World-Government Subversion in America: Non-conformists "mentally ill" or "insane"

Foreword: I submit to you an extraordinary exposé from 1958 of Communist mental-health propaganda and subversion installing itself in the U.S.A., and with startling extracts from a Communist subversive text book used at Lenin University. The author of the piece connects the subversion to the UN, UNESCO, Marxist objectives for America, and the Communist goal of “One World Super Government”.

This article was found online as a scan of the original newspaper item. That scan can be downloaded here: http://en.calameo.com/books/00011179002e3927dd624 CALAMEO

Source: 20-A – Van Nuys (Calif.) NEWS Sunday, Feb. 23, 1958

THE PUBLIC FORUM

The purpose of this department is to permit a public expression of opinions by citizens and taxpayers, but no letter containing purely personal or abusive matter will be acceptable for publication. Name and address must accompany every letter, even though an anonymous signature is used. Any opinion expressed herein has no connection with the editorial policy of this newspaper.

Psycho-Analysis and Mental Health Propaganda

Editor The News:

Our American people, to­day, are being deluged with a cleverly planned and skill­fully executed barrage of propaganda, designed to pro­mote the adoption of so-called mental health legislation by national, state and local government, under the broad and disarmingly-innocent title of the “mental health program.”

For the past three years, these programs have been rapidly “mushrooming” in most parts of the country un­der the guidance of unknown and untrained alien psychiatrists who have been quick to seize upon the innate kind­liness, hospitality, and altruism of our Christian American people, and to offer a variety of programs for “mental health” and “collectivist” schemes.

Most of the suave, high-pressure speakers who pre­sent these programs are saturated with a heavy alien ac­cent and it doesn’t require too much analysis of the beautifully-packaged, deceptively-named “mental health” pro­grams, already become law, or now pending before our national and state law-making bodies, to understand that the ultimate, intended goal of these proposed legislative acts are [sic] a vicious attempt to des­troy the self-reliance of the American citizen — and that it is an ominous threat to de­prive him of his freedom and liberty.

Become Easy Prey

After a careful reading of this propaganda now being huckstered around by speakers and organizers who can hardly enunciate English, and after listening to their oratory filled with pretense of con­cern for those who they claim are “mentally ill,” anyone with average intelligence should become convinced that most of these Mental Health “proposals” are po1itica1 schemes to transform any citizen who may refuse to conform to any political objective being promoted by the nation, state or community in which he lives, into a faceless — spineless — characterless non-entity, devoid of will power or ambition — easy prey to those who may be in a po­sition to exert power over him.
 

Psychiatric subversion - silencing dissent

Psychiatric subversion – silencing dissent

The modus operandi of si­lencing the “nonconformist,” — for example, any person who speaks out, or writes in hostile language against “One World Super Government” — sponsors, within the United Nations organization, is to rate him as being “mentally ill” and should he committed to some “national insane asy­lum.”

Trend Is Revealed

There is stressed the “usual” propaganda of “great bene­fits” of the Mental Health programs, emphasizing the ef­ficiency of treatment and the speed by which the victims are returned to the commun­ity in large numbers, after treatment.

Any informed person knows well that, once a person is committed to an in­sane institution, — private, or political influence can keep him there till “doomsday.”

The proponents of these Mental Health programs and associations, are, in most cases, those who are identified with ‘One World Super Government,’ [-a–uit] within the United Nations organization), — the UNESCO “World Health Organization,” and the “World Federation for Mental Health.”

These organizations, whose objectives appear to be the ultimate destruction of the sovereignty of this Republic, are operating in all parts of the United States. Their activities reveal an increasing trend toward Marxist subversion and of the possibility of violence as evidenced by Section 104(b) of the Alaska Men­tal Health (House Resolution 6376) which says:

“Any health, welfare, or po­lice officer who has reason to believe that an individual is mentally ill … is likely to in­jure himself or others, if not immediately restrained, (vio­lence) may take the individual into custody, — apply to a designated hospital for admis­sion, and transport him there­to.”

Objectives Are Disguised

Obviously, without any written authorization except the “written application of an interested party,” for example, some welfare worker, an American citizen can thus be silenced and deprived of his liberty.

This is indeed a most in­credible departure from rec­ognized police procedure in effect today.

Aside from establishing an ideal precedent for shipping off to an insane asylum, any unwanted member of the fam­ily, what better scheme could there be for the silencing of those numerous patriotic persons who, for years have been persistently warning our citizens of the Communistic and Socialistic trends which they despise within our government …

What better program could there be, especially for satis­fying the wrath of Sherman Adams and his White House “Palace Guard,” against trou­blesome dissenters and critics of the Eisenhower administra­tion?

Most certainly, there is no one who would ever oppose the establishment of suitable hospitals and the very best of care for those who are genuinely “mentally ill,” or insane, — BUT, the gesture of phi­lanthropy indicated by the numerous Mental Health pro­grams, are [sic], in most cases, an atrocious fraud upon the Citizens of this Republic, because they [d]eceive the uninformed, — the indifferent, — and the naive, — in carefully disguising and concealing their true ob­jectives, and also their failure to reveal the complexion and identity of their enthusiastic proponents and sponsors.

Extremely Impatient

The rash of Mental Health programs which have flooded the country with increasing vigor during the past few years, carry with them a distinctive odor of the “Super One World Government” and “World Federation of Mental Health” strategists, who have swarmed into this country from Europe during the past 20 years — received here with open arms under the compli­mentary label of being “politi­cal refugees.”

They now infest the United Nations Organization, — spread­ing their political poison where they have been able to carry on their activities and evil work unchecked, con­stantly working for the destruction of the established or­der of Christian life within these United States which has afforded them decent living, and asylum from persecution abroad.

These high priests of psy­chiatry, psychology, and men­tal health and their education­ist stooges, — not satisfied with having, all but completely, destroyed the individual’s will to defend his God-given rights, as guaranteed under our con­stitution, have now become extremely impatient to attain their concealed objectives.

Accordingly, they have turned their attention to plaguing the country in the field of Mental Health as an effective means to accomplish the “coup de grâce,” namely the ultimate perversion of our citizens and the subversion of our Christian American ideals.

I have before me a mimeographed copy complete — of a text-book purported to be used by the students at the Lenin University in Moscow. The pages of this book are most frightening to read. It is titled “The Communist Manual of Psycho-Political Warfare.”

On the first pages there ap­pears a speech delivered by Commissar Lavrenti Beria (formerly head of Soviet Sec­ret Police) welcoming a group of American students at the University. Portions of Beria’s speech are as follows:

“You must dominate, as res­pected men, the fields of psy­chiatry and psychology. You must dominate the hospitals and universities. You must carry forward the myth that ONLY an European doctor is competent in the field of in­sanity, and thus excuse amongst you, the high incidence of foreign birth and training …”

“With the institutions for the insane which you have in your country, in those prisons which can hold a million per­sons, where they can be held without civil rights or any hope of freedom –upon these people can be practiced shock and surgery in such a manner that never again will they draw a sane breath.”

“Use the courts, — use the judges, — use the Constitution of your country, — its medical societies, — and its laws — to further your ends … And when you have succeeded you can effect your own legisla­tion at will; you can … make the capitalist, himself, finance the quiet conquest — the quiet revolution in your country.”

The above paragraph[s] ap­pears to confirm what has so often been told us by Soviet leaders, “We shall take over the United States without firing a shot.”

Must Develop Solution

When the deceptive eloquence, and processes of men­tal trickery practiced by most of the proponents of mental health legislation, have been well exposed — the Congress should take a good look be­neath the surface in order to make a thorough investiga­tion of the peculiar personali­ties behind, and supporting the numerous Mental Health programs.

Then, and not until then, will this atrocious fraud upon our citizens be revealed in all of its stark reality and evil aims.

Instead of establishing, here and there, the national insane asylums contemplated by these alien mental health “ex­perts” for the isolation of patriotic Americans who re­fuse to conform to the Communist and Socialist trends in government, and who refuse to remain silent in the pres­ence of treason in our Su­preme Court, a real solution, in keeping with American tradition, must certainly be developed for the tender care and understanding of those who are genuinely ill mentally.

This must be administered by those of American parent­age and Christian background – of proper training and recognized ability in the field of psychiatry and psy­chology.

Every effort should be made to rid this nation of this alien swarm of phoney psychiatrists and psychologists, — many of whom serve Marxist fanatics by classifying, as mental cases, those Americans of patriotic stature who loudly and courageously oppose such un-American organizations inside the United Nations organization as UNESCO, One world super-government, and Communism with all its fronts.

Demand Investigation

It appears obvious that if laws could be re-written, mental health prisons created, and, if the majority of our voting citizens could be “brain-washed” into the belief that every non-conformist is a victim of “mental illness,” then those who conspire to destroy the sovereignty of the United States of America, might fin­ally succeed in the establish­ment of a “Super One-World Government” to succeed the United Nations Organization.

There would then be no need for concentration camps. Institutions for the “Mentally ill” would suffice.

Every Senator and Con­gressman should be deluged with letters demanding the immediate investigation of all menta1 health bills, now pending before the Congress.

Investigation should also be demanded to disclose the identity of those who are fi­nancing and promoting them. Many of these bills, like the Alaska Mental Health Bill (HR 6376), reek with medical fraud and possible treason.

Your demand should be made NOW, before it is too late.

Article Signed: JACKSON ADAMS

Update: The web site entitled “Human Rights Watch” offers a free download of their 55-page report entitled “The Legacy of Psychiatric Abuse in the USSR“.

Advertisements

The New Treason of the Clerics: Pierre Elliott Trudeau

Pierre Elliott Trudeau [1919-2000]

The New Treason
of the Clerics

English translation
by Kathleen Moore
13 April 2013

FOR The legal research purposes of Habeas Corpus Canada
The Official Legal Challenge to North American Union

http://www.habeascorpuscanada.com

MORE SITES IN THE NETWORK:

http://www.NoSnowinMoscow.com
http://www.MyTalkCanada.com
http://www.AliceinReferendumland.com
http://www.KidsCorner.brightpathwaypoems.com
http://www.nosnowinmoscow.wordpress.com

This English translation was prepared from a scan of the original article in the April 1962 issue of Cité Libre magazine. Cité Libre was founded and run by Communist Gérard Pelletier, who invited his Communist friend, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, to join him. Cité Libre also employed two men who left the magazine to launch even more radical publications, and to lead one or more cells of the F.L.Q. terrorists:  Pierre Vallières and Charles Gagnon. [KM]

Article Source: Pierre Elliott Trudeau, “La nouvelle trahison des clercs“, Cité libre, 46 (April, 1962)

The French article was scanned & PDF’d and is available here:
http://www.calameo.com/books/0001117909ba2ab905133

Pierre Elliott Trudeau, The New Treason of the Clerics, Cité Libre,April 1962April 1962
SPECIAL ISSUE DEVOTED TO

separatism

RECOMMENDED:  READ THE “RED-STARRED” QUOTES FIRST, THEN THE ARTICLE

Notable Quote

Footnotes are Trudeau’s and are boxed like this and inserted as they arise. Their placement therefore differs from that in the 1962 print article.  Memorable quotes have been highlighted with Red Stars.

 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 

Notable QuoteMen whose function is to defend eternal and impartial values, such as justice and reason, and whom I will call the clerics, have betrayed this function for practical interests… The purpose for which the clerics consummated their treason was above all the nation.

(Julien Benda, La trahison des clercs1)

FN 1  Julien Benda, La trahison des clercs, Paris, 1927 and 1946.

 
I – The Geographic Perspective

It is not the idea of the nation that is retrogressive, it is the idea that the nation must necessarily be sovereign.

To which the Quebec Independentists rejoin that an idea is not retrogressive which has permitted India, Cuba and a multitude of African states to obtain their independence.

This reasoning posits the equation: independence equals progress. Independence, they say, is good in itself. And to confound the enemy, they turn upon him the aphorism: Good government is no substitute for self-government.

The frequent recourse had to this old lampoon (which is invariably misquoted – but, must everybody know English?) indicates the extent to which our Separatists are confused in spirit. Self-government does not mean national self-determination. (This is not a question of linguistic brilliance: it is a question of knowing what one is talking about when one demands the independence of Quebec.) Let us therefore distinguish between the two notions.

That self-government is a good thing, or more precisely that the tendency toward a system of government called “responsible” is generally a trend towards progress, I wish to concede at the outset of this article. I have too often denounced the autocracy of the Union Nationale in Quebec, and the paternalism of the Liberals and the Socialists in Ottawa, to be suspect on this point. I have always maintained that the population of Quebec will never progress toward political maturity and the mastery of its own destinies, until they themselves give true responsible government a try, at the same time rejecting ideologies which preach blind submission to “the authority which comes from God”, and those who yield with confidence to Ottawa for the solution of our difficult problems.

But, I called for “freedom in the City” said G.C.2 What they are demanding today is “freedom of the City”, which is the absolute independence of the French-Canadian nation, the full and complete sovereignty of Laurentie. In short, national self-determination.2

FN 2 “Lettre d’un nationaliste”. [Letter from a nationalist] Cité Libre, Montréal, mars 1961, p. 6.

“Since the end of the Second World War,” writes Marcel Chaput, “something above thirty nations, former colonies, freed themselves from foreign tutelage and acceded to national and international sovereignty. In the course of the 1960s alone, seventeen African colonies, of which fourteen were of the French language, had thus obtained their independence. And voilà, today, it is the French-Canadian people who begin to rise up and who also now claim their place among the free nations.”3

FN 3 M. Chaput, Pourquoi je suis séparatiste, [Why I am a separatist] Montreal, 1961, p. 18.

Certainly, Mr. Chaput rushes to recognize that French Canada possesses more power than those peoples ever possessed. But it does not have total independence and “its destiny resides, in very large measure, in the hands of a nation that is foreign to it.”

The ambiguity remains total.

Because, the quasi-totality of these “thirty countries, former colonies” are States, as Canada is a State; they have acceded to full sovereignty, as Canada did in 1931. These countries in no way constitute nations in the sense in which the French-Canadians would be a nation. In consequence, the operation which consists of placing the independence of Quebec into the historical current so as to find spiritual sources within it, is pure sophistry.

The State of India is a sovereign republic. But there, 4 languages are officially recognized (which doesn’t include English or Chinese, or Tibetan, or the innumerable dialects. There exist eight principal religions, of which a number are irreducibly opposed to one another. Where is the nation? And what independence does one intend to cite here as the example?

The State of Ceylon counts three principal ethnic groups and four religions. In the Federation of Malay, there are three ethnic groups. The Burmese Union contrasts within it a half-dozen nationalities. The Indonesian Republic includes at least a dozen national groups, and there, twenty-five principal languages are spoken. In Viet-Nam, in addition to the Tonkinois, the Annamites and the Cochinchinois, eight major tribes are counted.

In Africa, the multi-ethnic character of the new States is even more striking. The borders of these sovereign countries are nothing but the former boundaries of the colonialists, the random tracings of conquests, explorations and administrative fancy. In consequence, members of one and the same tribe, speaking the same language and having the same traditions, have become citizens of different States, and these States are often hardly more than conglomerations of distinct and rival groups. We see a little of what this gives in the former Belgian Congo. But we find practically the same ethnic complexity if we look at Ghana, the Sudan, Nigeria, or almost anywhere else. In Western French Africa, for example, the population is composed of some ten sparse tribes; France found it convenient to clip it into eight territories. History transformed these territories into sovereign States. One would search in vain there for Nation-States, which is to say Nations whose borders obey ethnic or linguistic imperatives.4

FN 4 We find most of these facts in the Statesman’s Year Book, London, annually.

As to Algeria under the Provisional Government of the Algerian Republic, which our Independentists always cite as an example, it is not hard to see in what sense it wishes to be a State. In addition to inhabitants of French, Spanish, Italian, Jewish, Greek and Levantine origine, in this country there must be distinguished Berbers, Kabyles, Arabs, Maures, Negroes, the Touaregs, the Mzabites5, and several métis nations. In particular, we have not heard the last of the Kabylian-Arab confrontation.

Finally, as to Cuba, which always comes up in separatist discussions as an example to follow, this is avowedly a pure deceit. That country was sovereign under Batista and it is sovereign under Castro. It was economically dependent before, and it still is now. Self-government

FN 5 The Encyclopaedia Britannica.

did not exist there before, and it still doesn’t exist there today. Good, and what does that prove? That Castro is not Batista? Certainly; but Hydro-Quebec under René-Lévesque is not Hydro-Quebec under Daniel Johnson. Here, we are quite advanced towards separatism….

The upshot of all this is that in posing independence as a good thing in itself, an affair of dignity for every “normal people”, we launch the world on a strange war-ship. It has been claimed that any sincere anti-colonialist who wants independence for Algeria must also want it for Quebec. This reasoning contends that Quebec is a political dependency, which is to be ill informed of one’s constitutional history; but even if that were the case, to be logical one must rather say that any Quebec Separatist must advocate the independence of the Kabyles or, to give a more striking example, the independence of the some 25-million Bengalis comprised in the Indian State… If the Separatists, to confuse me, reply that they do advocate this independence for Bengal, I would ask them why stop there: in Bengal, they speak 90 different languages; and then, again, there are the Bengalis of Pakistan … And there we have a lot of prospective secessions!

To end with the original aphorism, I would thus be tempted to conclude that good government is a damned good substitute for national self-determination, if one means to invoke by this latter term the right of ethnic or linguistic groups to afford themselves absolute sovereignty. It even seems sufficiently urgent, for world peace and the wellbeing of new States, that this form of “good government” which is democratic federalism be perfected and spread, in order to resolve to some degree everywhere the problems of ethnic pluralism. To that end, as I will suggest further on, Canada could be called to play a role as mentor, provided that it knows how to opt for grandeur … John Conway wrote, concerning TRUE FEDERALISM: “Its successful adoption in Europe would go a long way towards ensuring the survival of TRADITIONAL WESTERN CIVILIZATION. It would be a pity if, in Canada, so young, so rich and vigorous, and plagued with so few really serious problems, the attempt should fail.”6

FN 6 In the Catholic Historical Review, July 1961.

Speaking of federalism, it seems well established that President Wilson – the great apostle of the “principle of nationalities”—had no intention whatsoever of advocating nationalist secessions, but that he rather wished to affirm the right of nationalities to a certain autonomy inside States.7

7 S. Wambaugh, “National Self-Determination”, Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, New York, 1950.

Moreover, it is false to affirm, as do so many of our Independentists, that this principle of nationalities is recognized at international law and sanctioned by the United Nations. Rather than borrow the ambiguous expression used by Wilson – and to find themselves – as after the first Great War, faced with a new wave of referendums and secessions — they have preferred to speak – according to Article 1 of the [UN] Charter – of the right of peoples to self-determination. “Peoples”, is quite another thing than “ethnic groups”.8

8 The obstacle-strewn political language will have been noted. The word nation, or nationality, from the Latin nasci (to be born), most often points to an ethnic community having a common language and customs. The Japanese nation. It is in this sense that one speaks of the principle of nationalities as leading to a national State or to a Nation-State. But the inverse also happens, that it is the State, originally formed of several ethnic communities, which gives birth to a nation: the word is then heard of a political society long having a territory and interests in common. The Swiss nation. In Canada, as I will explain below, there is not, nor will be, a Canadian nation unless and as long as the ethnic communities succeed in excorcizing their respective nationalities.

Notable QuoteIf a Canadian nationalism is born, it would have to be excorcised in turn, and demand that the Canadian nation abdicate a part of its sovereignty in favour of some superior order, as it is asked today of the French-Canadian and British-Canadian nations.

(For a discussion of the vocabulary, see the remarkable essay by E. H. Carr, in Carr et al. Nations ou fédéralisme, [Nations or Federalism] Paris 1946, p. 4).

 
II — The Historical Perspective

If it is difficult to base the idea of the Nation-State on the anti-colonial evolution of recent years, then what of History in general?9

FN 9 Among others, see M. H. Boehm and C. Hayes “Nationalism”, E.S.S.

From the dawn of time, there has been man, and also undoubtedly – given the nature of man – this other reality which is called the family. Then, very soon, the tribe appears, a kind of primitive community, founded on common customs and an idiom.

Now, the history of civilization is the history of the subordination of tribal “nationalism” to broader memberships. Without doubt, clan loyalties and regional attachments always existed. But thought developed, knowledge spread, inventions became known and humanity progressed wherever there was interpenetration of tribes and exchange among them, under the influence of the division of labor and of trade, in the grip of the great conquests (from Egypt and China up to the Holy Roman Empire), and beneath the dust of universalist religions from Buddhism to Islam, by way of Christianity.

Finally, after more than 65 centuries of history, with the break-up of the medieval order, the regression of Latin as the language of the well educated man, and the birth of the individualist mystique, the modern notion of the nation began to develop in Europe. The replacement of the Catholic Church by national Churches, the rise of the bourgeoisies, mercantilism the protector of territorial economies, the outrages committed against certain ethnic groups such as the Polish, the Jacobin Revolution, the Mazzini fervor, the domination of poor nations by industrialized nations such as England, were some of the factors which contributed to giving birth to national aspirations, these then leading to the setting up of successive national States. The countries of Latin America revolted against Spain. Italy and Germany had their wars of unification. The Greeks and the Slavs rebelled against the Ottoman Empire, Ireland rose up against Great Britain. In short, all Europe and a large part of America, went up in flames. The era of national wars, begun at the time of Napoleon, knew its apogee with the two World Wars. And we are ergo entering the epoc when nations pride themselves on the possession of nuclear arms, while waiting to defend themselves by using them.

Some seven thousand years of history in three paragraphs is obviously a bit short. I will speak of the rest a little longer, below. But it is enough to reflect now on three observations.

The first is that the nation is not a “biological” reality, I want to say a community which ensues from the very nature of man. Except for a small fraction of its history, humanity lived and civilization progressed without membership in a nation. This, to reassure our young people who see the least breach in the sovereignty of a nation as an apocalyptic event.

The second is that the little particle of history which is marked by the emergence of the Nation-States, is also that of the most devastating wars, the most numerous atrocities and the most degrading collective hatreds of the whole human epic. Up to the end of the XVIIIth Century, it was generally the sovereigns who made war, rather than the nations; and while their sovereigns made war, the civil populations continued to call on one another, the merchants crossed the borders, men of letters and philosophers went freely from one court to another, leaders of armies took scholars under their protection in the conquered cities. In this era, war killed the military, but she respected the civilizations. Whereas in our time, we have seen nations mobilized against Germany refuse to listen to Beethoven, others estranged from China boycott the Peking Opera, still others refuse visas or passports to scholars wishing to attend some scientific or humanitarian convention in a country of a different ideology. Pasternak could not even go to collect his Nobel Prize at Stockholm. The concept of nation, which gives so little priority to science and to culture, cannot place truth, liberty and life itself above itself on the scale of values. It is a concept which putrefies everything: in times of peace, the clerics become propagandists of the nation and the propaganda makes the lie; in times of war, democracies slide toward dictatorship, and dictatorships drag us into the world of concentration camps; and ultimately, after the massacres in Ethiopia, there were those of London and Hamburg, then those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and maybe so on until the final massacre. I well know that the idea of the Nation-State is not the sole cause of all the evils of war: modern technology is good for some of it! But the important point is that this idea has been the cause of wars becoming more and more total for two centuries: it is therefore this idea that I am fighting here. Moreover, each time the State takes as its foundation an exclusive and intolerant idea (religion, nation, ideology), this idea has been the mainspring of wars. It has happened, in times past, that religion ceased to be the foundation of the State, so as to put an end to the horrifying religious wars.

Notable QuoteInternational wars will not be finished except in similar conditions, the nation ceasing to be the basis of the State.10 As for inter-State wars, they will not cease unless the States renounce that attribute which renders them exclusive and intolerant: sovereignty.

FN 10 See Emery Reves, A Democratic Manifesto, London 1943, p. 43. Read as well, by the same author, The Anatomy of Peace, New-York 1945.

So – to get back to my intention – what troubles me in the fact that five million Canadians of French origin cannot come to share their sovereignty with seven million Canadians of British origin, beside whom they live, and who they know generally do not have fleas, it’s that this gives me little hope that some thousand million Americans, Soviets and Chinese, who have never seen each other and one of whom is not sure the other is not scabby, consent to abdicate a particle of their sovereignty over nuclear arms.

Notable QuoteThe third observation that I derive from the unfolding of history is that the very idea of the Nation-State is absurd.

To affirm that nationality must hold the plenitude of sovereign powers is to pursue a goal which which self-destructs at the moment of its achievement. Because every national minority which would be liberated will discover almost invariably within itself a new national minority which will have the same right to claim liberty. That way, the chain of revolutions must continue until the last-born in the descent of the Nation-States uses force against the same principle to which it owes its own existence. This is why the principle of nationalities has brought to the world two centuries of wars and revolutions, but not a single definitive solution. France still has its Bretons and its Alsacians, England its Scottish and its Welsh, Spain its Catalans and its Basques, Yugoslavia its Croats and its Macedonians, Finland its Swedes and its Laps, and so on for Belgium, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, the USSR, China, the United States, all the countries of Latin America, and still what do I know? With regard to States that are more or less homogeneous as to nationality, or those which have not had enough of their problems of secession, they create problems of accession: Ireland wants its six counties of Ulster, Indonesia wants New Guinea, Mussolini’s nationalist Italy, once it had finished with its irredentas, had imagined reconquering the Roman Empire. Hitler would not be satisfied with anything less than the conquest of the whole non-Aryan world – As to the Quebec Separatists, they too will have bread to slice: if their principles are just, they must push them up to the annexation of a part of Ontario, of New Brunswick, of Labrador, and of New England; but, on the other hand, they must let go certain regions at the border of Pontiac and Témiscamingue, and make of Westmount the Dantzig of the New World.

Notable QuoteSo therefore, the concept of the Nation-State, which has succeeded in delaying the march of civilization, has not even been able to resolve – if this were not absurd – the political problems that it came to create.

And when civilization nonetheless managed to get by, that is when clerics were found capable of placing faith in man above membership in a nation: Pasternak, Oppenheimer, Joliot-Curie, Russell, Einstein, Freud, Casais, and how many others who have answered: Epur si muove to the national interest.

“Man,” said Renan, “belongs neither to his language, nor to his race; he belongs only to himself, because he is a free being, which is to say, a moral being.”11

FN 11 Cited by Benda, op. cit., p. 143.

Listen as well to Father Delos: “The question is to know if man is made to abound in his historical being, if history is above man, if the human does not constitute a reserve which overflows all culture, all civilization achieved by history and carrying the name of City, if this is not to deny the value of man by reducing him to identifying with a people.”12

FN 12 J. T. Delos, La Nation, Montreal 1944, vol. I. p. 196. See also an excellent article of Professor Maurice Tremblay of Laval, “Réflexions sur le nationalisme”. Les Écrits du Canada français, vol. V, Montréal 1959.

 
III — Genesis of Nationalisms

Notable QuoteAbsurd in its principle and retrograde in its application, the idea of the Nation-State has nonetheless enjoyed and still enjoys extraordinary favour.

Where does it come from? That is what I would now like to examine.

The birth of the modern State takes place toward the end of the fourteenth Century. Up till then, the feudal structures had sufficed to maintain order in Europe where the means of communication were limited, where the economy and commerce had an essentially local base and where, as a consequence, the political administration could be greatly decentralized. But, as commerce gradually spread and diversified, as the economy required a larger and better protected plate, and as the kings were able to give free rein to their ambitions, the rising bourgeois classes allied with the reigning monarchs to replace feudal power and the free cities with a strong and unified State. In 1576, Jean Bodin understood that the new and essential characteristic of such States was “sovereignty”, and he defined it as the “supreme power” over citizens and subjects, not limited by law.

Absolute monarchy ruled for several centuries over these sovereign States. But these were not yet the Nation-States; because the borders were always family affairs, in the sense that these borders still moved at random according to marriages and wars between the diverse reigning families. Nationalities were of such little account that Louis XIV, for example, after having annexed Alsace, in no way forbade the use of the German language; only twenty years later would French language schools be introduced there. 13

FN 13 Benda, op. cit. p. 268, citing Vidal de la Blache, La France de l’Est.

Individualism, scepticism and rationalism continued, however, to undermine the traditional powers. And the moment came when the absolute monarch himself had to abdicate to the bourgeoisie, his former ally. Before the disappearance of the dynasties induced a weakening of the State, a new agent of cohesion was in the works: popular sovereignty, or democratic power.

Democracy opened first to the bourgeois classes, then much later to the popular classes, the routes by which all could participate in the exercise of political power. The State appeared then as the instrument by which eventually all the classes, which is to say the whole nation, could assure itself of peace and prosperity. And naturally, all wished this instrument to be as strong as possible vis-à-vis the other Nation-States. It is thus that nationalism is born, from the union of liberal democracy with the egalitarian mystique.

But alas! this nationalism, by a singular paradox, rapidly distanced itself from the ideas that had presided at its birth. Because, as soon as the sovereign State was placed at the service of the nation, it is the nation that became sovereign, which is to say, above the laws. It mattered little that the prosperity of some signified the ruin of others. Nations historically strong, those who were the first to industrialize, those which had inherited strategic or institutional leads, soon understood the advantages of their situation. The rulers allied with the ruled, the possessors with the dispossessed, and this whole mob -– in the name of the nationalism which bound them -– went to enrich themselves and to plume themselves at the expense of the weak nations.

National egoisms then decked themselves out in the required labels: political Darwinism, Nietzschean mystique, the white man’s burden, civilizing mission, pan-slavism, magyarization, and all this other trash which authorized the strong to oppress the weak.

But in every case, the result was the same: the nations dominated, cut off, exploited and humiliated conceived a hatred beyond measure for their oppressors; and united in this hatred, they invented against this aggressor nationalism a defensive nationalism. Thus were ignited a chain of wars which have not finished inflaming the planet.

It is inside this global nationalist phenomenon that the sub-sub-Quebec case of the Canadian sub-case must be considered. The Seven Years’ War, through a complicated system of alliances and interests, pitted against each other five great European powers. France and Russia fought beside Austria, while England aligned with Prussia. But when Louis XV came to the aid of Marie-Therese with his armies and his supplies, in the hope of expanding the French presence in Europe, Pitt sent a large sum of sterling to Frederic II but few soldiers: these boarded English fleets to go and bring defeat to France in India and in America, and to lay the foundations of the most formidable empire the world had known. We know what happened next:  by the Treaty of Paris, Canada amongst others – became English.14

FN 14 Read a passionate chapter of J. Dalberg-Acton, Lectures on Modern History, London 1906, p. 274.

At this time, the English were already the most nationalist of men. The whole country, proud of its political and economic superiority, was in accord to go and plant its flag, its commerce and its institutions in the most remote lands. This nationalism was inevitably also cultural, and the English were convinced that the countries they colonized enjoyed an absolutely unmerited blessing: that of being able to communee in the language and under the customs of the anglo-saxons. Soon enough, the English who put such ingenuity and political genius into developing at home the cult of civil liberties, never had the idea of protecting the rights of minorities.
15

FN 15 By 1759, “English public law had not worked out any theory of minority rights guaranteed by law”, writes Dean [of Law] F. R. Scott in Mason Wade ed., Canadian Dualism, Toronto 1960, p. 100.

From the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the intention to completely assimilate the French Canadians was obvious. And in 1840, Durham –all the while “far from wishing to encourage indiscriminately (these) pretentions to superiority on the part of any particular race” — still considered that assimilation was nothing more than a “question of time and mode”.16

FN 16 Reginald Coupland, ed., The Durham Report, Oxford 1945, p. 153. See also p. 179.

Throughout this whole period, Canadians of British origin had considered it to be an indignity that their race might be in an inferior position; also, they invented all sorts of stratagems thanks to which democracy came to signify government by the minority.17

FN 17 I continue the story in a chapter in Mason Wade ed., Canadian Dualism, Toronto 1960, p. 252 et seq.

Generations passed. The hope of assimilating the French Canadians finished by being sidelined (although the laws continued up to 1948 to favor immigration from the British Isles, as opposed to that coming from France). But the sentiment of superiority was never renounced and has never ceased to characterize the attitude of English-language Canadians vis-à-vis the French Canadians.

In Ottawa, and in the other provinces, this nationalism could wear the pious mask of democracy. Because, to the extent that English-language Canadians became more numerous, they set out to hide their intolerance under cover of majority rule: thanks to this rule, they could “democratically” suppress bilingualism in the legislative assembly of Manitoba, violate acquired rights in the separate schools of the sundry provinces, ferociously impose conscription in 1917, and in 1942 break their word.18

FN 18André Laurendeau recently recounted with much lucidity how, during the plebiscite of 1942, the State was placed at the service of British-Canadian nationalism and how it abused the numerical weakness of the French Canadians to renege on its promises to them. (La crise de la conscription, [The Conscription Crisis] Montreal 1962). A story of even greater dishonor could be written concerning the oppression exerted by this same State against the Japanese-Canadian minority during the same war.

In Quebec, “where they had not the numbers but they had the money, our fellow citizens (Britanno-Canadians) often yielded to the temptation to act disproportionately with the means which they had.”19

FN 19 P. E. Trudeau, “Réflexions sur la politique au Canada français” [Reflections on politics in French Canada], Cité Libre, Montreal, December, 1952, p. 61.

In politics, British-Canadian nationalism thus took the forms that André Laurendeau admirably christened with the name “theory of the nigger king “. As to economics, this nationalism essentially consisted of considering the French Canadian as “un cochon de payant” [a pig who pays:KM]; but sometimes magnanimity was pushed so far as to place straw men — whose names came “clearly from among us ” — on the boards of directors, these men were all alike in that: primo, they were never sufficiently competent and strong to be able to rise to the top, and secondo, they were always sufficiently “representative” to please the nigger king and to flatter the vanity of his tribe. Finally, in social and cultural matters, British-Canadian nationalism expressed itself quite simply by contempt: whole generations of anglophones have lived in Québec without managing to learn three sentences of French. When these audacious individuals seriously affirm that their jaw and their ears were not so made that they could adapt themselves to French, they want in fact to make you understand that they refuse to debase these organs, and their small spirits in placing them at the service of a barbaric idiom.

The British-Canadian nation will engender, as was inevitable, French-Canadian nationalism. As I write this, speaking of the genesis of our nationalism at the same time as characterizing it as a futile orientation: “For a conquered people, occupied, decapitated, evicted from the commercial arena, pent up outside the cities, reduced little by little to a minority, and diminished in influence in a country it had withal discovered, explored and colonized, there existed few other attitudes which might allow him to preserve that which had made him who he was. This people created for itself a security system, but in exaggerating it, perhaps attached a value disproportionate to all that distinguished it from others, and viewed with hostility any change (even if it was progress) which was proposed to him from outside.20 And I would add:  “Alas! It is the very idealism of the nationalists which undoes them. They loved not wisely but too well.”

FN 20 P. E. Trudeau, ed. La grève de l’amiante [The Asbestos Strike], Montreal 1956, p. 11.

 
IV— Interaction of the Nationalisms in Canada

Notable QuoteOne must take History as it is. However retrogressive and absurd may be the idea of the Nation-State, it remains that this idea inspired the essence of the policy of the British, then the British-Canadians, with respect to the Dominion of Canada.

Roughly speaking, it was a matter for them of identifying the Canadian State as much as possible with the British-Canadian nation.

Since the French-Canadians had the poor grace to refuse assimilation, this identification could never be perfect. But the British Canadians nonetheless gave themselves the illusion in isolating the French Fact as much as possible in the Quebec Ghetto – and whose powers they often trimmed through centralizing measures – and in fighting with a stunning ferocity against all the symbols which might destroy this illusion outside of Quebec: the use of French on stamps, coins, cheques, in the public service, the railways and the whole bazaar.

Against this aggressor-nationalism, what alternative – let’s say for a Century – was open to the French-Canadians? On the one hand, they might confront the idea of a British-Canadian dominatrix of a Nation-State with the idea of a sheared-off French-Canadian Nation-State;

Notable Quoteon the other hand, they could disconnect from this concept of the Nation-State and drag Canada down the road to a multi-national State.

The first choice was, and still is, that of the Separatists or Independentists. An essentially emotional and passionate option – as it is of the rest of the cause she is fighting – I could never see the wisdom in it. Because, either it is destined to succeed; and this would be proof that the nationalism of the British-Canadians was neither intransigent, nor vigorous, nor armed, nor very dangerous for us:  then I ask myself why are we afraid to confront these people within a pluralist State, and why would we renounce our rights to be at home a mari usque ad mare. Either the Independentist option is doomed to fail, and the final condition of these people will be worse than the first: not because a conquering and vindictive enemy had deported a part of the population and left to the other reduced rights and a despoiled heritage – this eventuality seems to me hardly probable; but because the French Canadians once again would have channeled all their energies into (hypothetically) futile battles which ought better to have been spent in rivaling the excellence, the audacity and the stubbornness of an (hypothetically) dangerous enemy.

Notable QuoteThe second choice (that of the multinational State) was, and remains, that of the Constitutionalists:  it consists in repudiating the warlike and self-destructive idea of the Nation-State and substituting therefor the civilizing idea of polyethnic pluralism.

– I recognize that in some countries in certain eras this option might not have been possible, and notably when the aggressor-nationalism enjoyed a crushing superiority and refused all compromise with national minorities. Was this the case at the time of Papineau and the Patriotes? I doubt it. But in any case, this independentist adventure was sealed by an Act of Union which –- on the plane of minority rights –- was a retreat compared to the Constitutional Act of 1791.

As a question of fact, this second choice was, and remains, possible for the French Canadians. The multi-national State could have been dreamed of by Lafontaine, carried out by Cartier, perfected by Laurier, and enfranchised by [Henri] Bourassa. Because British-Canadian nationalism never enjoyed a crushing superiority, nor had been in a position to refuse all compromise with the principal national minority; in consequence, it could not have followed the policy that its haughtiness might have preferred, and would have had to accept whatever events imposed upon him.

First, it was The Quebec Act, passed under threat of the American revolution. Then it was the terrible long night – some three-quarters of a century – during which the British Canadians were less numerous than the French Canadians; as Mason Wade notes with respect to the Loyalists: “They were badly scared men, who had lived through one revolution in America and dreaded another in Canada”.21 Finally, it was the perpetual threat of American domination which obliged Canadian nationalism –- willy nilly –- to take account of the French-Canadian nationality: because otherwise, it would have been practically impossible to link together the different colonies of British North America.

FN 21 Wade, The French Canadians 1760-1945, Toronto 1955, p. 93.

In sum, poor British-Canadian nationalism has never had very much to crow about. Those who were clairvoyant enough to understand this, among the French Canadians, those whom I call the Constitutionalists, naturally wagered on the multi-national State, and called upon their citizens to work on it with boldness and with hope. Those who on the contrary did not understand it have never ceased to fear an adversary largely imaginary. These are composed: Primo, of the assimilated and the “bonne-ententists” who would accept that the Nation-State be built upon the cadaver of the French-Canadian nation; but they had neither the numbers nor the weight, and I eliminate them as a factor in the problem. And, secundo, the Separatists, the Independentists and the Nationalists of every stripe, who put their courage and their talent into raising up against the British-Canadian nationalism a contrary nationalism. These people have never ceased to communicate to our people what Gérard Pelletier has quite accurately called “the siege mentality”. As I wrote one day, “the siege has long been over, the human caravan has forged a hundred leagues ahead, nonetheless, we implacably are cooking in our own juices not daring to cast a look over the walls. 22

FN 22 In (eh! oui) Notre Temps, [Our Time], Montreal, 15 Nov. 1947.

If the Canadian State gave so little room to the French-Canadian nationality, it is above all because we didn’t make ourselves indispensable to the pursuit of its destiny. Today, for example, it would seem fine that a Sévigny or a Dorion might leave the federal Cabinet, as Courtemanche left it, without causing irreparable damage to the machinery of government or the country’s prestige. And if we exempt Laurier, I don’t see a single French-Canadian for over a half a century whose presence in the federal Cabinet could be considered as indispensable to the history of Canada such as it has been made – except on the electoral plane evidently where the tribe has always had its enchanters.

Notable QuoteSimilarly, at the level of high functionaries, I doubt that one could name even one who had happily inflected the course of our administrative evolution, in the sense for example that an O.D. Skelton, a Graham Towers or a Norman Robertson had done.

[NB: Trudeau is praising suspected Communist subversive Norman Robertson; and a pretty much known agent of the Comintern, O. D. Skelton, who infiltrated Canada’s federal level a few years before the Statute of Westminster, 1931. KM]

Consequently, if one examines the few nationalist “victories” which have been won at Ottawa after long years of battle, one could probably not find even one which had not been won in one Cabinet session by one of our representatives, who had the calibre of a C.D. Howe. It must be said, all the French-Canadian ministers together have hardly ever been able to weigh as much as a bilingual check or the name of an hotel.

[NB: C.D. Howe: Rhodes secret society for world government. KM]

At bottom, the British Canadians have never been strong but in our weakness. And this was true not only in Ottawa, but in Quebec itself, a veritable charnel house where half our rights were lost through dilapidation and decrepitude, while the other half was devoured by the worm of civic dispirit and the microbe of venality. In these conditions, can one be too surprised that the British Canadians have not wished that the face of this country comprise a few French features? And why would they have wanted to learn a language or participate in a culture that we took such pains to degrade at all levels of our own system of education?

It is without a doubt true that if English-language Canadians had applied to learning the French language a quarter of the diligence that they have employed in refusing to do so, that Canada would have been effectively bilingual ages ago. Because that is one of the laws of nationalism, that it always consumes more energy to fight disagreeable realities than it takes to invent a happy solution. But those whom this law serves most are apparently those whose nationalism is the littler nationalism, in the present case, us. That is what I would now like to explain.

That is what I would now like to explain.

 
V — The Misfortunes of French-Canadian Nationalism

All the time and all the energy that we employ in proclaiming the rights of our nationality, in calling upon our providential mission, in clarioning our virtues, in bewailing our avatars, in denouncing our enemies, and in declaring our independence, has never made our workmen more adroit, a functionary more competent, a banker more wealthy, a doctor more progressive, a bishop more learnèd nor one of our politicians less of an ignoramus. However, if some gruff originals are excluded, there is probably no French-Canadian intellectual who has not discussed separatism at least four hours a week for a year; that makes how many thousands of times two hundred hours used exclusively in self-flagellation? Because who can say that he had heard before now a single argument that had not already been debated ad nauseam for twenty years, for forty years, and for sixty years? I am not even sure that we have exorcised even one of our demons: the Separatists of 1962 that I have met, believe me, are generally likeable; but on the rare occasions when I have had the honour of talking a little longer with them, I have almost always run up against the totalitarian spirit of some, the anti-semitism of others, and, among all, the generalized cult of economic incompetence.

Now, that’s what I call the new treason of the clerics: this incredible frenzy of a broad sector of our thinking population to put itself — intellectually and spiritually — on the side tracks.

A few years ago, I tried to show that the adherents of the French-Canadian nationalist school, despite their generosity and their courage, had for all practical purposes set themselves at odds with progress: for more than half a Century “they had formulated a social thought impossible of realization and which for all practical purposes left the people without effective intellectual guidance.”23

FN 23 La grève de l’amiante, [The Asbestos Strike] p. 14.

Now, I discover that a number of them who thought at that time as I do, have become separatists. Because their social thought is to the left, because they militate in favor of secular schools, because they are unionists, because their culture is open, they think that their nationalism is the way of progress. They don’t see that it is politically that they have become reactionaries.

Reactionary, firstly, because of the forces at play. Even a rough count of faithful nationalist institutions, networks and individuals, from the village notaries to the Order of Jacques Cartier, from the small employers to the Leagues of the Sacred Heart, would undoubtedly establish nothing but an alliance among nationalists of the right and those of the left would play inevitably — by the law of numbers — in favor of the former. If this left tells me that it will enter no alliance until after it has become a majority, I permit myself to tell him that it never will become, in dissipating as it does a large part of its meagre forces. All effort oriented essentially toward reinforcing the nation must renounce dividing this nation.

Such an effort is automatically lost on the social critic and tends moreover to consolidate the status quo. In this direction, alliance already plays against the left even before it is concluded.

Secondly, the nationalists — including the left — are politically reactionary because in giving very great importance to the nation idea on their scale of political values, they are unfailingly brought to define the common good in terms of the ethnic group instead of in terms of all citizens, without excluding anyone. That is why a nationalist government is in essence intolerant, discriminatory and in the final account, totalitarian. 25

FN 25 Lord Acton had already written in 1862: “The nation is here an ideal unit founded on the race … It overrules the rights and wishes of the inhabitants, absorbing their divergent interests in a fictitious unity; sacrifices their several inclinations and duties to the higher claim of nationality, and crushes all natural rights and all established liberties for the purpose of vindicating itself. Whenever a single definite object is made the supreme end of the State … the State becomes for the time being inevitably absolute.” John Dalberg-Acton, Essays on Freedom and Power, Glencoe 1948, p. 184.

A truly democratic government cannot be “nationalist”, because it must pursue the good of all the citizens, without regard to ethnic origin. The virtue which a democratic government requires and develops is thus public-spiritedness [civic-mindedness], never nationalism; without a doubt, such a government would make laws from which ethnic groups would profit, and the majority group proportionally to its number; but that comes as a consequence of the equality of all and not as a right of the strongest. In this sense, one can say that the province of Quebec has always had a rather democratic education policy than nationlist; I wouldn’t say as much of all the other provinces.

Notable QuoteOn the other hand, if Hydro-Quebec expropriated the hydroelectric industries for national rather than social reasons, we would already be embarked on the road to fascism. The right may nationalize; it is only the left that socializes and establishes state control.

Notable QuoteThirdly, all thought which tends to claim for the nation the plenitude of sovereign powers is politically reactionary because it wants to give a total and perfect political power to a community which could not constitute a total and perfect political society.

Notable QuoteIt is doubtful that in 1962, any Nation-State, or even any multi-national State, however strong, could constitute a total and perfect political society 26: the economic, military and cultural interdependencies are a sine qua non condition of the life of States in the XXth Century, such that none is truly sufficient unto itself.

FN 26 Consult Jacques Maritain, Man and the State, Chicago 1951, à la page 210.

Treaties, commercial alliances, common markets, free-trade zones, cultural and scientific accords, all this is as indispensable to the progress of States in the world as are exchanges among citizens in the State; and just as each citizen must recognize that his personal sovereignty is subjected to the law of the State — which, for example, obliges him to respect his contracts — likewise States cannot know peace and progress unless they accept to submit relations among them to a rule of law superior to the State.

Notable QuoteIn truth, it is the concept of sovereignty itself which must be overcome, and those who claim it for the French-Canadian nation are not only reactionaries, they are ludicrous.

The French-Canadians cannot constitute a perfect society, any more than can five million Sikhs of the Punjab. We are not sufficiently knowledgeable, nor rich enough, nor above all numerous enough in men to do so and to finance in money a government endowed with all the organs necessary to war and to peace.

Notable QuoteTo this third argument, on anachronistic and inapplicable sovereignty, the separatists sometimes reply that a Quebec become independent could very well renounce a part of its sovereignty, by entering into a Canadian Confederation, for example, at which time its choice would be free… —

The per-capita costs would crush us. But I decline to explain these things to people who already see without displeasure that Laurentie will open its embassies just about everywhere in the world to “shine our culture”. Above all, the same people claimed, last year, that our society was too poor to finance a second university — the Jesuit — in Montreal!

To this third argument, on anachronistic and inapplicable sovereignty, the separatists sometimes reply that a Quebec become independent could very well renounce a part of its sovereignty, by entering into a Canadian Confederation, for example, at which time its choice would be free… — That is theoretical to the tenth power. Undoubtedly, it would be serious enough to invite the French-Canadian nation to embark upon several decades of privations and sacrifices, in order that this nation might eventually treat itself to the luxury of choosing “freely” a destiny nearly analogous to that against which it would have fought. But the unforgivable tragedy would be not to see that the French-Canadian nation is too culturally anemic, too economically disadvantaged, too intellectually backward, too spiritually sclerosed, to be able to survive for one or two decades of stagnation during which it would have expended all its energies in the sewer of vanity and in national “dignity”

 
VI — The 20-Something Generation

What French-Canadians in their twenties would have a hard time, in a few years, forgiving to people of my generation, is that we would have assisted with such complacence at the rebirth of separatism and of nationalism. Because, in a few years, these young people would have understood the appalling lag which characterizes the evolution of French Canada in all domains. “What!” they will say to the intellectuals, you published and you thought so little, and you had time to ask questions about separatism?

“What!” they will say to the sociologists and to the politicos, the same year when the first men were put in orbit you replied seriously to questions of independence which, in your view, perhaps, yes, one day, without doubt, possibly… “What!” they will say to the economists, the Western world – arrived at the era of mass production –applied its wits to recreating by all sorts of economic unions the market conditions which existed in the Soviet Union and in the United States, you viewed with interest a movement which began by reducing to zero the common market of Quebec industry? “What!” they will say to the engineers, you didn’t even succeed in building roads which could have resisted two Canadian winters, and you were clever enough to raise up a dream of borders all around Quebec? “What !” they will say to the judges and to the lawyers, civil liberties had not survived in Quebec but thanks to Communists, unionists and Jehova’s Witnesses, thanks to English and Jewish lawyers, and thanks to judges of the Supreme Court in Ottawa, and you had nothing more pressing than to applaud the arrival of the sovereign French-Canadian State? 27

FN 27 In one decade alone commencing in 1951, the Supreme Court in Ottawa seven times overturned the Court of Appeal in the province of Québec which had rendered seven judgements damaging to civil liberties: the Boucher affair (seditious libel), the case of l’Alliance (loss of union certificate), the Saumur case (distribution of leaflets), the Chaput affair (religious assembly), the Birks affair (religious holidays), the Switzman affair (the padlock law), the Roncarelli affair (arbitrary administration). — As we go to press, we learn that we can add to this count an eighth case: the matter of Lady Chatterley’s Lover.

“What!” they will say finally to the men of the parties, you, the Liberals, you have for twenty-five years chiseled the sovereignty of the provinces, and you, the Conservatives, known as the Union nationale, you have endowed Quebec with two decades of retroactive, vindictive, discriminatory and backward laws, while you, of the CCF/NDP, you have – in the name of who knows what national interest of the federal State – sabotaged, with the Union of democratic forces, the only chance the left had in Quebec; and you all, all of a sudden, discovered that more independence had to be given to Quebec, a number among you even becoming renowned separatists?

I dare to predict that among these young people asking the harsh questions, there would be one named Luc Racine, who would somewhat regret having written in Cité Libre: “If the youth of today attacks the problem of separatism, it is not through indifference to the great problems of humanity, but in hoping to orient its action on that which it is able to change”. 28

FN 28 Feb. 1962, p. 24.

Because he will then understand that a given people, at a given moment in its history, never has to spare but a given quantity of intellectual energy; and that if a whole generation consecrates a large part of this energy to nonsense, this generation, for all practical purposes, will have exhibited its “indifference to the great problems of humanity”. (One piece of advice, however, to Racine: that he not think to speak of nationalist alienation in 1972, because my friend André Laurendeau will once again feel obliged to rush to the aid of his fathers and demonstrate that in 1922, Abbé Groulx was entitled to our respect).29

FN 29 An emotional allusion to an emotional reply by Laurendeau, Le Devoir, March 3rd, 1961. This refined spirit, one of the most just that I know, and who shares with Bourassa the honor of being the favorite target of the Separatists (these — quite logically, believe me! — not admitting that nationalism is not separatist), rarely come to speak of nationalism without betraying by some detail a false perspective: thus, in an otherwise excellent editorial article (Le Devoir, 30 Jan. 1962), he tosses out the far-fetched idea of an “ethical conscription of French-Canadian society.” Another draft?

That said, how explain the favor which separatism enjoys today, among the young generation? How explain, for example, that so many young readers of Cité Libre — responding to “A certain silence” with a mass of correspondence — had taken sides with separatism?

Pelletier told me that having — at the journal — tirelessly taught methodical doubt vis-à-vis the affluent power, and having also practiced it with regard to most of our traditional institutions, we should not be surprised that a new generation attacks one of the realities that we had saved:  the Canadian State.

The reply appears to me to be psychologically valid; but it remains to explain the retrogressive orientation of the revolt.

For my part, I believed in something analogous to the democratic sentiment from which were born the nationalisms in Europe one or two Centuries ago. The death of Duplessis is the end of a dynasty and of the oligarchy which it benefited. Laying the foundations of liberal democracy is the promise that from this time on all new classes may accede to power. But, in practice, these classes discovered that a number of the advance routes are blocked: the Clergy maintains its hold over education, the English dominate our finance, the Americans invade our culture. Only the State of Quebec belongs to all French-Canadians:  one thus wants for this State the plenitude of powers. Democracy having made all men equal in the nation, one now wants all nations to be equal to each other, and singularly that ours be sovereign and independent. We expect that the birth of our Nation-State will liberate a thousand unsuspected energies and that, in that way, the French-Canadians may at last enter into possession of their heritage. In short, one believes in a creative energy which will add genius to people who have none, and which will bring courage and wisdom to a lazy and ignorant nation.

Again, it’s this belief which takes the place of argument among all those who are incapable of founding on history, or the economy, or the constitution, or sociology. “Independence,” writes Chaput, is much more a matter of character than of logic… more than reason, there is a need for pride.”30

FN 30 Op. cit, p. 10.

This is also the attitude of all these adorable young girls and young women whose argument turns so short: “Independence is a matter of dignity. It isn’t discussed, it is felt.” Isn’t that also the position of a number of artists and poets? “The day,” writes Jean-Guy Pilon, “when this cultural minority which has been tolerated in this country becomes a nation within its borders, when this minority is independent, our literature will know a formidable leap forward. Because the writer, like every man of this society, will feel free. And a free man can do great things.”31

FN 31 Le Quartier Latin, Montreal, Feb. 27th, 1962.

Now, it seems that Chaput is an excellent chemist. I only want to know how, by the grace of these energies liberated by independence, he will become better:  he has nothing else to teach us in order to lead us to separatism. As to his book, it bears the mark of an honest and unbiased man, but it self-destructs in one of its own sentences:  “To hope that by some indescribable magic, the French-Canadian people will suddenly reform itself, demand en bloc the respect of its rights, become concerned about the correctness of its language, desirous of culture and of great works, without having breathed into it an exalted ideal: this is dangerous foolishness.”32

FN 32 Op. cit., p. 144.

So thusly, Chaput renounces magic, but counts on an exalted ideal as the road to salvation for our people. As if reform, the respect of rights, the correction of language, culture and great works — all things which are accessible to us under the current Canadian constitution — did not themselves constitute exalted ideals! And how is this other ideal that he proposes to us — the Nation-State — different from a magic invoked to supplement our lack of discipline in the pursuit of true ideals?

It also seems that Pilon is a good poet. I would like him to state — in prose, if he wishes — how national sovereignty will make of him “a free man”, and capable of “doing great things”. If he does not find dignity, pride, and the other resorts of the poet within himself, in the world, and in the stars, I ask myself why and how he would find them in a “free” Quebec.

Undoubtedly, bilingualism is not without difficulties. But, I do not admit that these serve as a pretext to men who represent themselves as intellectuals, especially when the language one complains of is one of the principal vehicles of civilization in the XXth Century. The era of linguistic borders is over, at least as far as science and culture are concerned; and if the Quebec clerics refuse to master a language other than their own, if they vow their faithfulness only to the nation, they may forever renounce revolving in the orbit of the world’s intellectual elites.

The argument of the energy released by national independence may seem applicable to men of spirit. Their role — above all if they belong to a people for whom sentiment is a substitute for an idea, and for whom prejudice is a substitute for knowledge — [their role] is not to stir up, it is to think, and to think again. If their intellectual efforts bring them to a dead end, they will have but one thing to do: turn back the way we came. Any attempt to escape by a shortcut is unworthy; because, as A. Miller said in l’Express: “The work of a true intellectual consists in analyzing illusions to discover their causes.”

It is true that for the people, the problem presents itself otherwise. Nationalism, as an emotive movement which addresses itself to a community, may liberate unexpected energies. History teaches us that this is often called chauvinism, racism, jingoism, and other crusades of that kind, where reason and reflection are reduced to their simplest expression. It may be that at certain historical junctures, where there was immeasurable oppression, unnamed misery and all other exits blocked, one might have had to invoke nationalism to unleash the liberating revolution. Recourse to this passion was then an inevitable last resort and one had to accept the bad with the good. The “bad” included practically always a certain despotism; because peoples “liberated” by passion, rather than by reason, are generally disappointed to find themselves as poor and as disadvantaged as before; and it takes “strong” governments to put an end to their agitation.

I was in Ghana in the months which followed its independence. The poets were not better, the chemists not more numerous, and above all, real wages had not increased. Since the intellectuals did not get the people to understand the reasons for this, they told them of I-don’t-know-what lost island in the Gulf of Guinea which had to be “reconquered”: to this end, a large part of this economically disadvantaged State’s economic budget went to the army. Which finished by being used to imprison the opposition…

A similar story took place in Indonesia. This former colony become a State, which hardly managed to govern itself, nor to enrich itself, led its people to liberate its territories from New Guinea; now, these belonged to it neither by race, nor by language, nor by geography. However, I have met in Quebec authentic men of the left who justify national sovereignty for lack of an ability to reason in other terms. The State of Quebec could count on them on the day when — incapable of improving the social situation of their citizens — it will launch them on the conquest of “their islands” in the Hudson’s Bay. The Honourable Arsenault is already preparing us for this glorious epic! And Lesage applauds him.33

FN 33 Le Devoir, January 29th and 31st, 1962.

Quite happily, the protest wing of our people entertains fewer illusions on these subjects, and it reasons more accurately than our intellectuals and our bourgeois classes. The great labor unions of the Province of Quebec have categorically spoken against separatism: they may know the energies which are given off by collective passions; but, it happens, they refuse to set a machine in motion whose direction is false and whose breaks are defective.

To sum up, those who seek through independence (or through the idea of independence) to “liberate energies” are playing at sorcerer’s apprentice. They resolve not a single problem on the basis of reason; and on the basis of passion, they unleash the unpredictable, uncontrollable, and ineffectual. (One will note that I have spoken here, above all, of the energy supposedly liberated by independence; as to the energy which is at the origin of current separatism, I said a word in the March 1961 issue of Cité libre, at page 5. — But on that, Messrs. Albert and Raymond Breton present in the current issue a study which is far and above the most serious that has been done on the subject.)

As a final argument, some young people justify their flirt with separatism for tactical considerations: “If we scare the English sufficiently, we will get what we want without going to independence.” This tactic has gained purely symbolic advantages for the French-Canadians:  a slogan (The French-Canadians deserve a New Deal), two flags (Pearson-Pickersgill), a few new names on old companies (i.e., La Compagnie d’électricité Shawinigan), a few appointments to boards of directors, and a multitude of bilingual cheques (Diefenbaker). De minimîs non curât praetor, but I swear nonetheless that the fright of the English-language politicians and businessmen is fun to see. It certainly testifies to their guilty consciences as aggressor-nationalists. But that will have its repercussions: there is nothing more petty than the poltroon with his tail between his legs. And I would like it then if French Canada could base itself on a young generation enriched by a bit of knowledge more valuable than nationalist passion.

 
VII — The Future

If, in my view, the nation was an anti-value, I would not have put myself to so much trouble denouncing an orientation which leads the French-Canadian nation to its ruin.

The nation is the bearer of certain values: a cultural heritage, common traditions, a community conscience, historical continuity, a collection of mores, all things which contribute — at the present stage of the evolution of humanity — to development of the personality. Indeed, these values are more public than private,34 more introverted than extroverted,35 more instinctive and savage than intelligent and civilized,36 more narcissistic and fanatical than reasoned and generous. They cling to a transitional stage of the history of the world. But they are here today, probably useful, and in any event conceived as indispensable by all national collectives.

FN 34 Delos, op. cit., p. 179.

FN 35 Maritain, op. cit., p. 5.

FN 36 Acton, op. cit., p. 188. Also see p. 186: “In the ancient world idolatry and nationality went together, and the same term is applied in Scripture to both.”

Notable QuoteOther than to situate us in the correct perspective, it will get us nowhere to affirm that the French-Canadian nation must probably disappear one day, and that the Canadian State itself will not last forever. Benda underscores that it is one of the grandeurs of Thucydides that he had been able to envision a world in which Athens was no more.37

FN 37 Op. cit., p. 141.

The future that must interest us here is the one we will build from day to day. The problem must thus be faced:  how — without recourse to the absurd and retrogressive idea of national sovereignty — how can we preserve the national values of the French-Canadians?

Notable QuoteAs I said above:  the concepts of State and of nation must be divorced, and make of Canada a truly pluralist and polyethnic society. Now for this, the different regions inside the Canadian State must be assured of a large measure of local autonomy, such that, by the experiment of self-government, the nationals may give themselves the laws and the institutions indispensable to the progress of their national values.

Notable QuoteAt the same time, and in a movement of retreat, English-Canadian nationalism must consent to change the image that it has made of Canada:  if it wants to protect and incarnate these specific ethnic values, it must do so by means of carving out local and regional autonomies rather than by way of pan-Canadian sovereignty.

These desideratas, it is precisely that the Canadian constitution is admirably conceived to give them A FRAMEWORK. By the British North America Act, the jurisdiction of the Canadian State (federal) relates to all those questions which do not have an ethnic incidence strictly speaking, but which are linked to the common welfare of the whole of the Canadian society: foreign affairs, macro-economic stabilization, trade with other countries, navigation, the post, currency and banks, and so on.

The provinces, on the contrary, have jurisdiction over purely local or private business, and matters which affect ethnic values more directly: education, municipal and parochial institutions, the administration of justice, the celebration of marriage, property and civil rights, and the rest; in addition, no provincial border coincides completely with ethnic or linguistic borders, and consequently no provincial government is invited by the constitution to give itself laws conceived uniquely for one ethnic group*, which would tend to develop the mentality of the nation-State at the provincial level. On this point, it would be good that the past attitude of Quebec vis-à-vis its national minorities serve as an example to those provinces where large French, German, Ukrainian or other minorities are found.

[*KM: a virtual denial of the whole point of Confederation; the whole point of multiple Legislatures, one to each majority ethnicity on its own soil.]

Notable QuoteI certainly do not hide the fact that the nationalism of British Canadians has much work to do — or rather to demolish — before the pluralist State can become a reality in Canada. But I am tempted to add that, it is “their” problem.

The die are cast in Canada: there are two ethnic and linguistic groups, each one too strong, too well rooted in the past, and too well buttressed on a mother-culture, to be able to crush the other.

Notable QuoteIf both collaborate within a really pluralist state, Canada can become a privileged place where the federalist FORM of government will be perfected, which is that of the WORLD of tomorrow.

Better than the “melting-pot” of America,

Notable QuoteCanada can be USED as an example to all these new African and Asian States, discussed at the beginning of this article, who must learn how to govern their polyethnic populations in justice and freedom.

Isn’t that enough, in itself, to discount the supposition of a Canada annexed to the United States? … Canadian federalISM is a formidable experiment, it can become a brilliant TOOL to fashion the civilization of tomorrow.

If the Anglo-Canadians do not see that, then once again, so much the worse for them: they will sink in a retrograde, limited and despotic nationalism. Lord Acton, one of the great spirits of the XIXth Century, Catholic on top of it, described with an extraordinarily prophetic acuity, the error of nationalisms and the future that was being prepared for them. Exactly a Century ago, he wrote:

A great democracy must either sacrifice self-government to unity or preserve it by federalism … The co-existence of several nations under the same State is a test, as well as the best security of its freedom. It is also one of the chief instruments of civilisation … The combination of different nations in one State is as necessary a condition of civilised life as the combination of men in society … Where political and national boundaries coincide, society ceases to advance, and nations relapse into a condition corresponding to that of men who renounce intercourse with their fellow-men … A State which is incompetent to satisfy different races condemns itself; a State which labours to neutralise, to absorb, or to expel them, destroys its own vitality; a State which does not include them is destitute of the chief basis of self-government.

Notable QuoteThe theory of nationality, therefore, is a retrograde step in history.38

FN 38 Op. cit., passîm.

It goes without saying that if the French Canadians pit their own nationalism against that of British Canada, they are committed to the same stagnation. And Canada will become a land sterile to the spirit, a steppe open to all migrations and to all conquests.

Once again, the die are cast in Canada: neither of the two linguistic groups can assimilate the other by force. But one or the other, even one and the other, may fail by default, destroy itself from within, and die from asphyxia. Thus, as just deserts, and as a pledge to the vitality of man,

Notable Quotevictory is promised to the nation which, having renounced its own nationalism, will have enjoined each of its members to employ his or her energies in pursuit of the larger and more human ideal.

By the current Canadian constitution, that of 1867,39 the French Canadians have all the powers necessary to make of Québec a political society where the national values would be respected, while at the same time, values that are properly human would experience unprecedented growth. (At pages 98-99 of his book, Mr. Chaput proposes sixteen paragraphs of economic reforms that could be undertaken by an independent Quebec. Except for the first, which would abolish taxes to Ottawa, all these reforms can be undertaken under the present constitution! At pages 123-124, in seven paragraphs, Mr. Chaput sets out the measures thanks to which an independent Quebec could assure the effective defence of French-Canadian minorities established outside of Quebec; none of these measures, except the declaration of sovereignty, would be more accessible to an independent Quebec than to Quebec as it is today.

FN 39  This is the sense in which I wrote — with regard to young separatists — a phrase which has peeved off a lot of people: “They … energetically attack problems which were solved a Century ago.” (Cité Libre, Dec. 1961, p. 3).

If Quebec became this exemplary province, if men lived there under the sign of liberty and of progress, if culture there occupied pride of place, if the universities were brilliant, and if the public administration was the most progressive in the country – and nothing in all of this presupposes a declaration of independence! – the French-Canadians would no longer have to fight to impose bilingualism: the knowledge of French would become a status symbol for the anglophone. It would even become an asset for business and for administration. Even Ottawa would be transformed, by the expertise of our politics and of our functionaries.

Such an enterprise is immensely difficult, but possible. It requires more fighting spirit than talk. It seems to me to constitute an “ideal” no less “exalting” than a certain other which has been common currency for a couple of years in Landerneau.

To those who might care to work at this enterprise, who would place their hopes on the side of universal man, and who would refuse to be complicit in the new treason of the clerics, I leave a sentence from the great Acton:

“Nationality does not aim either at liberty or prosperity, both of which it sacrifices to the imperative necessity of making the nation the mould and measure of the State. Its course will be marked with material as well as moral ruin, in order that a new invention may prevail over the works of God and the interests of mankind.”40

FN 40 Op. cit., p. 194.

– 30 –

 

"Now it's North America's Turn": Stan Jones

TRANSCRIPT:

[ Stan Jones: ]

I wish to spo– I wish to thank the sponsors for inviting me. I don’t often get invited.

[Laughter.]

This was an important debate. I had planned another closing message, but I feel compelled to say what I’m about to say.

And I risk sounding like a conspiracy theorist. But, it’s no longer a theory. What I’m about to say is fact. The secret organizations of the world power elite are no longer secret. They have planned and are now leading us into a one-world Communist world government.

The combining of national governments started with the European Union. That union started with trade agreements, then a common currency — the Euro — and now a European parliament that is feverishly passing laws that override the laws of the member nations.

A constiution was drafted, but rejected by a few of those nations. But, never mind. They implemented it anyway.

Now, it’s North America’s turn.

Building on the North American Free Trade Agreement, the NAFTA section of the Commerce Department is busy drafting laws and regulations for a North American Union. A union of Canada, America and Mexico.

The President has attended secret meetings and signed at least two agreements under the Security and Prosperity Partnership program. Information leaked out about the meetings, and now it is all in the open.

No treaty has been signed, so Congress has not become involved. However, money from our treasury is now being spent for this effort.

We will have a new currency. The Amero. And a new constitution modeled on the Soviet Union’s constitution. Our rights will not be inalienable, but they will be granted by government, who can also take them away.

One sign that this is our future is plans for the superhighways from southern Mexico, through America and into Canada. These plans are not secret any longer. Huge amounts of property will be taken in the name of Free Trade, peace and security.

You will have a national ID card with a radio frequency chip in it. That’s already law* in America and will be implemented by May 2000. This man voted for it. You will not be able to move about, freely.

This is terrorism of the most worst kind. Brought on you by our own government.

The strongest, freest nation in the history of mankind will be averaged into world communism.

Is that what you want?

Are we, the people, still in control of this nation?

We must begin to act like we are.

[ Moderator: ] Thank you. Stan Jones.

On that, Conway Burns, three minutes.

[ Burns: ] Sure glad you got such a rosy outlook on our future for our kids.

– 30 –

The Plan for Quebec: Communist State?

The Plan for Quebec: Communist State? By Otto Kretzmer, Sunday, 16 April 2006, is originally a French post entitled “Le plan pour le Québec” at the blogspot “Le Complot Contre Le Québec” (The Plot Against Quebec).

English translation by Kathleen Moore for Habeas Corpus Canada, together with brief additions from other articles of Mr. Kretzmer, for a fuller picture.

In translating this article, I take no position on religion, except to attempt to convey the concerns of the article’s original author, Otto Kretzmer; and except to acknowledge absolutely the Constitutional nature for French Canadians of their entrenched right to their historic Catholic religion.
______________________________________________________

Separate Quebec from Canada? No!
Separate All of Canada from High Finance? Yes!

The idea of separatism in Quebec has been part of a communist plan to overthrow Quebec and Canada. With a foothold in Quebec, communism could take all of Canada as well. Independence is a communist-Marxist strategy to take power in a country. We have this example in a number of countries: separations in Vietnam, in Algeria, in Biafra, in Korea, in Bengla-Desh, in Pakistan, etc.

The Canadian Council of Protestant Churches, with its headquarters in Toronto, published a small brochure in 1969 entitled “Quebec’s Impending Fate Communist State?” (Le Québec deviendra-t-il un Etat communiste?) It is quite useful to re-read these extracts in 2005; we will therefore quote a few paragraphs from that brochure.

[Re-translating into English, for lack of a copy of the brochure:]

“The most militant Zone in Canada for communist activity is the Province of Quebec. The first goal adopted at the convention of the Communist Party of Quebec held in Montreal in 1967, was: “The establishment in Quebec, in Canada, and in the entire world, of a socialist society, and finally of a communist society.

Noting that their goals accord with the efforts of other revolutionary communist groups throughout the world, the convention proclaimed:

“This is an institution of the internationalism of the international proletariat, a science that the Communist Party of Quebec adopts proudly and which will guide us in our battle.”

The December 1967 Communist Manifesto of Quebec is an appeal to militants to establish first, a socialist state, by armed revolution if necessary, so as to finally arrive at communist dictatorship.

The Communist Party of Quebec declares in its Manifesto:

“The Communist Party of Quebec is the Marxist-Leninist Worker’s Party.”

This declaration has great significance. It identifies the Communist Party of Quebec with a tentacle of the World Communist Party, guilty of massacres, and the worst criminal atrocities against the peoples it has subjected to slavery. It represents the butchery of a hundred million persons whose only crime was to express their confidence in our democratic way of life, or who questioned the right of a small minority to impose their absolute will on the great majority.

This communist Quebec Manifesto sets out a plan of political and social action. This plan includes a new federal constitution, and a new constitution for Quebec, the right to self-determination for Quebec, and the privilege to separate from Canada if necessary.”

The Plan for Quebec – Communist State

The Plan for Quebec – Communist State

Separating Quebec from the rest of Canada is thus a plan of the Communist Party of Quebec, a plan announced in their Manifesto, a communist plan of conquest for Quebec and for the whole of Canada. Do not think that communism is dead and buried, even if some countries have succeeded in liberating themselves from this infernal slavery. Communism seeks to foment revolutions in countries to weaken the strength of their peoples, and to finally arrive at a world communist government. The Parti Québécois enters into the plans of the Communist Party of Quebec.

False Patriotism

The separatists say they are ardent defenders of the French language, of our culture, of our Quebec identity. However, they dissociate our culture from our Catholic faith transmitted by our ancestors. They are hardly concerned with the safeguard of Catholicism in Quebec. Their goal is to permanently annihilate it. These ardent “independentists” preach patriotism to us in every key, but they themselves work to achieve an atheistic and anticlerical communist plan, whether they know it or not.

In the name of false patriotism, they carry the Quebec people toward separation, which will spawn a bloody revolution, a civil war. Separatism flows from socialist-Marxist ideology. Those who fight the battle for separation in Quebec are not patriots, but veiled communists.

Marxist Constitutions

A great deal is heard about the preparation of a new federal constitution and a new constitution for Quebec*, about the “right to self-determination for Quebec”, a certain “sovereignty”. These changes correspond strangely with the 1967 Manifesto of the Communist Party of Quebec. Will Ottawa itself contribute to separating Quebec from Canada? Is the provocation of a civil war a part of the plot? Is the desire to establish atheistic, Marxist and communist constitutions in Quebec and in Canada to lead us into a tyrannical world government?

Canada and all the Provinces are the slaves of Big Business. This is the real problem. Our governments, from the biggest to the smallest, are weighted down with public debt. When will they break loose these chains of banker dictatorship and stop genuflecting at the feet of the money men to borrow numbers? The thing to be changed in the federal and provincial constitutions is to detach Canada and the Provinces from High Finance, our common enemy. The law which empowers banks and private institutions to create money must be abolished.

It is also important to realize that the concept or the word “communism” is employed as a mask for the New World Order, which was begun by the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and continues unabated up to the present.

The energies and the idealism of the working people are used by the protectors of such revolutions – the Big Bankers – to demolish what has been created methodically by generations before us. At the price of blood and destruction, the power of the Bankers is expanded and consolidated, whereas, the proletariates increasingly find themselves worse off than they were at the start. They face the prospect of nothing less than slavery.

In my first article, (says Kretzmer) I described without proving it, that it [communism] is the separatist movement, whether in Quebec or in any other part of the world. As for Quebec separatists, I personally knew a member of the FLQ, Charles Gagnon, who had always been a communist. I don’t know what has become of him, because I lost touch with him ages ago.

There have been various separatist movements in Quebec, but I am going to focus above all, at first, on the RIN and its former President, the now deceased Pierre Bourgault. The anglophone reader or anyone who doesn’t know the history of Quebec will indeed be surprised by certain facts and certain declarations. That is expected, it’s normal.

All those organizations that mobilized the “Parti-Pris” and the “Révolution Québécoise” magazines as the front line of their advance, used the nationalism (including the respectable nationalism) of the French Canadians to launch the communist revolution in Quebec.

For these organizations, separatism – one should more properly say: “the tactic of independence” is only a means to their ends, a “Trojan horse” at the service of the aspirations of Moscow (or of Peking!) to a world hegemony. By way of illustration, let’s see what we can read on this subject in the September, 1964 issue of “Révolution Québécoise“:

“Just as every imperialist war must be transformed into a civil war to overthrow the power of the culpable ruling classes, in the same way EVERY nationalist movement must be transformed into a socialist movement to liberate the working classes” (page 35)

We know that excellent Christians have been deceived by the RIN-PQ-BQ* and their false gloss of patriotism. However, other than Mister Bourgault who repeated to all who would listen that an “independent” Quebec would be socialist, the apologia that one reads in the Marxist magazine “Révolution Québécoise,” as made by the RIN’s official publication, L’Indépendance (November 1964, p. 7), must provide sufficient reason to all true patriots and Christians of Quebec to oppose the PQ-BQ-RIN by total refusal, in both words and acts. Here is an excerpt from the official mouthpiece of the RIN, L’Indépendance (November 1964):

A new magazine just came out: “Révolution Québécoise,” run by Pierre Vallières (a former Felquist {FLQ terrorist), who left the team of “Cité Libre” – Pierre Elliot Trudeau was part of the team at Cité Libre – to participate in the building of a free city up to the measure of our era: the one that a (liberated!) Quebec will form tomorrow in which all property will be absolutely redistributed (!!). This magazine (Révolution Québécoise) is an addition to the several avant-garde magazines born in Québec the past few years, and must take its place on the bookshelf of every independentist whose heartfelt desire is to be informed on the economic and cultural problems of Québec.”

The official magazine of the RIN-PQ-BQ* thus suggests that every independentist read a review which is self-identified as communist-Leninist. It therefore seems futile to insist on pointing out, when it’s so easy to recognize, the ideology which has inspired the RIN-PQ-BQ each in its turn. However, it is necessary to return to the subject in order to examine, more closely this time, the RIN, the “Rassemblement Pour l’Indépendance Nationale” (the Rally for National Independence).

Pierre Bourgault, the former President of the RIN, toured Quebec. He was received officially in some towns, in some Catholic seminairies, and he even held public meetings in a well known Dominican monastery in Montreal. Here, then, is the gist of it.

The RIN and the Revolution

In its October 10th, 1964 edition, the Montreal daily newspaper “Le Devoir” published a long article on page 4 under “Reader’s Opinion” entitled: “The Independence of Quebec” (“L’indépendance du Québec”). This article permits us to trace the goals pursued by the RIN-PQ-BQ. To be clear, and to keep it short, we have taken the liberty of extracting only the most significant passages from this article. Here they are:

“Independentist parties and movements, which are proliferating in Québec, endorse opposing theories, according to which they describe themselves as left or right. Some of them claim to be the champions of independence; but in studying their writings we perceive that their real ultimate goal is revolution via the scientific socialism of Karl Marx. To drive us to this goal, they use as “research themes and as battle cries: socialism, secularism and independence”. I refer in particular to the magazines Parti-Pris and L’Indépendance, the latter being the official organ of the RIN.

In support of this grave accusation, here are a few typical excerpts, which are merely a fraction of those we could cite. A special edition of Parti-Pris was published on September 1st, 1964. The “manifesto” begins with a report of Marx on the Revolution; then, at page 12, we read:

“Independence, which was a goal, becomes a preliminary, a necessary step in the revolutionary conflict which exceeds it and amplifies it”.

We will see that the realness, the authenticity of the independentist idea resides in the political thought and practise of the Left.” (page 23)

IT WAS AT THE RIN THAT THE WORD “REVOLUTION” WAS FIRST DECLARED ITSELF”. (page 25)

“Trained in the school of Sartre, which is that of Marxism-Leninism, we are agreed upon the necessity to use, as research and battle themes, socialism, secularism and independence.” (p. 36).

“The recognition of the RIGHT to believe that religion is an evil” both follows and precedes the tirades of the priests.” (p. 30).

L’Indépendance – the magazine of the RIN, and Parti-Pris (2) get along very well, even if, for public consumption, they keep a certain distance between them. For example, in Parti-Pris the current President of the RIN, Mister Pierre Bourgault, published his political and electoral program on December 3rd, 1963. But, it is in the July 1964 issue of L’Indépendance at page 2, 2nd column, that we read:

“It is time to recall that independence is a means that must bring us to social and working-class revolution. The revolutionary party that achieves independence will, for example, abolish the two-party system…” (p. 6).

Then we will publicly recommend, and above all accomplish, the separation – the great work – of the spiritual from the temporal, of the Church from the State” (p. 2).”

This extract may seem long to some readers, but it was necessary. It reveals the communist parentage of the separatist movement in Québec and the place occupied within it by the RIN-PQ-BQ.

Tactics of the RIN

In December of 1964, Mr. Bourgault returned from a “thrilling tour” of Québec. That’s even the title of the article he wrote in RIN’s magazine that same month. In that article, he declared, most notably:

“Past violence is detrimental to our present action, and it is not in the name of principles that we denounce it, but in the name of efficiency.”

How do we interpret this? An about-face? A conversion?

No: because “past violence” is not denounced “in the name of principles”, which is to say in the name of the immutable commandments that come from God, or by reference to genuine ethics, but solely “in the name of efficiency.” Yesterday, violence might have been useful, today, No!! Because we [I mean, the RIN] ]have perceived that the Quebec people still have a solid ethical sense in this era, and that, accordingly, recourse to the mere idea of “violence” is unpopular. And on account of this, it undermines the work of the RIN. But tomorrow? Tomorrow, maybe, violence could be used. All depends on the greatest efficacy.

And then the bombs flew just about everywhere and we had the tragic murder of Pierre Laporte.

To show how well anchored was the thought of Mister Bourgault in the realm of the communist dialectic, it would be useful to quote two extracts from an article on “The True Nature of Communism” by Jean Daujat:

Jean Daujat

Jean Daujat

“Most of our contemporaries,” writes Mr. Daujat, “have no idea how to react to communism because they don’t know it, which leads them into it, or allows them to be used by it. They are especially totally led astray by the perpetual contradictions of the communists, who often say and do the opposite today of what they said and and did the day before, which induces one and another to marvel at how they have changed their ways. This non-comprehension of Marxism has grave consequences …

” … Because, for such a philosophy (Marxist), the only consideration that counts is material power, efficacity; the only rule is to say or to do whatever the moment requires, more efficacious and more powerful. There is no place for truth, for good, or for justice to intervene.

Whatever a true communist says or writes is never the teaching of a truth, which is something that makes no sense to him, but propaganda to carry off an action: it will consist not in saying what is true, but whatever more efficiently serves the action to be exercised.

It is therefore absurd to say, as some do, that one can collaborate in an action practised by communists without adopting Marxist doctrine. Because communism is not at all the teaching of a doctrine, but the action exerted by the communist himself.” (Jean Daujat: The True Nature of Communism)

“Past violence is detrimental to our present action,” writes Mr. Bourgault, “and it is not in the name of principles that we denounce it, but in the name of efficiency.” This simple phrase can tell us a great deal about the philosophy of the separatist movement. Did not Lenin write: Marxism must take account of living reality, precise facts, and not cling to a theory of yesterday. Our doctrine is not a dogma, but a rule of action (Lenin, Works XXIV).

Who Was Pierre Bourgault?

In May of 1964, Mister Pierre Bourgault publicly confessed his agnosticism in MacLean’s Magazine (p. 44). He renewed this public confession on television networks; he reaffirmed it at Alma in Lake Saint-Jean to the regional press; and finally at Valleyfield over the airwaves of the local radio station.

During this interview granted to the Valleyfield press on November 17th, 1964, a journalist read to Mister Bourgault what the Vatican Council had ruled in respect to agnosticism:

“If someone says that the only true God, our Lord and Creator, is unknowable in the light of reason through the things he has made, that he be excommunicated.”

To which Mister Bourgault replied:

“I could be wicked and answer you like Jean-Paul Sartre: Je ne communias déjà plus!” [Literal translation: I will no longer take communion]

Let us not forget that one day or another, every man, every ideology, every social institution or human society must speak for or against the Church. The separatist movement chose its side and it has never sidetracked. Let’s re-read attentively the extract reported in L’Iindépendance (July 1964). The official mouthpiece of the RIN writes:

“Then we will publicly recommend, and above all accomplish, the separation – the great work – of the spiritual from the temporal, of the Church from the State” (p. 2) What are we to think?

The Christian citizen naturally knows that it is not society, but man, which has an immortal soul. It follows from that fact that society (along with its government) is made for man, and, that man is made for God. In this light, the suggestion of the separatist movement which says “publicly recommend, and above all accomplish, the separation – the great work – of the spiritual from the temporal, of the Church from the State” cannot but recall the famous statement of Lenin: “God is the personal enemy of communist society.”

To impose “the separation – the great work – of the spiritual from the temporal, of the Church from the State” upon a human society is at basis to compel a man practically to separate his body from his soul, because one is temporal and the other is spiritual! And it is not because they want to establish a simple distinction between the spiritual and the temporal, but they demand a great separation, a break, and “above all,” “to accomplish this” does not go without violence nor terrorism. Lenin made no effort to hide it when he said:

“Millions of excrements, defilements, violences, sicknesses, pestilences, are much less to be feared than the most subtle, the most refined, and the most invisible idea of God! God is the most personal enemy of Communist Society.”

The vehement opposition of Holy Pope Pius Xth to this doctrine is well explained thus:

“[translation of Kretzmer’s French:] that it is necessary to separate the Church from the State”, he wrote, “is an absolutely false thesis, a very pernicious error. Based, in effect, on this principle, that the State must recognize no religious practice, it is first of all gravely injurious for God; because the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and he maintains them in existence just as he does us. We owe him not only our private worship, but public and social honor.”

One thing must be clarified: secularism – or secular humanism – is a recognized religion according to a judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States. When the Liberals and the free-thinkers gild the pill for us, in speaking to us of pseudo-neutrality, they knowingly lie. Neutrality exists nowhere in the universe. These are the refrains of the Quebec Secular Movement which have given the order to the Governments of Quebec and of Canada to remove ancestral rights, rights conferred by the Constitution, concerning the teaching of Catholicism and Protestantism in Quebec schools.

The Quebec Secular Movement is also behind homosexual marriage or civil union. The Quebec Secular Movement is the true gouvernement du Québec, not the useless Quebec Legislature, stuffed with hypocrites who love to shake hands, appear in public and fly around in limousines.

The RIN, to give to its position the semblance of orthodoxy, readily spreads the idea among its members that it is necessary to liberate religion from politics; in fact, it proposed exactly the opposite: to “liberate” politics from religion! And that’s called secularism. But, secularism is a religion called Freemasonry.

“In the lives of states themselves,” writes Pope Pius XII in this regard, “the strength and the weakness of men, sin and grace, play a capital role. The politics of the 20th Century can’t ignore it, nor admit that one persists in the error of wanting to separate the state from religion in the name of a secularism that the facts have not been able to justify” (Christmas, 1956).

No! “The Catholic Church will never allow itself to be enclosed within the four walls of the temple! The separation of religion from life, and of the Church from the world, is contrary to Christian and Catholic doctrine!” (Pius XII).

It is therefore easy to see that the revolutionary doctrine of the separatist movement is “contrary to Christian and Catholic doctrine”; which is, because of this fact, “an absolutely false thesis, very gravely injurious for God, Creator of Man and founder of human societies”. And, it is rigorously logical to conclude that every devoted Catholic must make it his business to put his hatred for error and his love for truth into open battle in full light of day, against such an ideology!

I will conclude by reporting the public declaration (just one among many) of Mr. Bourgault, published in La Presse, of which he was then an Editor, on February 3rd, 1964 (page 17). It’s a report of a meeting held the previous evening of February 2nd at the Champagnat school.

“These cryptic zones proliferate, cryptics of centralization, of bilingualism, but also cryptics of betrayal, of intermediate bodies, of bishops and of embezzlers of public funds.”

Mister Bourgault thus quite simply lumps together the bishops and the embezzlers of public funds, which has nonetheless not prevented him from being received by certain of our Catholic colleges. The former president of the RIN was a man who disliked – as he readily admitted – mixing religion with politics, nor with his own life, yet he never shied away from vilifying the Church in its own public assemblies!

What is the real goal of the separatist movement?

Pierre Bourgault (RIN)

Pierre Bourgault (RIN)

We have seen clearly, despite the distance these two movements prudently kept between them, (to assure the efficacy of their action upon the public) that the RIN closely pursued the same goals as the Marxist team of the Parti Pris.

“Seeking means capable of achieving the Revolution, Marx found misery”, wrote Rosenberg. Without a doubt, had he lived in Quebec in 1965, Marx would have found “independentism”. And the question returns: What is the real goal of the separatist movement?

The answer: “It is time to recall” as written in the July 1964 issue of L’Indépendance, “that independence is a means that must bring us to social and working-class revolution”.

And there it is. The real, the only, goal of the separatist movement! And it is not by chance that this is the goal of the World Communist Party: Stalin declared to the 7th world congress of the Comintern:

“All the detours, all the zigzags of our policy have but one goal and one goal only: world Revolution!”

Once again, it is clear that a true Catholic must not join the ranks of the separatist movement, if he really wishes to remain Catholic.

[Summarizing]: A Few Statements from the President of the RIN

With respect to the Quebec people:

“Give me 5% of the Quebec population, and I’ll take it where I want because the other 95% are sleeping.”

– Pierre Bourgault at Alma, in the church basement of St-Sacrement on November 2nd, 1964

“Despite history, despite English, despite the noteworthies, and a little bit also despite ourselves, alas!, the Quebecois people have stayed French. I had violently returned. This people had no need of directives to affirm its French pride in the face of the whole world”.

– Pierre Bourgault

Concerning terrorism:

“But, if Michelle Duclos preferred the cause of the blacks, I understand her. As for me, if I were a black, I would have long ago made them all jump”

– Pierre Bourgault, February 21st, 1965, Paul Sauvé Arena

Concerning social ethics:

“Past violence is detrimental to our present action, and it is not in the name of principles that we denounce it, but in the name of efficiency.”

– Pierre Bourgault in L’Indépendance December 1964

Concerning religion:

“I could be wicked and answer you like Jean-Paul Sartre: Je ne communias déjà plus!

– Pierre Bourgault in an interview taped on November 17th, 1964 at Valleyfield at the local radio station

Concerning his adversaries:

“These cryptic zones proliferate, cryptics of centralization, of bilingualism, but also cryptics of betrayal, of intermediate bodies, of bishops and of embezzlers of public funds.”

– Pierre Bourgault, 2 February 1964, Ecole Champagnat

“Because the truly socialist parties have never been able to seize power in any country whatsoever except in the course of a civil war”

– said “Parti-Pris“, coming to the point.

Let me say it again, clearly. “Parti-Pris” was a communist magazine. Moreover, they did not hide this and they wrote openly of it in their September 1964 edition:

“Marxism, to which we ascribe, is not a catechism, but above all, a method of analysis and of work required for us put it into operation in Québec.”

Which is why Mister Bourgault, past president of the RIN, published his “political and electoral programme” in a magazine which openly advertised itself as Marxist-Leninist.

This ideal of a break between the spiritual and the temporal is the core of the Revolution (with a capital “R”). It is very instructive to read what Stalin had to say in this regard:

In realizing such a separation (of Church and State) and in proclaiming freedom of religion, we have at the same time reserved to every citizen (read: to the Communist Party) the “right” to fight for this conviction through propaganda and through unrest… against all religion” (Voprosy, Leninism, Leningrad 1932, pp- 285-286).*

We are seeing it ever more clearly, the secessionist movement and the Communist Party are converging toward one and the same goal: the Revolution.

– 30 –
____________________

TRANSLATOR’S FOOTNOTES:

* Dr. John Laughland considers that the European Union essentially embodies Marxist ideology (“The European Union: a Marxist Utopia?“. Quebec “separatist” parties have, for decades, attempted not to “secede” by referendum, but to extract a mandate to negotiate the imposition on Quebec and on all of Canada of the EU system. The EU system therefore appears to be the veiled communist system, emerging progressively. The use of Quebec to force the system onto all of Canada would then result in a new Marxist “federal constitution, and a new Marxist constitution for Quebec”. See my blog post of 14 October 2009: “Sarkozy Scamming Quebec’s Hoodwinked Separatists“. KM/HCC.

* “PQ” is the acronym for Parti Québécois, a Quebec provincial “party” founded formally in 1968 by communist, René Lévesque (it was actually planned by others), and typically labeled “separatist” by press and media. However, “separatist” is a misnomer. The platform of the Parti Québécois has always been to impose the European system on all of Canada in place of Confederation. “Separatism” is merely a threat of UDI (unilateral declaration of independence) to destroy Canada, as blackmail to force the rest of Canada to accept the European system. Therefore, Mr. Kretzmer’s understanding of the Quebec Communist Party Manifesto appears to be on the right track: the attempt by Lévesque in 1980, and then by Jacques Parizeau in 1995 is to impose a new, ultimately “Marxist” Constitution on Quebec, and on all of Canada: the European Union system. A 1991 interview with Parizeau and then-Premier of Quebec Robert Bourassa shows that both are already quite conversant with the notion of a common North American Parliament. Bourassa, a “Liberal,” a label Canadians have been trained to identify as “fighting against separatists”, actually passed a law in 1991, Bill 150, compelling a referendum for Quebec to secede by a fixed date in 1992. That law, however, was blackmail to attempt to force all Canadians to accept so-called “amendments” to the federal Constitution presented as the Charlottetown Accord to “keep Quebec in Canada”. But, in reality, the proposed amendments were a ruse to appear to harmonize Canada with “international law” that emerged from the Badinter Commission during the overthrow and breakup of Yugoslavia. Had Charlottetown passed, Quebec would have “seceded” and used UDI to force the EU system on Canada. I wrote about this in my 2008 Federal Elections newsletter: “NO ONE TO VOTE FOR Federal Elections – Canada

When former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev visited Britain in 2000, he described the European Union as “the new European Soviet.” Others, including former Russian dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, American Charlotte Iserbyt and Lithuanian-American Vilius Brazenas, equate the EU system with the basis of a nascent world Soviet system. Still others identify the EU as being essentially Marxist in ideology (“The European Union: a Marxist Utopia?” by Dr. John Laughland, Online publication date: 2011-04-20).

* “BQ” is the acronym for Bloc Québécois, a so-called ‘federal’ ‘separatist’ party founded in approximately 1990 when a handful of mostly former Liberals and former Conservatives who had crossed the floor two to five months earlier to sit as independents, crossed the floor again inside Parliament to sit — we are told — as ‘separatists’. However, the agitations of this party since its founding have been designed to help get Quebec out of Confederation by intimidating Canadians into accepting the European system in lieu of threatened “break-up”. Again, it is a misnomer and thus misleading to call these parties “separatist”. They are not “separatist”. They are communist parties hiding behind separatist ideology.

Like the Parti Québécois, the Bloc Québécois wants a European-style union. Their recent past leader, Gilles Duceppe, admitted on camera on 30 April 2011 that he wants “a good constitution, like they have in Europe”. He wants a North American Union including a “sovereign” Quebec. In other words, the communists have targeted all of North America, and apparently they have counterparts in the U.S.A. who are ready and willing to give it to them, though this would necessitate the overthrow of the U.S. Constitution, Congress and the White House.

In this respect, it is worth noticing that there is a “secession” movement in the USA at precisely the same time that Duceppe is making this declaration. It is called the “Tenth Amendment Movement” by which 38+ States have filed formal declarations intending to ‘secede’ from their federal government and destroy the USA because of federal encroachment on States’ constitutional rights. I wrote about this in my blog post of 27 June 2011, “Taking America Down for Globalism in the Name of Patriotism

* “The official magazine of the RIN-PQ-BQ” — I now don’t know what Mr. Kretzmer means. “BQ” appears to refer to the Bloc Québécois which arrived on the scene as of 1990. The Bloc could therefore not have been involved in the 1960s with the RIN and the PQ. Was it a typographical error to have included the BQ in the Kretzmer article? Or does BQ stand for still something else that I’m not yet aware of?

Gilles Duceppe, recent former leader for over 20 years of the “separatist” Bloc Québécois (an illegal party in the federal Parliament) was a colleague of FLQ terrorist leader Charles Gagnon. Duceppe wrote for Gagnon’s communist magazine En Lutte ! (Struggle!). See my translation “Has the Far Left Hijacked the Quebec Sovereignty Movement?” under my general title: “Communist Links of the NDP and the Bloc Québécois”.

As Mr. Kretzmer notes above, Pierre Elliott Trudeau was part of the team at the magazine, Cité Libre. In fact, he was a co-founder of it with fellow Communist Gérard Pelletier. More importantly, Trudeau and other important federal figures in the “Quebec secession” scheme, including Gérard Pelletier, Jean Marchand, and René Lévesque, were also a part of the in-crowd at Cité Libre and, thereby, all were colleagues of BOTH of two major FLQ terrorist leaders, Pierre Vallières, who acted as Director of Cité Libre in the early 1960s around the time Vallières met Gagnon, who also worked at Cité Libre for Trudeau and Pelletier, and the FLQ bombings began in Quebec.

René Lévesque set up rather than founded the Parti Québécois, a fake “separatist” party designed to impose the EU system on Canada disguised as Quebec “sovereignty”, upon advice to do so from Trudeau, Pelletier, Marchand, and other federal ministers in the Lester Pearson Cabinet on a “secret committee” hosted in Montreal in the 1960s by Power Corporation of Canada. Power Corporation has a penchant for hiring communists, and I shall write a post on that another day.

René Lévesque, Fidel Castro, lawyer Raymond Daoust (1959) Montreal

René Lévesque, Fidel Castro, lawyer Raymond Daoust (1959) Montreal

The FLQ had been set up by Fidel Castro, who met Belgian immigrant to Montreal, Georges Schoeters during Castro’s visit to Canada on 26 April 1959. Castro later brought Schoeters to Cuba where he trained him to organize the FLQ. Castro also trained some of the terrorists handpicked by Schoeters. In the photo at left, we see René Lévesque, the year before he entered politics with the Liberals, interviewing Castro on the very same day that Castro linked up with Schoeters. FLQ terror would be the springboard and the pretext for a “political” settlement of the “complaints” of the FLQ about conditions in Quebec.

Had it been Lévesque who originated the idea of the “separatist” party which would fight it out with the rest of Canada in negotiations after a referendum, that would be sufficiently odd, given Lévesque’s link to the man who set up the FLQ in the first place: Castro. However, it was a group of mostly Liberals, federal ministers from Quebec in the government of Lester Pearson, who decreed that a “separatist” party should be erected. Those men included, notably, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Gérard Pelletier and Jean Marchand, all three recruited by Pearson to “fight separatism”. But, strangely, the “separatist” party they decided should be set up to “fight separatism” in a referendum, actually had as its platform the “negotiation” of the European Economic Community (EU) system to replace Confederation. This is the very system viewed today as increasingly Soviet, and as Marxist in nature. Who would decree that a “separatist” party be set up so that “separatism” could be “fought” in a referendum? A secret committee of Power Corporation of Canada would, and did, in 1967, led by Claude Frenette, then-President of the Liberal Party, with close ties to Trudeau, and a Power Corp. executive and right-had man to Paul Desmarais, Sr. Power Corporation in 2010 is headquarters of the Rhodes Scholarships for Quebec (a free education in the pushing of world government). And more importantly, Power Corporation is a founding member of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives which authored the Building A North American Community report of 2005 outlining the creation of a North American Community on the pretext of the September 11th, 2001 “terrorist attacks”, and published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the U.S. branch of the network involved in the Cecil Rhodes society, and whose “sister institute” in Canada is the Canadian International Council (CIC), on whose Board and Senate we find Power Corporation.

Again, despite the steadfast complicity of press and media pretending that Quebec, led by “separatists,” was attempting to “secede,” the real subject of the referendum was not secession, but the imposition on all of Canada of the EU system. René Lévesque ultimately “founded” that “separatist” party, the Parti Québécois, which has been used ever since to attempt to force the European Union system onto Canada in place of Confederation.

Castro’s trip to Montreal on 26 April 1959 (when he connected with Schoeters) was organized by Raymond Daoust, a criminal lawyer, according to the caption under the same photo (above) in a biography entitled René Lévesque – Un enfant du siècle 1922-1960, by Pierre Godin. It is unclear whether Daoust was working for the mafia at that time; however, Daoust is ultimately identified as a lawyer for the Vic Cotroni mafia family and also in circumstances suggesting that he, himself, was a part of the mob. In 1963, when twenty-three FLQ terrorists were picked up and charged, some of them, including Raymond Villeneuve, hired criminal lawyer Daoust to conduct their defense. It is therefore quite odd that Daoust should have organized Castro’s trip to Montreal on the very day in 1959 when Castro connected with Schoeters, who was used to set up the Front de Libération du Québec (FLQ) terrorists; and that Daoust himself, three or four years later – at which date he is known as a lawyer for Cotroni – would end up defending some of the terrorists, one of whose leaders – Pierre Vallières, is a colleague of Trudeau, and of the two other man recruited by Lester Pearson to join the Liberals to “fight” these same terrorists whom they call “separatists” …. although, they are clearly not “separatists” but communists. And in the process of “fighting” them, he, Trudeau, the defender of Canada, will facilitate their attempted imposition of what is apparently the economic basis of a world-wide communist system: for the 1980 referendum proposes to replace Confederation with the European Economic Community system, which today we see as the European Union with special status at the U.N.

KM/HCC
Saturday, 3 September 2011 9:42 a.m.
Republished on Sunday, 22 April 2012 in “No Snow in Moscow”, WordPress.