester (Mike) Bowles Pearson

Lester Pearson: It was one of the top positions in this new department. And I thought it would be a good thing to write. I didn’t have any particular intention of taking the job. But I thought it’d be interesting to write it. And uh — I never can resist a competition.

Lester (Mike) Pearson, M.A. (class)

Lester (Mike) Pearson, M.A. (class)

Narrator: He won. It was 1927. Mackenzie-King was Prime Minister, and it was Canada’s Diamond Jubilee when Mike Pearson came to Ottawa.

Mackenzie-King was Prime Minister

Mackenzie-King was Prime Minister

Lester Pearson: I was uh — I had rather a kind of a — exalted idea of foreign offices and diplomacy from reading books. And uh, I considered I had achieved a pretty — a position pretty high — of professional distinction. I was now almost a diplomat, and, perhaps I was a little too impressed by my transition.

Parliament Buildings, Ottawa (1927)

Parliament Buildings, Ottawa (1927)

I remember going into the door — through the door at the East Block behind Dr. Skelton and the guard saluted Dr. Skelton smartly and paid no attention to me whatever. I thought, well, obviously, he doesn’t know who I am.

Well, he didn’t pay any attention to me for a good many years.

– 30 –

* Quite frankly, I doubt that Mackenzie King was “enticed” into the Canadian-Soviet Friendship Society. I think he walked in happily. Nor do I believe he was merely the “docile puppet” that some have made him out to be. King was a long-time protégé of the infamous American financiers of the bloody Bolshevik “revolution” (military coup on Russia) in 1979: the moneybag Rockefellers. The Rockefellers’ oil empire in America was financed by the equally if not more infamous Rothschilds of Europe who also financed the 1917 war of the Jews upon Russia. The Rockefellers maintained a leash on their Liberal poodle Mackenzie King by employing him in between his elected mandates. In a like manner, Power Corporation of Canada today, whose top men sit on the Board and Senate of the CIIA which was briefing the Reds recruited by Skelton, have kept all their own political dogs well fed between stints in the Prime Minister’s Office — (i.e., Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin Junior). All these men, as well as other coddled agents of the supercapitalists, have been involved in merging North America into a Leninist regional union). Ed. NSIM.

Read more on Skelton in Patrick Walsh’s “Inside the Featherbed File?“:


Red Fronts Aid Planned Merger of Canada North-South and East-West into a Red Regional Union

Soviet Agent
Lester Bowles (“Mike”) Pearson
“Prime Minister of Canada”



Phase I – Horizontal (Regional) Integration of Canada

Phase II – Vertical (Regional) Integration of Canada

Pearson’s Red Cabinet Ministers & als from Quebec

Pearson’s Red Cabinet
from Ontario


Pierre Elliott Trudeau

Jean Marchand

Maurice Sauvé

& Claude Frénette (Sauvé former assistant, now a VP at Power Corporation)

The Secret Committee of Red Liberals at Power Corporation (1967)

L-R: Pearson,
Marchand, Sauvé, Trudeau, part of the “secret committee” of Red “Liberals” at Power Corporation of Canada


Paul Hellyer

(helped Soviet Pearson merge Canada’s 3-branched Armed Forces into one command)

Paul Hellyer, Minister of National Defence under Soviet Agent Pearson, and then under Pilgrim of Moscow, Pierre Elliott Trudeau

Paul Hellyer, Minister of National Defence under Soviet Agent Pearson, and then under Pilgrim of Moscow, Pierre Elliott Trudeau


Order the
creation of a
COMMUNIST FRONT party in Quebec, the “separatist” Parti Québécois (PQ) [1968]. (aka “nationalist”
for Quebec)


Parti Québécois (Communist front)


Creates a
COMMUNIST FRONT party, the pro-“sovereignty and independence” (for Canada) Canadian Action Party (CAP) [1997]. (aka “nationalist” for Canada)

Canadian Action Party (Communist front)

Trudeau-Marchand-Sauvé appoint known Communist René Lévesque to set it up, and lead it.

Hellyer quits; known Communist Constance Clara Fogal Rankin then leads it.

PQ is formed by merger of 2-3 left & far-left “parties”, including the RN and the RIN.

CAP under Hellyer attempts to merge with federal NDP (a full-member party of the Socialist International working for a socialist world government) (Obviously, the CAP is not working for “Canadian sovereignty”.)

Behind the PQ is a Communist Manifesto in French only, never covered by the English-speaking press and broadcast media. The manifesto, entitled Quand nous serons vraiment chez nous, calls for a Communist State of Quebec attached to Canada and the USA by treaties and accords. It calls for a planned economy, centralized production, state control of all businesses, and the “extirpation of individual liberty” as known in so-called “Liberal” western societies.

Behind the CAP is a globalist, world-government religion channeled by a member of a Skull & Bones family. The Urantia Book (their “bible”) sanctifies the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and calls for a world government so that Earth can join “galactic society” – consisting of countless alien worlds who also have world governments. The President of the CAP preaches Urantia, and maintains countless web sites on it, featuring Jesus, the Flag of Israel, and the flag of the United Nations.

The PQ demands a “democratic vote” in Quebec to “secede” if Canada won’t refederate with Quebec on the EEC-EU model.

The CAP demands a “democratic vote” in Canada (Parliament, and Canadians in general) to stop Canada’s being annexed into USA and Mexico on the EEC-EU model.

However, constitutionally speaking, “secession” is impossible.

However, constitutionally speaking, annexation is impossible.

Therefore, in both cases, the “democratic vote” is to trick the people into [1] refederating Canada East-West on the EEC-EU Regional Red model; [2] annexing Canada North-South into the EEC-EU Regional Red Model (“Building a North American Community”), hoping Canadians will never realize the Constitution forbids both these things, and there is no “option” to do either. The answer is “No” from the Constitution; and legally, the people have no constitutional authority to defy the Constitution by voting “Yes”.

The result of both these operations by Communist Front Parties will be a Red Regionalized continent, the North American Soviet Union.

Unless Canadians wake up.

Crossover occurs between these two Red Fronts in 1996 when we find Communist Comrade Connie Fogal Rankin and her Stalinist husband, Harry Rankin, consorting out west with Quebec City lawyer Guy Bertrand, a founding member of the Communist Parti Québécois, who once ran for its leadership, and who filed a phony "law suit" (the legal term is “nullity”) in Quebec City in 1995 to aid and abet the 1995 PQ referendum to dismantle Canada for East-West regional union. Since 2014, Bertrand has been pushing Quebec "independence" to immediately regionalize (Communize) Quebec by "seceding". Out West in 1996, Fogal, Harry, and Bertrand are working together on the North-South regional merger (the North American Soviet Union, mislabeled NAFTA), by bamboozling Prairie and Western Canadians in public seminars delivered by these leftists. Their coterie includes “Red Tory” David Orchard.

“Fighting to Save Canada”: A Communist Facade

The COVER story used by these Red Agents is always: “Fighting to Save Canada“. Red Mole Trudeau used the ploy to justify his challenging René Lévesque to a referendum to dismantle Canada.

Communist Guy Bertrand used the ploy to justify filing his phony “law suit” in 1995, which was not a real law suit, but a set-up with our occupied courts to ensure the dismantling of Canada after a “Yes”.

Hellyer used the ploy in 1997 to set up a “nationalist” party to “fight for” Canadian “sovereignty” against NAFTA and the incoming North American (Soviet) Union.

Close colleague of Fogal, Rankin and Bertrand, “Red Tory” David Orchard, has been making a killing for years selling one edition after another of his book “The Fight for Canada – Four Centuries of Resistance to American Expansionism,” The implication being that Canada is capable of being lost. Orchard’s alleged goal is to save Canada from so-called “Free Trade” and “NAFTA”, which in truth is Red regional annexation, exactly what the left subverters are pursuing.

For David’s information (which he already knows and is ignoring), the “Fight for Canada” was won, definitively, in 1867 with enactment of the British North America Act, still Canada’s one and only lawful Constitution which legally prohibits the annexation of Canada, and secession to dismantle it.

Just how Red is David Orchard? Red enough to be expected to lead the CAP. The Blog at the Canadian Action Party reveals:

“The CAP lost their founder in 2003 when he decided to leave after a merger with the New Democratic Party (founded in 1961) fell through, which would have seen the NDP change its name. The transition of power was not smooth, and the mantle eventually fell on Con­nie Fogal, a Canadian activist and lawyer. The original successor to Hellyer was supposed to be David Orchard, a prominent Canadian political figure and author, but he failed to re­spond when the opportunity presented itself. Fogal stayed at the helm for approximately three years, but also walked away from the position in 2008. Her successor was a relative unknown named Andrew J. Moulden, who officially took over control after the 2008 elec­tion.” [Accessed approx. 13 August 2015]

Maybe the flying saucer thing put David off. Hellyer’s been chasing flying saucers, calling the U.S. military “paranoid” for refusing to befriend “the Aliens”. The whole back end of the CAP is into Urantia, including Moulden, who quit to join the Christian Heritage Party. And this, despite the prospect (discovered in a memo leaked from his leader’s desk at the CAP) of his becoming “King of the New World Order“.)

Meanwhile, you can buy a copy of David’s book from him and fill his pockets with proceeds from sedition: his flat-out lie that Canada is capable of being “lost”. The Constitution needs to be enforced, that’s all. But, if you are misled by David and his Communist pals, you will bite your fingernails to the quick at the edge of your seat while Canada circles the Red Drain. Instead, you should be running to Court to assert Canada’s constitutional sovereignty which no government has any power to sell, trade, or abdicate.

Goodbye, Canada: “The Nation’s Deathbed”

Another ploy of these Tools of Moscow is to mislead Canadians psychologically into accepting the demise of their country. In 19xx, Paul Hellyer published a book titled: “Goodbye, Canada” (Adieu, Canada, in French: don’t miss those sales!). The implication being that Canada is being lost, and is therefore capable of being lost.

Close colleagues of the CAP and of Comrade Connie Fogal are the film makers, who made a feature movie called: “The Nation’s Deathbed” in which a funeral is held for Canada. These are talented young people who have produced other very interesting documentary footage. I have no desire to link them as voluntarily in league with Communist Fogal and the Hellyer Reds. Up to now, my only impression is that the people at are being misled by the quite convincing interventions of these very slippery Communist operators.

It’s easy to be misled, at least temporarily. Back in 2005, when I first became aware of the North American Union, I searched the Web and signed up to Connie Fogal’s emailing list. I had no clue she was a Communist. I had no idea the Marxist-Leninist party of Canada follows Connie and her Red World pals wherever they go, cheering positively.

One day, an email arrived from Connie which sounded terrifying. Its contents emitted an aura of impending military invasion of Canada by the New World Order. A tiny airport landing strip, she said, in north Vancouver had just been widened, for the purpose of landing military vehicles. That got my attention.

I therefore tracked down the little airport online and wrote to them, asking for confirmation of Connie Fogal’s email. I got to the head man, who was non-plussed, and whose office in the tower overlooks the airfield. It had not been widened. I transferred the news to Ms. Fogal and asked for an explanation. None was forthcoming; only silence. I therefore unsubscribed from Connie Fogal’s emailing list.

Eventually, I found Connie posting my face and my campaign (Habeas Corpus Canada), in forums, but with her  name, phone, fax and email, asking people to contact her, as if my campaign were a CAP adjunct. By that time, Connie was gone from the CAP, so I wrote to Andrew Moulden, the new CAP leader, and invited the CAP in no uncertain terms to stop using my face and campaign with their email, phone & fax, and come up with their own promotional material. One forum where I asked to have Connie’s post using my name and face removed, did, indeed, remove it. If there are still others out there, they are not there with my knowledge or permission.

In Conclusion

All of these “Fighting to Save Canada” fronts are Communist ploys to divert Canadians away from the courts, and distract us from the answer to all our problems: The Constitution. The solution to events is legal, not “political”.