Ripley’s Canadian Believe It Or Not:  Marxist-Leninists Support the “Sovereignty” of Canada, as Deceptively Promoted by Communist Connie Fogal Rankin!

Foreword

Blast from the Past

This very good post of mine from 2010 in blogspot belongs here at CANADA How the Communists Took Control.  It’s further documentation proving the Communist nature of the Canadian Action Party (CAP) set up in 1997 by red Paul Hellyer, former cabinet minister under Soviet agent Pearson and Communist Pierre Trudeau.

The Canadian (Soviet) Action Party (CAP) was founded by Hellyer, a former Trudeau appointee (who now chases UFO’s and urges we humans to “partner” in “development” with aliens whom an ex-Air-Force pal of Hellyer’s psychically communes with).

Hellyer recruited staunch Vancouver Communist Connie Fogal Rankin, the wife of Harry Rankin who was barred from entry to the United States, to lead the CAP.

This is an episode from the positive Communist coverage of Connie’s attempt to con Canadians into voting Yes or No on the North American Union, which the Constitution of Canada actually forbids.  Connie and the Canadian (Soviet) Action Party had the full support of the Marxist-Leninists, who cheered her on at her rallies.

* * *

On April 17th, 2008, the MARXIST-LENINIST DAILY published its coverage and support of the Canadian Action Party, then led by well known Communist Constance Clara Fogal Rankin, bull-horn in hand, Alex-Jones style, marching to demand a “binding referendum” on the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), which means on the annexation of Canada to the USA in a Communist regional union.  That’s what the North American Union really is.  Otherwise, obviously, the Marxist-Leninists wouldn’t support it as eagerly as they do.

The ML Daily entitles its coverage: 

“Toronto Rally Demands Binding Referendum on Canada’s Participation in the SPP”.

The ML Daily means Connie Fogal Rankin’s Toronto Rally!

Says the ML Daily:

“Hundreds of people participated in the rally demanding an end to Canada’s participation in the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), saying No! to a North American Union and yes to Canadian sovereignty.”

The article also reports that

“[t]he specific demand put forward by the rally was for a binding referendum of the Canadian people to decide whether or not Canada would continue to participate in the SPP.”

The ML Daily continues:

“The Canadian Action Party, the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada, Green Party and Libertarian Party” sent speakers to address the rally.”

And, continuing:

“Pierre Chenier spoke on behalf of the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada.

[I don’t suppose he’s the same Pierre Chenier of Paul Rose’s “Chenier cell” of the terrorist group which kidnapped and is alleged to have murdered Quebec Labour Minister, Pierre Laporte at the outset of the 1970 October Crisis under Communist prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau.  On the other hand this Marxist Chenier who marched for the pro-Referendum gang on the SPP in 2008 has been a long-time member of the Communist Party of Canada and the Marxist-Leninists; he has sought political office many times in both Ontario and Quebec.  He was 54 in 2008, 56-ish in 2008 at the SPP march. He would have been 17-ish in 1970.  That’s about the right age for terrorist recruits.  His occupation is that of a printer; would have come in handy running off broadsides for the FLQ…  Does anyone have any more information?  Is this the same Pierre Chenier?]

Marching with the Canadian Action Party in 2008, Pierre Chenier forcefully stated that Canada must get out of aggressive annexationist treaties such as SPP, as well as NAFTA and NATO …  these treaties violate Canada’s sovereignty … Our Party will continue to go all out to build the unity in action of Canadians to defeat the SPP and this North American Union, he concluded.”

Did you get that? The anti-national Communists are claiming to support Canadian sovereignty!

They support an end to the SPP and NAFTA, which are the basis of continental merger and hemispheric union … on the way to world government, which is globalism, which is exactly what Communism was founded to achieve.

Chenier and Connie won’t be defeating SPP and NAFTA with a vote:  the referendu, they demand on the annexation of Canada contravenes the Constitution of Canada which prohibits Canada’s annexation.

Thus, while seemingly opposed to “aggressive annexationist” action, Chenier and the Marxist-Leninists are in fact aggressively backing annexation by introducing the forbidden “option” of a Yes to it.  Just like Communist Connie Fogal and the Canadian Action Party.

We are supposed to take at face value that Marxist-Leninists joined forces with the Canadian Action Party and other assorted leftists at a rally to demand a binding referendum on whether Canada should be annexed to the USA and that the Marxists were there to help save Canada!

Evidently, what they were there to do was to help shove Canada over the brink by encouraging naive Canadians to put the Constitution of Canada up to a crap shoot —

What else is wrong with this picture?

[1] The MARXISTS (via Fidel Castro) were behind the founding in 1959-1963 of the FLQ — the Front de libération du Québec, a terrorist group set up in Quebec to destroy the Constitution of Canada for an “open society” based in the FLQ’s understanding of Marxist ideology.

[2] The Constitution of Canada, as the supreme and binding law of Canada, by its own existence and operation, absolutely prohibits the annexation of Canada to the United States of America.  Indeed, Canada was founded in 1867 to prevent annexation; this being the constitutional purpose of the founding statute, it is not merely an “option”.  Forbidden means forbidden.  A “referendum” on the SPP, an extension of NAFTA, and aimed to integrate Canada into the USA and Mexico, thus annexing Canada, introduces an option which the Constitution does not allow.  For details on how the Constitution forbids Canada’s annexation, see my post The Constitution 101:  Canadian Federalism and Self-Government for Dummies

The illusion of “democracy” is being used by the Canadian Action Party and its hard-core Communist backers, to introduce a highly manageable risk of tricking Canadians into voting Yes to annex Canada to the USA and Mexico.

Canadians foolish enough to believe in such an option and to vote in such a referendum would be shooting themselves in their political foot — to the absolute delight of the Marxist-Leninists.

Within just a few days after I located, and thank God downloaded, this rally-coverage page from the ML Daily web site, the page disappeared from its URL.  It had been in the online archives of the Marxist-Leninist Daily (called the “Le Marxiste-Léniniste quotidien) in French:

Original link:  http://www.cpcml.ca/Tmld2008/D38058.htm#3

I found the google cache, however, and PDF’d it along with the dead link.  The ML daily rally review is also online today in the Wayback Machine.  Scroll down to see:  Toronto Rally Demands Binding Referendum on Canada’s Participation in the SPP.

The 2008 Rally to demand a “Binding Referendum” on the annexation of Canada was emceed by Canadian Action Party candidate, Vijay Sarma an anti-wihte racist who equates “white” people with “Nazis” (standard Commie line) and who married old-bag Connie (born 1940 and triple his age), in 2007.  Vijay has thus sacrificed his fecund “Black Krishna” sperm to the Party for the greater good and (as implied by Vijay) the greater gratification of Comrade Connie.

Attack those nasty white people, Vijay!  Destroy them, destroy their countries!  Force them into a racist, anti-white, anti-national Red Region!  Take their institutions from them, genocide them!  Do it for Israel, Vijay.  And your reward is in the sack.  Er, I mean bag — er, I mean, oh well.

MPVij (aka Black Krishna) and Connie Fogal  (wedding pic)

MPVij (aka Black Krishna) and Connie Fogal (wedding pic)


MPVij (aka Black Krishna) and Connie Fogal  (wedding pic)

MPVij (aka Black Krishna) and Connie Fogal (wedding pic)


MPVij (aka Black Krishna) and Connie Fogal  (wedding pic)

MPVij (aka Black Krishna) and Connie Fogal (wedding pic)

Vijay Sarma, Marxist child-groom and toy-boy, married Comrade Connie Fogal Rankin (born 1940)!  Connie must be so glad that old man, Harry Rankin, finally dropped dead of a multiple bypass!  But not without a last song good-bye.  Connie hired a choir, no less, to bid farewell to die-hard Stalinist Harry at his 2002 funeral, with the Communist hymn, the “Internationale“.

Harry Rankin Obit by Doug Ward

“Rankin Service Honors ‘Working Class Hero'”, Harry Rankin Obit by Doug Ward for The Vancouver Sun, Monday, March 11, 2002 page B3

The Toronto instance of the pro-referendum action was organized by Canadian Action Party leadership contender Wendy Forrest and Karen Wittke, using a Facebook group to summon participants for the rally.

Connie in her Vijay Wedding Dress on Howard Phillips's Conservative Caucus

Communist Connie Fogal Rankin partners with Conservative Presidential candidate, Howard Phillips, to Stop the North American Union!

But wait, I wanted you to see Connie’s wedding pictures because she got so much extra use out of that dress:  as the demure guest of Conservative Constitution Party leader and U.S. presidential candidate Howard Phillips and his, believe it not, Conservative Caucus.  From the far left to the far right, Comrade Connie’s got the big red Zionist North American Union covered!

Connie also partnered with Howard Phillips’s Coalition to Block the North American Union, backed by none other than Congressman Ron Paul (Secession Is an American Principle:  Ron Paul:com)! … It would pretty much have to be … to get the North American Union done.  Subscribe for that post coming up.

“The Star of Bethlehem was one of God’s Flying Saucers”:  Season’s Greetings from Paul Hellyer … and the Skull & Bones?


“I don’t know if you’re a person who’s ever read the Bible or not, but I think the Star of Bethlehem was one of God’s flying saucers.”

Download this video clip:  https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=kZWPhxZP6NwN7FH4EzWRsoloq4uhygBviqV
 


 
‘Twas the Night Before Christmas, and all through the stars, alien life forms were stirring from the Dipper to Mars …

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction, and more entertaining.  Paul Hellyer is a former National Defense Minister under Soviet Agent Lester Pearson and then under Red Mole Pierre Trudeau.  Hellyer founded the Canadian Action Party (the CAP) in 1997 to put the sovereignty of Canada up to a vote1

He and his former successor as leader of the CAP, well known Communist Connie Fogal-Rankin, would like the Canadian parliament to have a “democratic mandate” from the Canadian people for the North American Union.  (The BNA Act of 1867 prohibits North American Union, so these cons have introduced the forbidden as an “option”.)

However, the deeper truth behind the Canadian Action Party is truly bizarre. 2  And there is no way to spoof it for you to celebrate Christmas-New Year’s 2016-2017, other than to expose the truth.

Therefore, listen to Paul Theodore Hellyer — on Russian TV to boot (Putin’s favorite propaganda channel) — when he tells the cameras:

“I think the Star of Bethlehem was one of God’s flying saucers.”

Hellyer’s interviewer, Sophie Shevardnadze, evidently perplexed, can only reply, “Uhum” to the news that a flying saucer had hovered over Bethlehem to announce the birth of Jesus.

But that mythic scenario fits precisely into the intergalactic-theocratic-Urantia cult behind Paul Hellyer’s Canadian Action Party.

I think the Star of Bethlehem was one of God’s flying saucers

Paul Hellyer:  “I think the Star of Bethlehem was one of God’s flying saucers.”

 
When Hellyer says, “one of God’s flying saucers”, he is referring to the Book of Urantia peddled by Canadian Action Party president Paul Kemp.

In its internal, non-public culture, Hellyer’s Canadian Action Party supports a one-world government, a globalist religion (Urantia), alien-human hybridization, and membership of the Earth (real name, Urantia) in an interplanetary federation.  The scam is that Earth must have world government in order to be admitted to the federation.

Add to this an intergalactic Jesus incarnated throughout the infinite alien-populated worlds advanced as “fact” and “truth” in Paul Kemp’s presentation of the Urantia Book, and you start to see why Hellyer would announce:  “the Star of Bethlehem was one of God’s flying saucers.”

The Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group are presumed by Urantia “believers” at CAP to have received “alien contact”.  This is why these sainted organizations, run by the world’s worst Evilarchy, are motivated to form a one-world government:  so that Earth can join “galactic society”.

One such believer is Paul Kemp’s friend, retired U.S. Air Force Lt.-Col Don Ware, who admits to channeling telepathic aliens.  Ware is said to have claimed: 

“In 1989, after studying and learning more about the non-physical aspects of the universe, I was used by a higher intelligence to send a message to the generals at Eglin Air Force Base.”

Also, says Ware:

“I accept the idea that intelligent life is abundant throughout the universe, in both incarnate and discarnate forms”

“the normal means of communication by higher intelligence is telepathic”

“Millions of Americans are participating in a hybridization program with short beings from Zeta Reticula.”

“The main reason alien liaison is increasing now is because our planet is being transformed to support a new world order.”

Notice anything familiar yet?

Ware continues:

“The new order is destined to support a learning process that is one step beyond the human experience of free-will choices.”

A world Marxist dictatorship is “one step beyond” “free-will choices”.  Coincidence?  Give up your free will for the greater good of the intergalactic collective!  Just what we need!  Space aliens who are Marxists!  Perhaps Karl channeled the Manifesto from telepathic Zeta Reticulans?

“… the new world order can become what Jesus described as heaven on Earth.”

The Warburg-financed Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, viewed by many as the founding father of the European Union (first chunk of the world-government system laid in place) said in his 1925 book, Practical Idealism:

Through the ages Jewry has remained faithful to the theocratic idea of the identification of politics and ethics:  Christianity and Socialism are both attempts to create an earthly paradise.  [lit.:  a State of God]  Now, the Kemp web sites prominently feature the Star of David and the flag of Israel in the Urantia scheme for an intergalactic federation of world-governments.

Don Ware continues:

“I think the Bilderburgers [sic], the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations in America is influenced by alien liaison.”

“I think many members of these groups recognize that having a government that can speak for all of the people of the world is a prerequisite to joining a galactic society.”

“Economies are coalescing into three major economic blocks, and advanced communication and transportation systems are allowing a great inter-mingling of societies.”

The Urantia cult is a spinoff from the 7th-Day Adventists who themselves spun off David Koresh’s Messianic Branch Davidians.  The Branch Davidians met their tragic end in a bloody FBI siege in 1993 at Waco, Texas.  (It is alleged that Hillary Rodham Clinton ordered the massacre.)

Waco (wacko?) is also the home of the alleged Bush-Fox-Martin signature in 2005 of a non-released document behind the “Security and Prosperity Partnership” of North America, to complete a regional union (“regionalism is Communism”, says Charlotte Iserbyt of NewsWithViews) on the pretext of 9/11.

The “Urantia Book” behind the cult is a faked “religious” document “channeled” by a member of the Kellogg family.  The same family produced at least four members of the ominous “Skull & Bones” secret society.

The object of the Urantia cult is world government for the Earth (Urantia), where the Earth is just one among an infinite number of planets in an interstellar federation of planets, each with its own world government.  The aliens inhabiting these “worlds of space” are all portrayed as “higher intelligences”, “advanced beings” whom we Urantians ought to emulate.

At the center of the whole federation is God on the middle planet.  Which explains the reference of Paul Hellyer in the news clip to “one of God’s flying saucers”.  This is pure Urantia Book.  (And no, we don’t know yet if God is David Rockefeller.)

So the purpose for pretending to “channel” a 2000-page book to kick-start a new religion might well be sinister.

And, sinister it is when you discover the passages in the Urantia Book (the cult’s “Bible”) demanding a one-world government.

Now, world government is what the Canadian Action Party claims to oppose when addressing the public.  But, one-world government is a religious  tenet of the UFO cult manically pursued behind the scenes by Canadian Action Party founder Paul Hellyer and his conspiratorial Executive members.

The Canadian Action Party’s president, Paul Kemp, literally preaches Urantia on and off-line (see his Facebook page and his collection of “other worlds of space” web sites linked below).  According to Kemp, the Urantia Book says:

134:6.4  Another world war will teach the so-called sovereign nations to form some sort of federation, thus creating the machinery for preventing small wars, wars between the lesser nations.

The malign intelligence behind the words “will teach” in that passage is too startling to be ignored.  In the past few years, self-styled analyst Joel M. Skousen, nephew of W. Cleon Skousen who published The Naked Communist and The Naked Capitalist, has been warning that “they are planning a war for us”.

Says Skousen to Alex Jones, in the advertising film for his book Strategic Relocation (drumming up business for Skousen’s profession installing hi-tech nuclear bomb shelters for the mobile rich):

“Well, part of it is that they don’t understand the nature of the conspiracy.  They don’t understand that there is a great powerful force not only to take down Liberty, which is what their agenda is, but to make sure that they don’t get the blame for it.

So, they are going to use — they blame it on anyone, they blame it on the free market, they blame it on “business cycle”.  It’s not the business cycle, it’s the monetary cycle created by the Fed.

And ultimately, these people are going to escape blame, because they are planning a war for usA third world-warA nuclear war.  Which in fact will wipe out a great deal of the financial centers and will let them to walk away and say, ‘It wasn’t our fault’.”

“The Fed” is the U.S. Federal Reserve bank, which is not a national bank but a private bank.  The Federal Reserve is composed of all the same banking interests behind the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) which for over a century has engineered all the major wars, including World Wars I and II, financing both sides.

The goal of this Bankers’ protection racket was to push the free nations of the world to the bargaining table, there to create a world government.  With the creation of the United Nations Organization in 1945, stage one has been accomplished.  The table has been laid.  Stage two is underway, and Hellyer and Company are playing “the alien card“.

We therefore have currently playing out before us, an apparently Marxist, Bankster-friendly Urantia UFO cult, hybridized with Christianity and with Zionist forces.  For Paul Kemp’s Urantia web sites all use the Star of David and the flags of Israel and the United Nations as twin pennons of the desired World Order over Earth in an interplanetary federation.

All are pushing naive people to accept, on religious faith, the spirituality and “goodness” of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission, his Marxist Council on Foreign Relations, and his pro-Communist Bilderbergers.

Enameled onto this religious tenet is the requirement that Urantia believers agree that national sovereignty is poisonous, and the cause of wars.

National sovereignty is not the cause of wars; the Bankers are the cause of wars.  Wars could not be fought without financing.  It is well known that the Rothschild bankers have financed both sides in most European wars for hundreds of years.  They financed both sides in the last Napoleonic War, and capitalized on their advance knowledge of Napoleon’s defeat, to trick the British markets into a panic so the Rothschilds could buy up stock at rock-bottom prices.  As a consequence, it is hotly rumored, the Rothschilds thus acquired control of the Bank of England.

Another passage from the Urantia Book, as posted by the CAP’s Paul Kemp, gives a very strong hint as to who is really behind this phony religion and UFO cult:

134:6.11  Under global government the national groups will be afforded a real opportunity to realize and enjoy the personal liberties of genuine democracy.  The fallacy of self-determination will be ended.  With global regulation of money and trade will come the new era of world-wide peace.  Soon may a global language evolve, and there will be at least some hope of sometime having a global religion — or religions with a global viewpoint.

Let me read a little from Vladimir Lenin’s Collected Works, page 499, Volume 19, March-December 1913 in a letter to S.G. Shahumyan of December 6th, 1913:

“Why will you not understand the psychology that is so important in the national question and which, if the slightest coercion is applied, besmirches, soils, nullifies the undoubtedly progressive importance of centralisation, large states and a uniform language?”

Lenin continues, linking his view of how a global language must “evolve” spurred by the development of a “capitalist” economy:

“But the economy is still more important than psychology:  in Russia we already have a capitalist economy, which makes the Russian language essential.  But you have no faith in the power of the economy and want to prop it up with the crutches of the rotten police regime.”

Apparently, Paul Hellyer and the Canadian Action Party are propping up Marxist world government on the crutches of a phony UFO cult.

On the topic of “democracy”, Lenin had this to say in his September 7th, 1913 article in Pravda (page 357, Vol. 19, Collected Works), although when Lenin says “alien” he probably doesn’t have in mind the inducement to world government promoted by Hellyer.

“Working-class democracy counterposes to the nationalist wrangling of the various bourgeois parties over questions of language, etc., the demand for the unconditional unity and complete solidarity of workers of all nationalities in all working-class organisations — trade union, co-operative, consumers’, educational and all others — in contradistinction to any kind of bourgeois nationalism.  Only this type of unity and solidarity can uphold democracy and defend the interests of the workers against capital — which is already international and is becoming more so — and promote the development of mankind towards a new way of life that is alien to all privileges and all exploitation.”

But what of the Canadian Action Party’s “global religion”!  Have the Marxists conceded the value of blending the behavioral goals of their materialist religion with the enforcement function of religion over “primitive instincts” to free choice and self-determination?

Perhaps Maurice Strong will emerge with a more complex version of Urantia, itself, linked to phony man-made “climate change”?

Urantia is pretty deadly stuff; and it’s targeted to securing compliance with a Bankster-engineered overthrow of Western Civilization by a naive element of that same population.

Basically, when the views that the Evilarchy wants people to hold become tenets held on faith; they are no longer open to challenge in the real world outside that hypnotically wobbling orb of the imaginary universe created by Urantia around its advocates.

The Urantia cult as promoted by Heller converts the Banksters and their Marxist Council on Foreign Relations, their Trilateral Commission and extended networks into collaborators of Christ to create a world government “paradise” on Earth, as part of an intergalactic federation where it is possible to voyage to the middle planet and meet God; (or perhaps David Rockefeller).

Bloggers including Tim Boucher have questioned whether Hellyer has lost his mind.  Indeed, I believe there is calculated method to Hellyer’s apparent madness.  His “far out” Urantia cult enables a real political power grab advanced through mind control exerted over a fringe element with limited capacities for critical judgment.

As for me, I’m betting that “God” will turn out to be a trans-humanized, brain-transplanted Evelyn de Rothschild, ensconced upon the Divine Hijacked British Throne at the center of Kemp’s wacky Universe.

I hope the galactic truth about Paul Hellyer and the Canadian Action Party has set you free!

Merry Christmas, everybody, and a Cosmic New Year!

 
__________
 

Paul Kemp’s Facebook Page:

https://www.facebook.com/Paul8Kemp
 

A few of Paul Kemp’s Urantia web sites:

 
Other quick statements of Hellyer’s on alien contact:

DOWNLOAD:  https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=XZveBxZ0pvcPawBEtLBVW2IXmPogQP3oHFV
Hellyer:  Decades Ago, Aliens Wanted to Help Us!
 

DOWNLOAD:  https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=XZ4nBxZdPYMppxfzA4vCJ0kM215I7dnBzGV
Hellyer:  Has America Developed Flying Saucers?
 

DOWNLOAD:  https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=XZbnBxZeqtN8137TjYQmjpo6EaV301MYf7k
Hellyer:  “Paranoid” Military Disdain Aliens as “Partners in Development”
 

For another fun read, look for “The Canadians are getting ready for the aliens.  Are you?” by “The New Tim Boucher” posted on November 27, 2005 at 2:53, now in The Wayback Machine.
 
__________
 
1  In 2003, Paul Hellyer tried to merge the Canadian Action Party with the New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP).  The NDP has always been a full member of the Socialist International (SI), whose platform is world government (Oslo Declaration, 1962).  The fact that Hellyer tried to merge the CAP with the NDP proves that Hellyer is in favor of world government.

The text of the Declaration of the Socialist International endorsed at the Council Conference held in Oslo on 2-4 June 1962, is online at the web site of the SI, itself.

Source: http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=2133

Backup @ Calameo: http://en.calameo.com/books/000747447c87ba69f7cac

It says:

“SOCIALISM AND WORLD PEACE

“The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government. As a first step towards it, they seek to strengthen the United Nations so that it may become more and more effective as an instrument for maintaining peace.”

 
2  Back around 2009, a concerned member of the Canadian Action Party who was inside and able to observe the “pro” world government activity of the CAP and its Urantia UFO cult, began to leak documents on these hypocrites who were pretending to save Canada’s “sovereignty”.

Thank you very much to Terry Le Blanc, Former Organizational Chair for the Canadian Action Party, for leaking all those nuggets on Hellyer, Fogal, Moulden, and the CAP’s world-government Urantia cult.  Merry Christmas, Terry!  Sadly, Terry’s pages are no longer online, not even in The Wayback Machine.

 

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.

Flashback:

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.
 

EPILOGUE: TRUE ORIGINS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTI QUEBECOIS – POWER CORPORATION OF CANADA AND THE FEDERAL “LIBERALS”

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  http://www.revueargument.ca/ 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

Foreword:

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, NoSnowinMoscow.com.)

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!

Sshhhh!

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 News.com)

Communist Voting (courtesy of Freaking News.com) 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 (http://confederation1867.altervista.org/) 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.

 

Conclusion

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 –

 

Terrorist Activities in North America By Lawrence Patton McDonald

Congressman Lawrence Patton McDonald, M. D., April 1, 1935-September 1, 1983

Congressman Lawrence Patton McDonald, M. D., April 1, 1935-September 1, 1983

From: Trotskyism and terror : the strategy of revolution (1977) by Congressman Lawrence Patton McDonald

Chapter 8

Terrorist Activities in North America

There are two Trotskyite organizations in Canada. One of these, the League for Socialist Action/Ligue Socialiste Ouvrière LSA/LSO, supports the minority Leninist-Trotskyist Faction which believes terrorism may be a useful tactic in the future. The other, the Revolutionary Marxist Group, RMG, which has its principal base among French-speaking Canadians in Quebec, is a staunch supporter of the “terrorism now” International Majority Tendency.

During the 1970 wave of terrorism by the Front de Libération du Québec, FLQ, Canadian Trotskyites tried to maintain a low profile. They were embarrassed by the open support of terrorism in Canada by their British com­rades in the International Marxist Group, IMG, and its publication, at that time called The Red Mole.

Joseph Hansen of the Socialist Workers Party described the problem of his Canadian comrades:

“While the Canadian Trotskyists were trying to differentiate their own position from the ultraleft one taken by The Red Mole, they were confronted by an even worse problem — what to do about the remarks made by Comrade Tariq Ali on a television panel filmed at Oxford by CTV, the national Canadian television net­work. This program was shown throughout Canada, while our comrades, like the rest of the left, were doing their best to mobilize a massive defense against the repression.

Some very provocative questions were directed at Comrade Ali. In answering, he did not appear to keep well in mind the situation in Canada and the need to help to the best of his ability in mobilizing a broad defense against the repression.

For instance, he was asked: “Do you believe, sir, that society today has reached the point where you see you have to use violence to achieve your ends?”

Comrade Ali replied: “I would say that this is largely a tactical question, depending precisely on the degree of opposition which we encounter in our struggle for socialism. But briefly, the answer is yes. I think that to achieve the ends we believe in ////////////// to the establishment of a socialist republic. I believe that a certain element of violence is absolutely necessary.”

Another provocative question was: “When you were president of the Oxford Debating Union did you not invite Governor Wallace of Alabama to speak at the Oxford Union?”

Comrade Ali answered: “Yes. Do you know why? Because we would have killed him.”

That did not come off so well, and Comrade Ali was soon explaining: “Of course, when I say, ‘Kill him,’ I don’t mean it necessarily literally. It’s a tactical question. If I believed we could get away with killing him we would. It is a question of if you are organized to do so. I don’t think we are. I meant kill him politically. That is what we wanted to do, but that wouldn’t have taken place because Wallace wouldn’t have got further past Oxford Station.”

The setting for broadcasting this TV program, it should be underlined, was Canada in the midst of a great police hunt for urban guerrillas charged with kid­napping and murder. It was shown on the television screens during a repression in which our own headquarters and the homes of many comrades were raided, and two of our leaders were thrown into prison.

Comrade Ali did what he could to turn the provocative questions into a high-level dialogue on the difference between “individual terror” with mass support and “individual terror” without mass support — a distinction a bit too fine, one must suppose, for the Canadian audience to appreciate at the moment. “At times,” he said, “1 think that individual terror becomes necessary. I don’t believe in individual terror as a principle; I am completely opposed to it. I’ll give you a concrete instance. I don’t believe in solving this particular argument by shooting off a few people, who are making rude noises. Nor do I think individual terror can in itself bring you any nearer to what we believe in. Of course not. I believe that individual terror is justified when you have a mass movement, when you have mass support inside a particular society, then it is justified.”

Tariq Ali serves on the Fourth International Executive Committee under the alias “Ghulam.”2 He receives his salary from a U.S. tax-exempt organiza­tion, the Transnational Institute, TNI, of the Institute for Policy Studies, IPS, located in Washington, D.C. Ali, a Pakistani, is reportedly “working on a series of essays on Indian nationalism and communism” for the Trans­national Institute.3

The Institute for Policy Studies is a leftist think-tank which usually takes a pro-Soviet and pro-Cuban stance; and whose staff has included a variety of terrorist supporters and members of terrorist organizations. The Transna­tional Institute has offices both in Washington, D.C. and in Amsterdam, Holland. The TNI is headed by Eqbal Ahmad and a leading Castroite propagandist, Saul Landau.

On September 9, 1976, Basker Vashee represented the Transnational Institute of IPS at a congressional conference on southern Africa sponsored by the Fund for New Priorities in America. The conference was held in the Russell Senate Office Building. Vashee was identified to the audience by the conference moderator as “a member of the national executive of ZAPU.”1 ZAPU is the Zimbabwe African Peoples Union, a Soviet-supported terrorist group in Rhodesia headed by Joshua Nkomo.

– 30 –

 
Author: McDonald, Lawrence Patton 1935-1983
Keywords: Communism, Trotskyism, Socialist Workers Party, terrorism
Publisher: Washington, D.C. : ACU Educational and Research Institute
Year: 1977
Language: English
Book contributor: dudeman5685
Collection: opensource
Notes: “The materials appearing here are reproduced from the Congressional Record, where Rep. McDonald published them at intervals beginning August 30, 1976, and concluding April 29, 1977”–P. 3.

Description

An impressive collection of facts and quotes concerning the Socialist Workers Party, its foreign ties, and alleged connection to terrorism; the author, Congressman Lawrence Patton McDonald, later vanished when the domestic Boeing he was on, flight KAL 007, was shot down in Soviet air space after it reportedly went off-course.

 

Marxism and the Problem of a World State

FOREWORD:

The quotations below, taken from the work of Professor Grigoriĭ Ivanovich Tunkin, are offered in contemplation of the North American regional (Soviet) Union, extrapolated from the progressive “association” of nations in regional blocs first seen in Europe, emulated in South America and in Africa, and emerging now through deceptive “trade deals” in North America.

The ongoing mass immigration toward that end, the end of “Sovietism” or “communism”, also eradicates national borders while “amalgamating” and eliminating racial nations to whom “sovereignty” has heretofore been ascribed in the context of the “nation state”.

North American Soviet UnionBritannica has this to say about Professor Tunkin:

Grigory Ivanovich Tunkin, (born Sept. 30 [Oct. 13, New Style], 1906, Chamovo, Russia—died Aug. 23, 1993, Moscow), Soviet legal scholar and diplomat who played a major role in formulating Soviet foreign policy as a key adviser to Soviet leaders Nikita Khrushchev and Mikhail Gorbachev.

Tunkin graduated from the Moscow Law Institute in 1935 and received a doctorate from Moscow State University in 1938. He began his diplomatic career in 1939, with postings in such countries as Canada and Korea. From 1952 to 1965 he was head of the Treaties and Legal Division of the Soviet foreign ministry and was involved in both treaty drafting and treaty negotiation. He also taught law at Moscow State University during this period. Tunkin exerted considerable influence in the de-Stalinization movement that prevailed until Khrushchev’s political demise in 1964, and he is credited with initiating the theory of peaceful coexistence between the Soviets and the West.

Specializing in maritime and Antarctic law, Tunkin participated in several significant international law conferences. His published works include Foundations of Modern International Law (1956), Problems of the Theory of International Law (1962), Ideological Struggle and International Law (1967), Theory of International Law (1970), and International Law in the International System (1975). Tunkin also served as a delegate to the United Nations General Assembly. From 1964 to 1988 he was the head of the department of international law at Moscow State University.

A succinct but informative biography of Professor Grigoriĭ Ivanovich Tunkin appears under a mint copy of William E. Butler and Vladimir G. Tunkin’s The Tunkin Diary and Lectures, being The Diary and Collected Lectures of G. I. Tunkin at The Hague Academy of International Law published by Eleven International Publishing, 2012 (ISBN 10: 9490947539 / ISBN 13: 9789490947538) offered for sale by Abe Books.

“Grigoriĭ Ivanovich Tunkin was a Soviet jurist and diplomat who became a leading international lawyer in the Soviet Union. His interests were always multi-dimensional. From 1957 to 1966, Tunkin led the Soviet Union’s Legal Department of the Foreign Ministry. In 1961, he was President of the United Nations International Law Commission. Tunkin was professor and Chief of the Chair of International Law at Moscow State University’s Faculty of Law. He also served as President of the Soviet Association of International Law, from its founding in 1957 until his death. Tunkin’s textbooks on international law formed the core of the international law curriculum in the USSR for over 40 years. His works continued to have a lasting influence following the dissolution [sic! — so-called] of the USSR. The present volume brings together a set of materials unique to the Tunkin family and of considerable interest to historians of international law, legal doctrine, and international diplomacy. The book opens with recollections of Tunkin by his youngest son, Vladimir Grigorevich Tunkin, prompted by the discovery that Tunkin kept a diary when he traveled abroad. These are followed by the texts of Tunkin’s lectures at The Hague Academy of International Law, delivered on four occasions between 1958 and 1986.”

We are further informed by translator William E. Butler in his Introduction to his own English edition of Professor Grigoriĭ Ivanovich Tunkin’s Theory of International Law (Harvard University Press, 1974. ISBN 0-674-88001-3), that:

“From 1942 to 1944, Professor Grigoriĭ Ivanovich Tunkin was posted in Canada as counselor of the Soviet Embassy.”

That should suffice to establish the credibility of the quotations below as a reliable mirror of Soviet ideology. These are taken from Tunkin’s own Theory of International Law (supra), in the chapter entitled “The Legal Nature of International Organizations” in the section “Marxism and the Problem of a World State“.

Professor Grigoriĭ Ivanovich Tunkin

Professor Grigoriĭ Ivanovich Tunkin:

“Marxism-Leninism links the possibility of a world association of nations first and foremost with the liquidation of capitalism as the last exploitative socioeconomic formation and with the creation of a socialist society.” — p. 374

“The purpose of socialism,” wrote V. I. Lenin, “is not only to eliminate the splintering of mankind into petty states and any isolation of nations; is not only the rapprochement of nations, but also their amalgamation.”31 But in order to create the conditions for this, more than just the liquidation of private ownership and the creation of a socialist state is needed. Lenin pointed out that national and state differences among peoples and countries will last “for a very, very long time even after realization of the dictatorship of the proletariat on a world-wide scale.” — p. 374

“Even on the domestic plane in a number of instances socialism inherits from capitalism such deep roots of national discord and economic, political, and cultural inequality that a considerable time is required to liquidate them. In international relations, naturally, the matter is far more complex. Each state represents both a political and an economic unit. With the various historical strata of contradictions between states and between nationalities are associated a number of economic, political, cultural, and other problems.” — p. 374

“Within the framework of the world socialist system, however, these differences and contradictions gradually are being overcome on the basis of a new socialist social structure and Marxist-Leninist ideology. Various forms of state unions of socialist states are possible on the path to a classless, stateless communist society.” — p. 374

The creation of a world federation or another form of uniting free states and nations is conceivable, therefore, only on the path of liquidating private ownership, exploitation, class and national contradictions, on the path of constructing socialism and communism.” — p. 374

“A United States of the World (and not of Europe),” wrote V. I. Lenin, “is that state form of union and freedom of nations which we link with socialism, as the complete victory of communism does not lead to the final disappearance of any state, including a democratic state.” — p. 374-75

“The causes of war, whose liquidation is the leitmotif of all plans for a world state, bourgeois scholars misrepresent as state sovereignty, whereas the very existence of sovereign states is a natural consequence of the economic structure of society, and both sovereignty and the state will disappear only when this structure is changed.” — p. 375

“The deep roots of wars are found in the economic system and in the specific class structure of society which it determines. Moreover, bourgeois concepts of a world stale originate, and by their class nature can not but originate, from the possibility of creating a world state and liquidating wars without affecting the economic system of capitalism.” — p. 375

AFTERWORD:

The Canadian Yearbook of International Law, Volume 41; Volume 2003 edited by D.M. McRae offers a memorable statement ofn Tunkin’s legal value as an expositor of Soviet ideology in the framework of international law.

/ 619

Tunkin’s standing among Soviet international jurists of his vin­tage alone suffices to impart more than passing interest to this edi­tion. From the mid-1950s until he died in 1993, he bestrode Russian

/ 620

international legal scholarship as no jurist since F.F. Martens (1845-1909) had done.3 He outstripped contemporary Soviet jurists by combining distinguished academic appointments at home and abroad with a prominent role in formulating Soviet foreign policy in the post-Stalin era. His scholarly works underwent translation into various languages, including English, French, Spanish, Ger­man, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese. More than any other contemporary Soviet international jurist, he could expound authoritatively a theory of international law mirroring Marxist-Leninist ideology and Soviet geopolitical relations from the early 1950s onwards. Most likely, his exposition in the present edition will remain that era’s foremost exposition of Soviet thinking on international law — if not the foremost exposition of Soviet inter­national legal thought generally.

A central pillar of Tunkin’s theory of international law was his conviction that capitalist and socialist countries could coexist under norms of general international law. From 1956, he advanced a theory of “peaceful coexistence,” in which general international legal norms arose through agreement between states.4 As Butler has correctly remarked, this theory underpinned cooperation between capitalist and socialist countries at least until the Soviet Union col­lapsed in 1991.5

More immediately, Tunkin’s theory of “peaceful coexistence” informed his exposition of the international legal issues treated in the present edition.

More on Willy Brandt, René Lévesque and the Socialist International

René Lévesque - Attendez que je me rappelle...

In my post of January 4th, 2015, I published the first English translation of a 1982 letter of René Lévesque to the Socialist International (SI), scooped from the unpublished files of the Parti Québécois by the Fédération des Québécois de souche (FQS).

Let’s take another look at that letter.

The New American (Tuesday, 01 March 2011 15:40) in its article by Christian Gomez (“Involvement of Socialist International in 2011 Protests”), describes the origins of the Socialist International:

“Initially founded in Paris in 1889, the Second (or Socialist) International was led by Friedrich Engels — until his death in 1895 — in conjunction with other leaders. After being dissolved on the eve of the First World War, the SI, although by then committed to the ideals of Leon Trotsky*, reorganized in 1951, serving as an ally to the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact communist satellite republics.”

Source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/africa-mainmenu-27/6516-involvement-of-socialist-international-in-2011-protests

Backup @ Calameo: http://en.calameo.com/read/000747447955ecbba25a9

Friedrich Engels was a Socialist who wrote the Communist Manifesto with Karl Marx in 1848.

The New American goes on:

“During its 1962 Congress in Oslo, Norway, the Socialist International officially publicized its aims abroad, declaring, ‘The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government,’ adding, “Membership of the United Nations must be made universal.”

The text of the Declaration of the Socialist International endorsed at the Council Conference held in Oslo on 2-4 June 1962, is online at the web site of the SI, itself.

Source: http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=2133

Backup @ Calameo: http://en.calameo.com/books/000747447c87ba69f7cac

It says:

“SOCIALISM AND WORLD PEACE

“The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government. As a first step towards it, they seek to strengthen the United Nations so that it may become more and more effective as an instrument for maintaining peace.”

Again, The New American:

“Several years later, in 1976, Willy Brandt — the former Chancellor of West Germany who was forced to resign in 1974 after he was exposed as an agent of the Stasi, the KGB-backed secret police of communist East Germany — became the President of the SI, serving as its longest-running leader from 1976 to 1992….”

 

The Parti Québécois Adheres To The Goal
Of World Government:

With respect to both SI congresses, and in particular to the SI’s “1962 Congress in Oslo, Norway”, we note that René Lévesque, at page 1 of his 1982 letter to SI president Willy Brandt, requesting PQ membership in the Socialist International, specifically states, in the second to last paragraph on that page:

“… le Parti Québécois adhère sans aucune restriction aux principes énoncés dans les déclarations de Frankfort (1951) et d’Oslo (1962).”

“… the Parti Québécois adheres without any restriction to the principles enunciated in the declarations of Frankfort (1951) and Oslo (1962).”

Therefore, in 1982 when René Lévesque attempted to admit the Parti Québécois to the Socialist International, he was expressly assuring them of his support for their plan of world government.

Flattr this

 

But this is no surprise. In his Memoirs published in 1986, René Lévesque entitles a brief sub-chapter, “I Am a Federalist”. In that sub-chapter, he explains that he is a federalist “in world terms“. Here is a compressed extract:

KEY EXCERPT: 17. I Am a Federalist [ … ]

“All of this means that on two or three absolutely essential levels, the nation-state has had its day. It must give up part of its powers and resources to an authority that would be a Security Council for humanity at large. It’s not for tomorrow, of course. But if we want to count on a tomorrow, no other solution is in sight. There, at any rate, is what I think, and what I repeat every time I get a chance, and what I’ll risk saying again here: to put an end to the massacre of innocents, to give children everywhere a minimum of equal opportunities, one cannot be anything but federalist… at least in world terms.”

The chapter section can be viewed online, English edition, as published:

“I Am a Federalist” – chapter section in the Memoirs of René Lévesque (published 1986):
http://en.calameo.com/books/000111790e51d4555c0f5

The original chapter section in French, entitled “Je Suis Fédéraliste” – being a section of a chapter in the Memoirs entitled Attendez que je me rappelle… les Mémoires de René Lévesque (also published in 1986), is online here:

http://en.calameo.com/books/0001117901d697922e1af

The pertinent extract in the French-language Mémoires reads as follows (again, compressed to the point):

“Cela signifie que, sur deux ou trois plans absolument existentiels, l’État-nation a fait son temps. Il lui faudra céder cette portion de ses pouvoirs et de ses ressources à une autorité qui soit un Conseil de Sécurité pour l’humanité tout entière. Ce n’est pas demain la veille, bien sûr. Mais si l’on veut compter sur un demain, quelle autre issue ?

Pour ma part, en tout cas, ce que je pense et que je répète à chaque occasion, et que je me risque à écrire ici : pour mettre un vrai holà au massacre des innocents, pour donner aux enfants de partout un minimum d’égalité des chances, on ne peut qu’être fédéraliste. Mondialement parlant…”

René Lévesque was not a nationalist, a sovereignist or a patriot. He was a known Communist and a globalist.

As René Lévesque asserted in his 1982 letter to Willy Brandt, attempting admission of the Parti Québécois to the Socialist International, “… the Parti Québécois adheres without any restriction to the principles enunciated in the declarations of Frankfort (1951) and Oslo (1962).”

However, the Frankfurt Declaration of 1951, at its article 5, states as follows:

“5. In many countries uncontrolled capitalism is giving place to an economy in which state intervention and collective ownership limit the scope of private capitalists. More people are coming to recognise the need for planning. Social security, free trade unionism and industrial democracy are winning ground. This development is largely a result of long years of struggle by Socialists and trade unionists. Wherever Socialism is strong, important steps have been taken towards the creation of a new social order.”

A moderator of the May 9th, 1972 radio broadcast discussing the Parti Québécois manifesto, online at CBC Archives, (transcribed and translated into English here), quoted then-President of Bell Canada, Mr. Robert Scrivener, as characterizing

“this program as ‘dangerous’, ‘unrealistic’, and who envisioned a kind of ‘Apocalypse of Business’, if ever this program, if ever one attempted to apply this program.”

While the radio hosts and others attempted to link the manifesto to Swedish-style socialism, seasoned businessman and President of the Quebec Employers’ Council, Charles Perreault, declared:

“For all practical purposes here, they are going to give to the Government the role it plays in socialist countries in Eastern Europe. They are going to centralize production, they are going to construct plans – uh – coercive plans – and for all practical purposes, as I said – uh – give to the Government total control. And one must expect that the, the, the economy will progress pretty much like that of the Poles or the Czechs or the East Germans.” (11 min. 01 sec.)

Perreault continued:

“This is clearly a coercive – uh – which ref – uh, which represents the kind of, of – of, uh – of system known in socialist countries.

But surely not, surely not (the kind one finds in) Sweden, and surely not in France, either.” (12 min. 34 sec.)

Narciso Pizarro, a Marxist sociologist interviewed in the same broadcast, and who specializes in trade-unionism, admitted that the Parti Québécois manifesto took its inspiration from “the Yugoslav model“. (2 min. 26 sec.) The former Yugoslavia, of course, was a Communist state under Marshal Tito until his death in 1980. Thus, in 1972, at the time of the Parti Québécois manifesto, the plan for Quebec is admittedly Communist.

The Parti Québécois is therefore obviously Communist.

The referendums in Quebec to “secede” are an obvious device to acquire temporary sovereignty sufficient to sign “treaties” undertaking to destroy that same sovereignty in Communist regionalism subject to world government.

That regionalism, intended to stretch horizontally, East-West, with the “rest of Canada” signing on to the “partnership”, is moreover modeled on the regionalism now unfolded in Europe. At the time of the 1980 Quebec referendum it was called the European Economic Community; at the time of the 1995 Quebec referendum, it had become the European Union. By 2001, Mikhail Gorbachev was calling it “The New European Soviet“.

Both referendums failed — despite attempts to rig the outcome — thus the regionalization of North America was pursued vertically, North-South, by means of so-called “trade” deals to incorporate Canada, the USA and Mexico into a single unit. When NAFTA stalled, 9/11 occurred, conveniently kick-starting the final leg of the forced march to North American…. Soviet Union.

Building A North American CommunityIt should be no surprise that René Lévesque himself called his plan for the re-federation of Canada with a (temporarily) sovereign Quebec both a new “Canadian Union” and a new “Canadian Community.” These designations must be familiar…. they are clearly echoed in the Council on Foreign Relations’ 2005 blueprint for “Building A North American Community,” commonly known as the North American Union. They were also based on the European Economic Community, and the European Union.

Moreover, one of the signatories to the 2005 “Building A North American Community” plan is Pierre-Marc Johnson, leader of the Parti Québécois after Lévesque, and therefore the Communist Premier of Quebec. The North American Union, modeled on the European Union — the “New European Soviet” — must therefore be Communist.

As to who really founded the Parti Québécois — because René Lévesque is just the front man — I’ll give you that in another post another day.
______
* Leon Trotsky, also known as “Lev Bronstein”.

– 30 –

Flattr this

 

UPDATE: FREE DOWNLOAD now available for researchers:

Download a FREE 18-MB copy of QUAND NOUS SERONS VRAIMENT CHEZ NOUS

The 7zip folder contains: (1) the AUDIO TAPE of the French CBC radio show discussing the Manifesto; (2) The Table of Contents of the Manifesto (Translated); (3) an 18-MB PDF file of the manifesto (scanned at the law library of the French University of Montreal; (4) an OCR of the manifesto.

QUAND – The PQ Manifesto – PDF file & OCR.zip

OR:

QUAND – The PQ Manifesto – PDF file & OCR.zip