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“.

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 –

 

The "New European Soviet" (Coming to North America)

Written by Vilius Brazenas

Source: The New American, Friday, 08 October 2010 15:30

This article, originally published on September 6, 2004, was written by noted Lithuanina-American journalist and author Vilius Brazenas for The New American. A recipient of Lithuania’s highest civilian honor, The Order of the Vytis Cross, Mr. Brazenas was well known as a political analyst, writer, and speaker not only in Lithuania, but also in the United States, Europe, and many other parts of the world. Mr. Brazenas passed away in Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, on October 3rd. He was 97 years old. This article, which is as relevant today as when it was published, is being republished here in his honor.

Vilius Brazenas, The New European Soviet
I am going to tell you a story about Europe and America. It is a true story about tyranny and freedom, about hope, folly, deception and betrayal. It is also a warning about grave danger. Alarmed at the trends I see, I feel obliged to tell this story. Now in my 91st year, I am one of the few living souls who have experienced the major events of the last century. Being both European and American, I have witnessed and studied these events from opposite sides of the Atlantic.

I am Lithuanian by birth and saw my small country suffer under both Nazi and Communist brands of totalitarianism. My family was trapped in Russia when the Bolshevik Revolution brought the Communists to power. As a young boy in Moscow, in 1922, I was forced to march with my classmates in the Communist May Day parade in front of Vladimir Lenin himself.Like much of Europe, Lithuania was overrun in the 1940s by the Soviet Red Army, then by the Nazis, and then again by the Soviets. In 1944, as the Soviet Red Army was reinvading Lithuania, and after facing Soviet tanks, I was able to escape with my wife and daughter. In 1949, we were able to come to America and, later, thank God, to become U.S. citizens.

In January 2003 I came back to live in Lithuania. As an author, speaker and newspaper columnist, I am attempting to use my talents and opportunities in the time that I have left to warn my countrymen — both American and Lithuanian — about the very real and present danger to freedom posed by the evolving European Union (EU) and the very similar project proposed for North and South America called the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

Most Americans have only a very hazy understanding about what the EU is and an even foggier notion of how it came about. Unfortunately, most Europeans also have a very poor understanding of these things. They have only recently begun to recognize how blind they have been to the very real threats that the growing centralization of power in the EU poses to their national independence and their freedoms.

However, it must be said that the main reason why Europeans and Americans both have such foggy notions about the EU is that the EU architects and promoters have purposely kept the real origins and objectives of the EU shrouded in deception. They had to do this, in order to foist this scheme on the peoples of Europe. If they had openly proclaimed their true objective — to end national sovereignty and create an unaccountable, socialist suprastate — the entire scheme would have been rejected overwhelmingly, right from the start.

When former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev visited Britain in 2000, he accurately described the European Union as “the new European Soviet.” He said this with obvious approval, since he sees the evolving EU as fulfilling his vision of a “common European home” stretching “from the Atlantic to the Urals,” as he described it in his 1987 book Perestroika. Mr. Gorbachev is a lifelong Communist overlord who has steadfastly refused to renounce Communism.

In fact, he defiantly remains a Communist. On December 23, 1989, Gorbachev declared to his fellow Soviets, “I am a communist. For some that may be a fantasy. But for me it is my main goal.” On February 26, 1991, Gorbachev said, “I am not ashamed to say that I am a communist and adhere to the communist idea, and with this I will leave for the other world.” He has repeated these sentiments many times. In his book he also stated: “I frankly admit that we are glad that the idea of a ‘common European home’ finds understanding among prominent political and public figures of not only Eastern, but also Western Europe….”

It is highly significant that a top-level Marxist-Leninist such as Mikhail Gorbachev could find such affinity with Western leaders about a “common European home” and then, 13 years later, approvingly note that that common home was moving ever closer to the Soviet model. After all, hadn’t the Soviet model collapsed and died? But Mr. Gorbachev was, at least in this instance, telling the truth; the EU has been, and is now, moving steadily toward Soviet-style tyranny.

The European Parliament, the European Commission and other EU institutions in Brussels, Strasbourg, Frankfurt and The Hague are dominated by radical socialists and dedicated one-worlders who are bent on smashing the individual, once-independent nation states of Europe into Soviet-style conformity with the oppressive dictates of the new EU Politburo.

A Revolutionary Coup d’Etat

In their powerful expose, The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union (2003), British journalist Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North, formerly a researcher inside the EU bureaucracy, aptly describe the EU as “a slow-motion coup d’etat: the most spectacular coup d’etat in history.” In what remains of this article, I will attempt to explain why that description by Mr. Booker and Dr. North is no exaggeration and how this spectacular coup has come about.

It is also my intent to show how the deceptive NAFTAFTAA process is directly related to the EU and patterned after it to achieve the same kind of coup d’etat in the Americas.

The “European project,” as the EU designers refer to their ongoing revolution, was launched with the Treaty of Rome in 1957. The Common Market was born the following December when Italy became the sixth nation to ratify the treaty (joining France, Belgium, West Germany, the Netherlands and Luxembourg). It was sold to the peoples of Europe as a “free trade” agreement that would bring prosperity by removing barriers to the movement of people, goods, services and capital across borders.

In fact, it was a program for national suicide, for gradual, “slow-motion” political and economic merger of the member nations. Booker and North write that Belgian Prime Minister Paul-Henri Spaak, known in Europe as “Mr. Socialist,” was responsible for convincing his fellow EU founding fathers that “the most effective way to disguise their project’s political purpose was to conceal it behind a pretense that it was concerned only with economic co-operation, based on dismantling trade barriers: a ‘common market.'”

The Treaty of Rome was, in truth, a constitution for a new government disguised as a treaty. Traditionally, a treaty is an agreement between sovereign states, concerning borders, military alliances, trade relations, extradition, etc. The parties to the treaty remain sovereign states; their form of government is not altered and their citizens are not directly bound with new laws or obligations. The Treaty of Rome, however, created a new, over-arching “community” independent of its member states and claiming the power to create laws that are binding not only on the member nations but on their individual citizens as well.

This was not noticed by the people at first, because the EU founders were careful only to show their citizens the benign features of their project. It had been designed to be implemented incrementally, as an ongoing process, so that no single phase of the project would arouse sufficient opposition as to stop or derail it.

The original Treaty of Rome has been repeatedly modified by subsequent treaties and legislation, all of which have greatly enhanced the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the central EU government. The European Communities Act (1972), the Single European Act (1986), the Schengen Agreement (1990), the Maastricht Treaty (1992), the Amsterdam Treaty (1998), and the Treaty of Nice (2000) are some of the most important benchmarks that have transferred vast powers piecemeal to Brussels, where the EU is headquartered.

The eurofederalists cloak this destructive, revolutionary process under such code words as “integration,” “harmonization,” and “convergence.” In 1991, the Single European Act was coming into force and beginning to show the very ugly teeth that had been built into it. At that time, Sir Peregrine Worsthorne of the Sunday Telegraph, one of Britain’s major newspapers, expressed in a column the sense of betrayal and outrage felt by many in Europe. “Twenty years ago, when the process began,” he wrote, “there was no question of losing sovereignty. That was a lie, or at any rate, a dishonest obfuscation.”

It was actually a multitude of lies. The EU founders and their successors have been carrying forward nothing less than a brazen scheme of treason dressed up as economic trade policy. And treason is not too harsh a word, for many of the key leaders of this operation are government officials who are betraying a sacred trust and have been lying outright to their constituents. As Sir Worsthorne pointed out, for decades the EU advocates had explicitly lied, insisting that the developing EU would not affect national sovereignty, and that EU laws and regulations would not override national laws and constitutions. These were wild, paranoid fantasies, they said.

Warnings about the true nature of the EU were routinely smothered by the globalist controlled, pro-EU press — which includes nearly all the major media organs. Now that the project is entering its final stages, however, the eurofederalists are dropping all pretenses and admitting openly what they previously denied. They can hardly help it now, since the EU established a constitutional convention in 2002 to draw up a formal constitution for a United States of Europe. At nearly 300 pages, the document is an open-ended power grab, with none of the checks and balances and means of accountability that we enjoy in our U.S. Constitution.

Many Americans, no doubt, tend to consider the Common Market and the EU as positive steps toward greater freedom. After all, it certainly is more convenient to have only one currency, the euro, when touring the continent. But whatever conveniences it may offer are offset by far more important concerns. Consider:

  • Regulatory nightmare. British grocers have been arrested and fined for continuing to sell bananas and other produce by the pound instead of by the EU’s newly mandated metric weights. Similarly, the EU dictates on the shape and size of cucumbers, the consistency of marmalade, the texture and taste of chocolate, and thousands of other consumer items.
  • Acquis communautaire. The EU already operates under the doctrine of acquis communautaire, which holds that all members must adopt EU law in its entirety, and further, that once the EU usurps the right to legislate in a new area, its authority in that area is guaranteed in perpetuity. Thus, power is guaranteed to flow in one direction – from the member states to the central government.
  • Corpus juris. The corpus juris is the new legal code initiated by the Amsterdam Treaty that will, among other things, set up a European Public Prosecutor with over-riding criminal law jurisdiction throughout Europe. Habeas corpus, trial by jury and other important protections will be swept away.
  • Unlimited migration. Signatory countries of the EU Schengen Agreement have given up their right to police their borders, thus allowing illegal aliens – including terrorists – to travel freely between countries. With Russia and other former Soviet states, along with Turkey, scheduled for membership, we will soon have millions of new migrants, including many Communists and militant Muslims migrating at will throughout Europe – much like what could happen to the U.S. if the FTAA is implemented.
  • Economic control. With the establishment of the euro currency and the European Central Bank, the EU countries have lost control of their fiscal and monetary policy as well as their currencies.
  • Destroying agriculture. The EU’s Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) has taken control of nearly all agriculture and has nearly destroyed British agriculture.
  • Power to tax. The EU already claims the authority to dictate indirect tax policies such as the VAT (value added tax) on clothes, food, public transport, fuel, construction, homes, etc. The Treaty of European Union declares that EU decisions to “impose pecuniary obligation on persons other than States shall be enforceable.” That means direct taxes on individuals.
  • Coercive military and police power. If the Eurocrats have their way, they will soon have European military and police forces to enforce their increasingly dictatorial edicts.

The architects of NAFTA and the FTAA openly cite the EU as the model for their proposed regional “common market” for the Western Hemisphere. For example, Mexican President Vicente Fox acknowledged on May 16, 2002: “Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish … an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union.” At the time Fox was referring specifically to the three NAFTA countries (the U.S., Canada, and Mexico); the proposed FTAA would further develop the “ensemble of connections” while extending them throughout the Americas.

President Bush, President Fox and the “new world order” Power Elite at the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and Council of the Americas have all adopted the deceptive terminology of the EU – “integration,” “harmonization,” “convergence” — to describe their “American project.” They have adopted an aggressive schedule, intending to do in a few years what it has taken the eurocrats decades to accomplish.

We can and must stop this treasonous plan — or Mr. Gorbachev and his ilk will soon be able to gloat about the “new American Soviet.”

– 30 –

How The West Built the USSR

Source:  Antony Sutton: The Secret World Order & the Soviet Union (audio track, date unknown)

Foreword by NoSnowinMoscow:

In this important audio tape, transcribed exclusively for www.NoSnowinMoscow.com, Professor Antony Sutton points out that Wall Street actively financed the development of three kinds of socialism in different parts of the world at the same time.

In the early 1930s, the super-rich bankrolled socialism in America with Roosevelt, in Germany with Hitler, and in the Soviet Union with a succession of totalitarian governments from the time of the Bolshevik Revolution.

A list of publications by Professor Sutton follows after this transcript, with links to many of them as free downloads.

/ TRANSCRIPT OF AN AUDIO RECORDING OF PROFESSOR ANTONY C. SUTTON:

Host’s Introduction:

Our initial speaker this morning has attracted considerable attention, both here in the United States and abroad by virtue of his meticulous and detailed study of the history of Western aid to the Soviet Union.

As a research fellow at the Hoover Institute on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University, he researched, wrote, and had published a three-volume series entitled Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development. A shocking, irrefutable history of American and other Western-nation aid in the creation of what we identify today as our adversary super-power, the Soviet Union.

Within the last two years, he has written the books, National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union, and Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. Two weeks ago, his newest book, Wall Street and FDR was published and is now available.

And on the front burner today, which he is exhaustively working on, is another volume called Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler.

With all of this work, which has encompassed better than a decade, he has also found time to write articles for Review of the News, Human Events, and National Review.

Born in London, educated in England, Germany and the United States, he became a citizen of the United States in 1962. He was a Professor of Economics at California State University before joining the Hoover Institute. He now resides in northern California with his wife, Betty, and their family.

It is a privilege for me, and an honor for all of us to have with us today Professor Antony C. Sutton. Tony —

[ Applause ]

Antony Sutton Speaks:

Thank you very much. My assignment this morning is a virtually impossible task. I have 50 minutes to summarize 15 years of research, half a dozen books.

What I propose to do is outline the story of our construction of the Soviet Union. I will start the outline in 1917, and bring you down to the present day, chronologically.

But, this outline is a quick work, it’s a mere skeleton of the whole story.

Professor Antony C. SuttonBut, what I will do is draw your attention to the nature of the published evidence, and I hope you will excuse me if I rely mostly on my own books, because that’s the evidence I know best.

This, of course, is in the true nature of a seminar, it’s my job to point the way; and it’s yours — if you wish — to pick up the threads and assemble the facts into a Mosaic.

From time to time this morning, I will refer to unpublished evidence, and research yet to be undertaken. We do not yet have the full story. In other words, I will point out the gaps. This is important because if you push the argument beyond the limits of the evidence at hand, the inevitable result is a loss of credibility.

Now, the best way to introduce my topic is to make a point about information in a socialist society.

This is a sophisticated audience. You know about distortion, and suppression, and elimination of the facts.

We live in a socialist society and suppression of information is typical of such societies. To eliminate freedom, one must first eliminate widespread knowledge of the truth.

So, I submit to you that today in the United States there are three levels of information.

The first level — we could call the Establishment version. It’s what most people have believed in the past to be true about events and history. The difference today, compared with say a decade ago, is that the credibility of the Establishment has been shattered. People in general no longer believe in Washington or anything that comes out of Washington.

[ Applause ]

So, this first level is what the government or the Establishment wants you to know. Only coincidentally is it the truth.

The criteria they use are two, I suggest. One, they say: “What do we want them to know?” And secondly, they say: “Is it consistent with what we told them last time?”

And sometimes, they slip up, and then the statements become inoperable.

Then, we have the second level of information, sometimes called the revisionist level. It challenges the first level, but it’s still based on documents and information released by the bureaucrats and politicians in Washington. It does not get to the root of the problem. [Controlled opposition. KM/NoSnow]

It doesn’t get to the root of the problem because it relies mainly on facts which they decide can be released.

I would suggest — and I hope you won’t take this unduly critically — that the critics of the Kennedy assassination probably fall within this category. There’s no question they’re onto something, but they’re still at the second level because they rely on information which it has been decided, can be released. They will not get to the third level until they get all the information within government files, and that, I understand, may take 75 or 100 years.

The Third LevelThen, we get to the third level. And I suggest that, presumably, almost everybody or everybody in this room is operating, or wants to operate, on the third level. It is based on new documentary evidence that has to be rooted out. From the research viewpoint, you have to know where to look. You have to know about its existence, you have to demand it, you have to get it declassified.

You must accept, when you are in my position, that when you initially publish it, most people will not believe you.

They will not believe you because the Establishment version got in there first, and the mass of the media — and I’m not blaming the media for this — got behind it and publicized what they believed to be the truth. But, we’re now getting a number of very solid, substantial books written on this third level. I’ll give you some quick examples.

Colin Simpson, The Lusitania – An Attempt to Bring the United States into World War I. Documented.

Julius Epstein, Operation Keyhole.

A very new book by Guy Richards, The Rescue of the Romanoffs. The Czar was not murdered, as the Establishment would like you to believe.

From the Liberal side of things, I would suggest Jules Archer, The Plot to Seize the White House.

So, I’ve emphasized this morning that my outline is going to be at the third level.

It’s based on authentic and original documentation, mostly from government files. It is directly and verifiable evidence. I always make the citations and the references. Up to a few weeks ago, I could always say that the facts had never been openly challenged.

There was a recent exception in London — because I’m getting somewhat more publicity in Europe than I am here — the Soviet Weekly decided to counter some of my arguments; it was probably forced to do so. Unfortunately, they picked the wrong example. They said I was wrong about the Soviet marine– merchant marine and the origin of its diesel engines. They said that my figures and facts were wild.

Unfortunately for Soviet Weekly, this is one case where all my evidence came from Russian sources. So, I pointed out to the Soviet Weekly, it’s quite obvious that the Soviet right hand doesn’t know what the Soviet left hand is doing.

So, let’s get to the point. How did the Soviet Union become a world power?

Let’s go back to the revolutions, the two revolutions in 1917. The first revolution in March of 1917 overthrew the Czar and replaced the Czar with a — what could — would well have been a constitutional government. These were the first shaky steps taken in March 1917 towards a constitutional government in Russia.

This constitutional government was overthrown by the Bolsheviks in November of 1917. There is major evidence, which I have published, of U.S. involvement. Not on the side of the formation of a constitutional government, but on the side of the Bolsheviks. Not the March revolution, but the November revolution.

Now, I’ve not got the whole story. I’ve published what I have been able to unearth. And these are roughly the key points.

In March, 1917, at the time of the first revolution, Lenin was in Switzerland and Trotsky was in New York. They were the two major operators in the Bolshevik revolution. Lenin returned to Russia with the aid of the German high command. I recently suspect that the Kaiser did not know; the highest German official who knew about this was Chancellor Von Bethmann-Holweig from the well known — perhaps in Germany — the Bethmann-Holweig banking family.

Trotsky was in New York — a penniless immigrant, apparently — he acquired $10,000 in gold, he acquired an American passport, he was put on a boat for Russia.

The Canadian authorities pulled the boat in to Halifax, Nova Scotia. They took off Trotsky, and his party, locked them up as prisoners of war. There was immediate intervention from both London and Washington — and these documents are in the files. He was put back on the boat for Russia, with apologies.

Also on the boat were Lincoln Steffens — quite a well known leftist in the United States, and Charles Crane of the Westinghouse Company. And Charles Crane was chairman of the Democratic finance committee at that time, and a friend of Woodrow Wilson. And the book tells you what happened; how they met and talked on the boat.

Also, in July 1917, a Colonel William Boyce Thomson, who was the first permanent director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, formed a Red Cross mission to Russia. Now, Russia didn’t want a Red Cross mission. And the Red Cross in Washington didn’t want the mission going to Russia.

But Thomson was a very influential gentleman, he financed it and organized it himself.

The mission had nothing to do with either medicine or Red Cross. I’ve listed the members of the mission. Out of thirty, only six were doctors, the rest were Wall Street lawyers and financiers. There were representatives from Chase Bank, National City Bank and the rest of it.

The mission was a political vehicle to give assistance to the Bolshevik revolution in November. What was the assistance? Very briefly, Colonel Thomson himself said — and it was published in The Washington Post, which was an authoritative source at the time — that he gave one million dollars to the Bolsheviks to help their revolution. That’s Colonel Thomson, not me.

There was intervention by American International Corporation, which was another vehicle based on Wall Street.

In Washington, to forestall any possible assistance to the enemies of Bolshevism.

Further, you can find in the British Foreign Office files the fact that Thomson and Lamont of the Morgans went to see Prime Minister Lloyd George in England, and changed, in one meeting, British policy from being anti-Bolshevik to being pro-Bolsheviks. This information, I would point out, comes from the British War Cabinet papers, Thomson’s own papers, and the State Department files.  The documents are quite genuine.

Now, in early 1918, the Bolsheviks held only a very small part of Russia. They held really just Moscow and Petrograd. They were fighting both the Whites and the Greens. Now, the history books don’t tell you about the Greens. They only tell you about the Reds and the Whites. There were 700,000 Greens. And the Greens were Bolsheviks who saw that Lenin and Trotsky had betrayed the revolution to capitalists — and this was pointed out in Russian newspapers at the time — and the Greens, 700,000 strong, were fighting against the Bolsheviks with the Whites.

But, what happened is that the Wall Street Mission and its allies in the United States, gave the Bolsheviks enough breathing space to be able to occupy Russia.

Another point that fits in here is Guy Richard’s latest book on The Rescue of the Romanoffs, in which he, I think, proves that the Czar was not killed. There was– this is a myth perpetuated by Britain and the United States in collusion with the Soviet Union, for reasons which he will point out.

And so, this high-level collusion between the Soviet Union, the United States and other countries [Britain, etc.] has gone on since 1917.

Now, also according to the history books, at the time of the revolution and civil war in Russia, Russian industry was in ruins. This is nonsense.

Russian industry was not destroyed, except perhaps at Petrograd. It was idle. It was in what the Soviets call a state of “technical preservation”.

What happened was that the middle class, the technicians and the managers, left Russia; they weren’t Bolshevik. And the plants and the equipment were standing there idle. And the Bolshevik Revolution had no means to get into action.

What happened was, in the 1920s, foreign companies, mainly American or German — and the German companies were affiliated with major American corporations mostly, these companies went into — these companies went into Russia and they gave technical assistance, or they took the foreign concessions — and there were some three or four hundred of them — and this got the Soviet Union up in economic development.

This, of course, I’ve covered in the very first book I put out back in 1968: the period from 1917 to 1930. How very prominent firms like Westinghouse, General Electric, Ford Motor Company, Standard Oil — these firms, through concessions and technical assistance agreements, enabled the idle Russian industry to get re-started under the Soviets.

There are two names which should not be forgotten from the 1920s. Avril Harriman,* who was operating a Georgian manganese concession, and Armand Hammer, whose father, of course, Julius Hammer, was executive secretary of the Communist Party USA. That is something the Los Angeles Times never prints; but it’s quite verifiable.

So, the Soviet Union, in that first decade, was enabled to survive and recuperate with the assistance of German and American firms.

I would point out, to keep the text straight, that the State Department was not at fault, as I see it. It’s quite clear from the files, as I have written, that State Department officials could look ahead; they saw the possibility of a war — like Korea and Viet Nam — where the Soviets would supply the other side. They looked ahead, and they say no, stay out of the Soviet Union, let it– let it find its own feet, and we should not help to build it up.

By 1928, the Soviet Union — with Western assistance — had restored a 1913 output. And the Soviet planners began to think about the 5-year plans. Maybe a few of you will remember that back in 1930 in the United States that there was great publicity about the “Great Experiment” in the Soviet Union. “Pulling up by the bootstraps”, a model for Roosevelt’s New Deal to copy, how a socialist society could do all kinds of wonderful things that a free-enterprise society could not do*. How free enterprise was outmoded.

Who was saying this? Well, we find socialist Norman Thomas, and we find Roosevelt*. But we also find for example, a Gerard Swope, President of General Electric Corporation; and we find Bernard [garbled – Yugovich? ]. But those men that I call the corporate socialists, who run large corporations — then and now, I submit — are betraying a free enterprise society.

Now, the Soviets suddenly acquired a massive capacity in the first and second 5-year plan sets, during the late 1920s and the whole decade of the 1930s. What has not been said, historically, is how they acquired this massive capacity.

Simple common sense would tell you that a backward country just does not start to modern build steel mills and automobile plants. That’s just common sense.

The first 5-year plan was almost entirely built by foreign corporations: General Electric, Ford, Dupont, [Hoppers?], Badger, Foster-Wheeler, Universal Oil, Douglas Aircraft, Radio Corporation of America, Pratte and Whitney, Hercules Powder, United Engineering, [Fentock?] and Marshall, Macdonald Engineering, The [Matee?] Corporation, you name it.

Amongst the large U.S. construction corporations, they were there in Russia between 1928 and the beginning of 1933.

The plants they built in the first 5-year plan were far larger in capacity and far more technically advanced than they were building elsewhere in the world.

And the second 5-year plan in Russia — although this does not come out, of course, in the official documents, was really bringing into production the tremendous capacity built by these firms in the early 1930s.

The first 5-year plan, itself, was not laid out by Gosplan. The Gosplan — which is not workable — the final, technical plan that was utilized, was actually drawn up by a firm of industrial architects, Arthur Kahn of Detroit.

United Engineering, to give you a few examples, built a plant in the Soviet Union in the early 1930s, to produce the longest aluminum sheets in the world. And these, of course, are essential for aircraft manufacture. This was the time when all-metal aircraft were just beginning, even in the West.

General Electric built at Krakow, a turbine plant which was two and a half times greater in capacity than its own plant in New York at Schenectady.

There were three gigantic tractor plants built in the Soviet Union, and the Soviets built more Internationals and more Caterpillars than those two companies built in the United States.

Now, go back to my introduction — the three levels of information. The whole world largely still believes that the Soviets did it themselves. That’s the official Establishment version. In reality, the Soviets didn’t do it. It was done by Western free enterprise.

The cost? The cost in Russia — the millions of Russians who died in labor camps. I’d point out Solzhenitsyn’s arguments, Julius Epstein: Operation Keyhole.

Did the American firms know about this? Yes. They did.

They lied in their public announcements when they said there was no forced labor in the Soviet Union. And they knew they were lying. I know they were lying because I’ve seen the reports in the State Department files. The engineers on-site in Russia were protesting — it was the time of the Depression, they had to have a job — and the firms told them to do nothing: say nothing, keep quiet.

I submit that our larger corporations — the corporate socialists, were no more interested in Russians dying in the early 1930s than they were in Americans dying in Korea and Viet Nam with technology that they had installed in the Soviet Union.

And yet, the way this world is put together, it’s the Harrimans and the Hammers and the Morgans and the Rockefellers who are admired and lauded. And those who plead for human decency and state the facts of DICTATORSHIP are slandered and insulted.

And we find, regrettably, academics fall over themselves to perpetuate the myths.

So, back in the early 1930s, Gerard Swope of General Electric and Bernard Baruch and their friends, were building the 5-year plans in Russia. But they weren’t inactive elsewhere in the world. And this is one period where I’ve been able to develop most of the story.

Roosevelt’s New Deal, the NRA, National Recovery Administration, was not drawn up by the brain trust or Roosevelt’s advisors. It was drawn up by Gerard Swope of General Electric. And I’ve published the whole thing in the book I’ve just produced. I call it Swope’s Plan. It wasn’t FDR’s plan at all. And Herbert Hoover was quite correct when he called it Fascism. Because Roosevelt’s New Deal was nothing else but Fascism along the lines of the Mussolini corporate state.

And our friends, Bernard Baruch, General Electric, building up the Soviet Union, were also very active in [garbled], promoting, and writing for Roosevelt in the early 1930s. But, also, they were active behind Hitler. It’s interesting that both Hitler and Roosevelt came to power in early 1933.

Now, the story of the promotion of Hitler by our own corporate socialists is yet unpublished. But, I’ll tell you this much; it’ll give you the flavor of the book. I have the bank transfer slips — which is about the hardest kind of evidence you can get — of funds going from large corporations to the Nazi party and particularly, a political slush fund operated by Rudolf [Hess?] This was very important in the early 1930s when the Nazis needed all the money they could get to finance their gangs of goons going around the streets beating up people, and the various payoffs and this kind of thing.

One of these transfer slips refers to German General Electric, sixty thousand Reichmarks. And two directors of German General Electric will interest you, or should interest you. One is Gerard Swope, General Electric, and one is Owen Young of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

So, what we find is — when we begin to probe behind the scenes of history — is that we have the gentlemen promoting three brands of socialism all at the same time.

  • [1] They’re building the first 5-year plan in the Soviet Union.
  • [2] They’re writing Roosevelt’s New Deal for him.
  • [3] And they’re trying to get Hitler into power in Germany.

All at the same time.

So, let’s go back to the building of the Soviet Union.

During World War II, you will remember, was the massive land-lease program. This pretty much replaced any capacity the Soviet Union might have lost in World War II. But, more importantly, it brought the Soviet Union to a fundamentally new technological horizon.

I’ve covered the whole story of this build-up in the Hoover series of books. By 1946, the Soviets had a capacity to do certain things themselves. They could manufacture the shells of factories, that is, the buildings, not too difficult; and they could duplicate the simple equipment, simple lathes, this kind of thing.

But they still needed — and still need today — foreign technology to advance the technological horizon for a quite simple reason: that a socialist planned society cannot advance technologically by itself. Once again, our Western businessmen were only too happy to oblige, and, once again, they went into the Soviet Union in the 1950s, certainly the 1960s, and you see the peak of this in the last few years under Kissinger.

And, to give you, again, some examples, from the development in these 20 years, you will find mining equipment firms like Joint Manufacturing. Non-ferrous metals, you’ll find they’re using for example the International Nickel process for nickel smelting, refining.

Iron and steel is an exception. The Soviets adopted the classical blast furnace back in the 1930s, their plans were largely laid out by the Frame Corporation of Chicago. It’s a very simple process; what they did was build bigger units, what I call scaling up; and for the classical blast furnace technology, they have not come back to the West. What they have done, particularly in rolling techniques, and what you might call the high technology forms of steel or metals.

In petroleum processes, you can see the copying of the land-lease refineries, all the way up to today. I think, just a few weeks ago, there were recent agreements to transfer more petroleum technology to the Soviet Union.

In chemicals, Armand Hammer, Occidental Petroleum, of course has always played a key role.

Textiles: we find Soviet nylon — all their synthetic fabrics are Western fabrics, but of course with different specifi– with different model numbers; categories.

Motor vehicles. All the motor vehicle plants I can identify in the Soviet Union have equipment from the West. They have been able to reproduce simple transfer lines, but, as you know, with the Karma plant, still today, the Soviets require equipment from– mainly from the United States.

Soviet atomic energy. Their first reactor was a copy of the Henford Reactor. But, more importantly, they couldn’t have achieved their atomic energy program without United States’ help. I’m very skeptical today about the Rosenberg spy story. What is much more important is how did the Soviets get the industrial technology, the equipment — very specialized kind of equipment which is needed for an atomic energy program. This could only come from one of three countries: United States, Switzerland, or Great Britain.

Locomotives. For example, we find General Electric, Business Standard.

In aircraft, we find all the Rolls Royce engines, [garbled] that make the silver [garbled].  The door, for example, on some of the aircraft is a Boeing door. You go right down the line, it’s there.

Merchant marine, I calculated that exactly, because the Soviets had published a very exhaustive catalogue [–ing] of their Soviet ships. every Soviet ship is there, catalogued with its technical specifications. And I can tell you exactly 67% of the hulls were built in the West, and 80% of the engines were built in the West. The 20% that were not built in the West were built in the Soviet Union, mainly at Briansk [plant?] in Leningrad, under technical assistance agreements. There’s no such thing as a Soviet marine diesel engine. That’s what got the Soviet Weekly upset in London and said I was “wild”. And, of course, I pointed to their own catalogue. It’s right there, if they bothered to get a calculating machine, which, of course, will have to be Western.

And uh–

[ Laughter. ]

they can– they can repeat what I did.

Their computer technology is courtesy of IBM and Radio Corporation of America. But, there’s an English corporation, International Computers, which has transferred the most advanced of its own computer technology. I did happen to meet a director of this particular company last April when I was in England and I pointed this out to him that it was his own suicide. He had more to lose than I had. And, his argument was, well the Americans do it, why shouldn’t the British do it?

And he was actually unable to see that it was his own suicide. But I did also meet a gentleman from the Dunlop Rubber Company — and Dunlop has been very important, transferring rubber tire technology to the Soviet Union — who admitted that so far as that area was concerned, I was exactly correct; in fact, I hadn’t got all of it. But he said, well, even if it is my own suicide, I will continue to do it because it’s business. And I had no answer for that one.

So, what I’m saying is, that in brief, all Western technol– excuse me– all Soviet technology, from 1917 right down to the present day, comes from the West. And this is based on a very precise technical analysis; it’s technical: I look at engines and machines, and I look at specifications — it’s not something I imagined — so, I’ve been at this thing over a decade and a half, but no one yet has proven me wrong on a technical factor.

And, this is approximately the position today; except that under Kissinger, the Soviets had been able to achieve a fundamentally new technological horizon — of course, with a financial subsidy — because they’re getting loans at 6% when we have to pay 10% or 12% — with a financial subsidy from the United States.

Now, the big problem that I had in the early 1970s was that this was not the whole story. There were at least two remaining problems.

One, we were building up the Soviet military capacity; capability. And there were indications — and I was a little unsure about this in 1970 — that this was a deliberate policy on the part of the United States.

I called it the “X Factor“. I spotted it perhaps as early as the late 1960s that there was something operating there to enable these massive transfers to continue over periods of decades. And any time you pointed it out, you were immediately slapped down. There was some kind of behind-the-scenes pressure making for these massive transfers.

Now, the most important problem that I saw was the military transfer problem. So, as I’m sure some of you know, I went to Miami Beach in 1972; I attempted to point this out to the Republican Party, and what I got was outright hostility. These are things we just don’t talk about.

Looking at The Wall Street Journal last week and noting that Armand Hammer gave the Republicans $100,000.00 in 1972, I can see that I wasn’t quite the right game. I certainly didn’t give them anything like $100,000.00.

Now, to summarize the National Suicide book, there is no question in my mind that Soviet military capability essentially depends on Western technology. But there is one exception I would point out: that you do not need a free-enterprise system to develop military technology. Because the military work in a rather different way to an industrialist. The military say, well, this is the next specification we want; they set up a specification and they work towards it, and cost is no object,

But, within of course, industry, cost is very much part of your objective; you’ve got to be competitive.

And so what the Soviets have been very successful in doing is setting up a very adequate, a very sensible, design — military design specifications — and using Western technology to work towards it, and do it quite it quite capably. So, I’m quite sure that aircraft with our systems, and their ships and their guns, are quite effective.

To give you some examples, American pilots were coming back during the Viet Nam war, and they were saying, “Well, that’s funny, because those trucks on the Ho Chi Minh Trail looked like Ford trucks.” Well, they were Ford trucks, because half of them were coming from the Gorky plant which was built by Ford Motor Company.

And you got the [Migs?] Silver Career, which I pointed out earlier had Rolls Royce engines. And Rolls Royce and some of the German designs, BMW, have been the basis of Russian jet development.

So, that is part of the story.

What we need today is research to fill out the gaps in our knowledge of the loss of American independence. And there are two major areas which I suggest need study in-depth.

One is the Federal Reserve System. Particularly the political role of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from 1913 up to today.

Currently, the Federal Reserve System controls money supply, and therefore is a very important, if not a dominant factor, in what happens in the economy.

This whole attempt to replace gold with artificial fiat money is part of this whole problem that I think has to be investigated. But, up to the moment, we can’t even get an audit of the Federal Reserve System.

The second area which I think needs to be investigated is the COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. I don’t have that much evidence myself, but a number of people I respect — well, a great number of people I respect have pointed out that members of this particular COUNCIL turn up in a number of key places on a very regular basis.

I suspect that one can dismiss 90% of them as being academic hangers-on or social climbers, but there’s a core in there which probably well warrants investigation.

I can tell you this much: certainly, in the 1920s, where the State Department files are open, there is very clear evidence that members of the COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS were fundamental in achieving a pro-Soviet policy and building up the Soviet Union: Gerard Swope, for example, was most certainly a member.

So, given the state of our knowledge today, I think we can say the following:

The constitutional independence of the United States has been abandoned.

Further, there has been a knowledgeable and deliberate effort to build the Soviet Union into a formidable enemy. In spite of the fact of two Wars in which 100,000 Americans and countless allies have been killed.

I suspect, or I suggest — that there is a knowledgeable and deliberate effort to submerge U.S. independence into a web of economic and financial relationships with a totalitarian dictatorship*.

And this is in large part concealed from the American public. In fact, my earlier example, the truth is at the third level, and the statements coming out are all on the first level.

On the other hand, these policies — from where I stand — are not too well thought out in detail. There was a Foreign Affairs article in April 1974 entitled The Hard Road to a New World Order and it pointed out the problems with using the United Nations as a vehicle to achieve a socialist world state.

And I suspect that the problems of creating a socialist world order are increasing and are somewhat greater than anticipated by the world planners.

Some of the more important problems that I can glean from sources like Foreign Affairs would certainly be the United Nations.

I suggest that the concept of the United Nations as “the” global authority may have been abandoned. And the emphasis is going to be on regional planning, on regional management.

The vehicles will be such things as world environment, commodities, food supply, population, that kind of thing; it’s a more round-about way to get the same objectives. What I suggest the process would be, would be to build larger pieces first, and then WELD these larger pieces together.

We can observe a major effort to substitute SDRs — Special Drawing Rights — (paper money) for gold. These are going to be an engine of international inflation in the same way that the Federal Reserve System has been an engine of domestic inflation.

But, historically, these attempts to use paper money have always collapsed.

And I see no reason, technically, why the SDR effort should succeed.

On the other hand, you cannot achieve a world order, with hard gold currency. Because the politicians cannot print numbers on gold; they can print all the numbers they want on pieces of paper.

So, as I see it — from my viewpoint — the world planners have got to impose a paper-money system as part of their move towards what they call the “new world order”.

The third problem, which may not sound too much, but may in fact be the biggest stumbling block, is that, as I see society — the natural order of events is for people to group themselves together in small contiguous units, not in big regional groupings. People voluntarily associate in small groups, not in large groups.

But, on the other hand, the whole trend of a world order is toward unification and regional groupings. In other words, you’re going in two different directions. The planners are trying to impose large regional units, but the natural trend-order within society is toward small groups. And I suspect that as more people begin to see what is happening — it’s antagonistic to their own interests — that the resistance will also increase.

So, let me emphasize — I’m getting near the end — one point.

That the battle for American independence can only be won with facts; and they have to be accurate facts.

I do not believe that the American people want to abandon the Constitution; or free enterprise; or individual freedom.

I don’t believe the American people want such things as internal passports, hundred-billion-dollar energy programs, [cross-bussing?], back-breaking taxation. I don’t think they want it.

Further, the Establishment no longer has credibility. They’ve lost it because it’s ignored too many facts; it’s lied; it’s distorted. That is your opportunity. To present the facts at the third level.

But let me warn you; to retain credibility, you’ve got to be 100% accurate 100% of the time.

You get it wrong once, you’ve lost your audience, your enemies will never let you forget it.

Make one mistake, it’s instant loss of credibility.

Sometimes, it’s very tempting, I think, to overstate the case. Don’t do it. Because you can’t do it and win.

Let me leave you this morning with, I think, the moral of my story.

What I’ve tried to write over the last decade — we tend to emphasize the obvious; we can recognize the planners and their socialist friends, they’re directly identifiable. Give you one example: Attorney General Levi says he’s going to introduce internal passports, and he knows it’s unconstitutional. He says so. Now, that, to me, is an obvious enemy. I don’t sleep wondering what he’s going to dream up for me next.

But more important, perhaps, are those behind the scenes. What I call “the subsidizers“. Those who provide the technology, the financing, the political power, the political thrust for world dictatorship. Look at the subsidizers. Look. for example. at Big Business.

Big Business supplied technology both to Hitler’s Germany and to Soviet Russia. In fact, both at the same time, and Roosevelt for good measure.

Look at the academics, who are more interested in promoting a New World Order than in promoting freedom. That’s what they should be doing.

Look at those organizations who promote anti-Communism but always stop short at identifying and pointing out those who subsidize and make possible the onset of a world socialism.

And my moral today is — the moral I would like to leave with you — the planners could not exist without the subsidizers, and both are equally dangerous to what you hold to be true.

– 30 –

/

KM/NoSnow: To complete this lecture by Professor Sutton, I would look to his own Chapter 12, in his book Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, and the segment entitled “The Pervasive Influence of International Bankers”, quote:

“Looking at the broad array of facts presented in the three volumes of the Wall Street series, we find persistent recurrence of the same names: Owen Young, Gerard Swope, Hjalmar Schacht, Bernard Baruch, etc.; the same international banks: J.P. Morgan, Guaranty Trust, Chase Bank; and the same location in New York: usually 120 Broadway.

This group of international bankers backed the Bolshevik Revolution and subsequently profited from the establishment of a Soviet Russia. This group backed Roosevelt and profited from New Deal socialism. This group also backed Hitler and certainly profited from German armament in the 1930s.

When Big Business should have been running its business operations at Ford Motor, Standard of New Jersey, and so on, we find it actively and deeply involved in political upheavals, war, and revolutions in three major countries.

The version of history presented here is that the financial elite knowingly and with premeditation assisted the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 in concert with German bankers. After profiting handsomely from the German hyper-inflationary distress of 1923, and planning to place the German reparations burden onto the backs of American investors, Wall Street found it had brought about the 1929 financial crisis.

Two men were then backed as leaders for major Western countries: Franklin D. Roosevelt in the United States and Adolf Hitler in Germany.

The Roosevelt New Deal* and Hitler’s Four Year Plan had great similarities. The Roosevelt and Hitler plans were plans for fascist takeovers of their respective countries.

While Roosevelt’s NRA failed, due to then-operating constitutional constraints, Hitler’s Plan succeeded.

Why did the Wall Street elite, the international bankers, want Roosevelt and Hitler in power? This is an aspect we have not explored. According to the “myth of Sidney Warburg,'” Wall Street wanted a policy of revenge; that is, it wanted war in Europe between France and Germany. We know even from Establishment history that both Hitler and Roosevelt acted out policies leading to war.

The link-ups between persons and events in this three-book series would require another book. But a single example will perhaps indicate the remarkable concentration of power within a relatively few organizations, and the use of this power.

On May 1st, 1918, when the Bolsheviks controlled only a small fraction of Russia (and were to come near to losing even that fraction in the summer of 1918), the American League to Aid and Cooperate with Russia was organized in Washington, D.C. to support the Bolsheviks. This was not a “Hands off Russia” type of committee formed by the Communist Party U.S.A. or its allies. It was a committee created by Wall Street with George P. Whalen of Vacuum Oil Company as Treasurer and Coffin and Oudin of General Electric, along with Thomson of the Federal Reserve System, Willard of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, and assorted socialists.

When we look at the rise of Hitler and Naziism we find Vacuum Oil and General Electric well represented. Ambassador Dodd in Germany was by the monetary and technical contribution by the Rockefeller-controlled Vacuum Oil Company in building up military gasoline facilities for the Nazis.

The Ambassador tried to warn Roosevelt. Dodd believed, in his apparent naiveté of world affairs, that Roosevelt would intervene, but Roosevelt himself was backed by these same oil interests and Walter Teagle of Standard Oil of New Jersey and the NRA was on the board of Roosevelt’s Warm Springs Foundation. So, in but one of many examples, we find the Rockefeller-controlled Vacuum Oil Company prominently assisting in the creation of Bolshevik Russia, the military build-up of Nazi Germany, and backing Roosevelt’s New Deal.

– 30 –

/

[FN1] In Canada, RENE LEVESQUE — a so-called “separatist” who was actually raised as a Communist by his father, championed Roosevelt-style policies. He took Roosevelt as his personal role model; and he admired Avril Harriman. Once installed as Premier in Quebec by the 15 November 1976 provincial elections, Lévesque began to unroll his own policies — for all of Canada. (Which is illegal, as no Proviince has legal power to make law for any other province, let alone the country.)

Lévesque entitled his English-language white paper: “Quebec-Canada: A NEW DEAL…” — a new system which he hoped to impose by distributing to every household in the Province, at taxpayers’ expense, of course, a copy of it containing a yellow-journalistic tabloid “history” of Quebec’s misfortunes in Canada as the basis for rejecting Confederation for his own Roosevelt-style “NEW DEAL”.

[FN2] William Z. Foster, in Toward Soviet America (1932), makes these claims precisely. That it was “socialism” that had allowed the Soviet Union to work miracles.

[FN3] “that a socialist planned society cannot advance technologically by itself” — If that is true, could it be one reason why “sustainable development” has been invented: because we are being forced into a backwards society that cannot advance any more of its own momentum, so the “environment” becomes the excuse to freeze and even roll back development?

KM/NoSnow

– 30 –

/

Publication Titles by Professor Antony C. Sutton

>> Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development 1917 to 1930, Antony C. Sutton, Hoover Institution Publications

>> Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development 1930 to 1945, Antony C. Sutton, Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University.

>> Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development 1945 to 1965, Antony C. Sutton, Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University.

>> Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Antony C. Sutton.

>> Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, Antony C. Sutton.

>> Wall Street and FDR, Antony C. Sutton.

>> The Best Enemy Money Can Buy, Antony C. Sutton.

>> National Suicide – Military Aid to the Soviet Union, Antony C. Sutton.

>> The Federal Reserve Conspiracy, Antony C. Sutton.

>> Le complot de la Réserve Fédérale, Antony C. Sutton, Editions Nouvelle Terre.

>> Trilaterals Over America, Antony C. Sutton and Patrick M. Wood.

>> America’s Secret Establishment – An Introduction to the Order of Skull and Bones, Antony C. Sutton.

>> How the Order Creates War and Revolution, Antony C. Sutton.

>> How the Order Controls Education, Antony C. Sutton.

>> The War on Gold, Antony C. Sutton.

>> Gold for Survival, by Antony Sutton.

>> Gold vs. Paper, A Cartoon History of Inflation.

>> Energy, The Created Crisis, Antony C. Sutton.

>> Platinum, Antony C. Sutton.

– 30 –