Jagmeet Singh, the NDP, and World Government

Jagmeet Singh is is running for the leadership of the federal New Democratic Party of Canada.  Here’s what is really behind his campaign, and behind the NDP itself, based on research of the facts and history.  (Fuller comment below, after the video transcript.)
 

Love and Courage

“Jagmeet Singh for Prime Minister of Canada”

Jagmeet Singh for Prime Minister of Canada
Research, script, animation, by Kathleen Moore

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT

Hi, My name is Jagmeet Singh, and I’d like to be Prime Minister of Canada.

Our Canada is a beautiful country, and I want to create a Canadian Plan to eliminate inequality and poverty.  A Plan where everyone can participate in the creation and sharing of our wealth.

Here is my Income Security Agenda for Canada.

But first, a little history.

The Basic Guaranteed Income idea has been around in Canada a long time.

In 1970, Senator Davuud Avrum Croll, a Liberal from Moscow, hired four NDP economists to study poverty in Canada.

Sadly, our four far-left economists, from the Waffle, were under surveillance by both the KGB and the RCMP.

Fearing that the Liberal Senator from Moscow would water down the NDP Poverty Report, our economists stole the original research and leaked it.

As a result, there were, in fact, three different publications of the Poverty Report that year, recommending a Guaranteed Basic Income.

First, there was the report called “Poverty in Canada:  Report of the Special Senate Committee on Poverty”, published in November, 1971 by Liberal Senator Croll, from Moscow.

Then, Bob Chodos and Mark Starowicz — both of the 1969 Communist front movement,Operation McGill Français a protest intended to ethnically cleanse English education out of Quebec to enhance the chances of international recognition for Quebec’s “distinct society” after a Yes in a referendum — were now in Ontario, and now running their own magazine, The Last Post.

According to declassified and redacted RCMP surveillance reports, the magazine, The Last Post, was a particular Marxist tactic.

Nonetheless, Chodos and Starowicz published the NDP’s report in a special issue of The Last Post as “The Renegade Report on Poverty” in the summer of 1971.

Our four heroic NDP Waffle economists had their names on it:

Ian Adams, William Cameron, Brian Hill and Peter Penz.

And, really bad luck, Chodos and Starowicz were also under KGB and RCMP surveillance.

In fact, Starowicz was on KGB payroll at the time, selling information on Parliamentarians for the Soviets to open blackmail files.

Finally, Mel Hurtig, of Edmonton, published it.  Today, Mel is a proud signatory to the UNPA Petition for an elected World Government.

Mel is also a proud co-founder of the Council of Canadians.  That’s “Canadian Soviet” in Russian.

The Council of Canadians advocates for public input on the North American Soviet Regional Union, happening now, thanks to NAFTA.

And, by the way, the NDP also takes credit for pushing NAFTA through, against the democratic will of the vast majority of the Canadian public.

By the way, Maude Barlowe, Mel’s co-founder of the Council of Canadians, is another proud signer of the UNPA petition for an elected World Government.

Hurtig published our NDP research under the title, “The Real Poverty Report”.

As you can see, we got our Poverty Report published, our way, and to hell with the Liberals.

But that’s not the end of it.

The NDP and the Parti Québécois, like a pair of cheap hookers, have been working both sides of the political street.

In 1972, eating NDP dust — the Parti Québécois — which is really a Liberal set-up under Pearson17 — published its 1972 manifesto for the party militants.

In its manifesto, the PQ unveiled its own Plan for a Guaranteed Minimum Income.  And its own plan for sovereignty to pull it off!

Why sovereignty?

Because all the powers are needed to restructure the democratic state.

Speaking of Pearson.  Really lucky a lid was kept on the FBI report conveyed to the RCMP in 1951.

A defecting officer of Soviet military intelligence revealed that Lester Pearson, aka “Mike”, was indeed a Soviet agent.

Without his role under wraps, Pearson might never have become Prime Minister in time to begin the post-War restructuring of Canada for the planned World October Revolution warned about by high-ranking KGB defector, Anatoliy Golitsyn.

Frankly, the NDP claims part of the credit for keeping the lid on.

Our man in the Waffle, Ian Adams, co-author of The Real Poverty Report published by Hurtig, later dramatized a failed effort in 1964 by the CIA and the RCMP to expose Pearson as a Soviet agent of influence.

And, lucky again, the RCMP must have mislaid that 1951 FBI letter.

As the PQ knows, Jagmeet’s 4-point plan for Equality and Prosperity can only work in a structured environment called Industrial Democracy.

In 1970, Ed Broadbent, a federal NDP member of Parliament, set the agenda for the New Democratic Party.

As a Praxis conference lecturer, Broadbent said:

“Together with the trade unions, the New Democratic Party should make the creation of a democratic industrial Canada its guiding ideological principle.

This is what the “new” in New Democratic Party should be all about.”

In its 1970 conference proceedings, the Praxis Research Institute named Industrial Democracy the “true heir to Karl Marx“.

However, the NDP has always adhered to Industrial Democracy.

In 1962, as a full member-party of the Socialist International, the NDP is bound to the SI mandate of a socialist world government, and Industrial Democracy.

In 1950, Marshal Tito, who led the resistance to German occupation during World War II and established a communist state after the war, began to develop Industrial Democracy.

What a shame!  The Americans ordered Tito to break up Yugoslavia, under economic sanctions.

Tito really had Industrial Democracy on the roll!

If you elect Jagmeet Singh as Prime Minister of Canada, and put the NDP in federal power, I promise to make Industrial Democracy work for Canada.

The nation-state is out!

The city-state is in!

One local level, one socialist Five-Year Plan, one Guaranteed Basic Income.

It’s not really the gulag.

As long as you have the right attitude, Canada can be a model for the world.

Canada can do Communism right.

And, now for Jagmeet’s Plan for the Bolshevik redistribution of wealth in Canada:

1.  Steal from the rich and give to the poor.

2.  Steal from the rich and give to the poor.

3.  Free gifts for everyone!

4.  Confiscate all private property as property of the collective.

In the spirit of those great socialists of the past:  Robin Hood, Che Guevara, Santa Claus, and yes, Comrade Karl Marx himself, with LOVE, we will have the COURAGE to destroy Canada completely, and start again.

Confederation was a mistake.

World federation will rectify it.

A final note on Praxis.

How unfortunate!  About a month after a journalist wrote some unkind things in the Toronto press, a suspicious fire destroyed Praxis headquarters beyond repair.

An RCMP “red squad” was implicated, but the culprit was never nabbed.

VIDEO CLOSER

My name is Jagmeet Singh.

Vote for me for Prime Minister of Canada.

Love.  And courage.

VIDEO CREDITS

“Jagmeet Singh for Prime Minister of Canada”

PRODUCTION
Research, Script, Animation
By Kathleen Moore

MUSIC
Bicycle Reunited
By Kevin MacLeod

SOUND EFFECTS
Two FLQ Terrorist
Bomb Explosions
From Documentary Footage

RESEARCH
NoSnowInMoscow.
WordPress.com

GENERATED
@ Montreal
During the NDP Federal
Leadership Race
August 2017

– 30 –

 

COMMENTARY

Jagmeet Singh for Prime Minister of Canada!” is a comic exposé of the NDP and the shady red origins of the ‘Guaranteed Basic Income’ idea in Canada.  This video is based on facts, history and documented research.  It’s a caricature of reality.

The NDP is not a ‘left’ party, it is a Communist party devoted to the Yugoslav model of ‘worker control’ or ‘Industrial Democracy’, a form of Communism developed under Marshal Tito in Communist Yugoslavia, which had been a Soviet satellite.  Industrial Democracy has been called ‘the true heir of Karl Marx’.

The form of Communism called Industrial Democracy is also known as ‘worker control’ or ‘worker self-management’.  This is precisely the kind of system planned for Quebec in the 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois!

Industrial Democracy terminates the free-market enterprise system as we know it.  In 1972, the president of the Quebec Employers Council, Mr. Charles Perrault, said that if ever the PQ plan (its 1972 manifesto) were implemented, which is based on Industrial Democracy, it would mean “the Apocalypse of business”.  It would be the end of free enterprise.  In other words, Quebec would become a Communist system.  This is, in fact, what the public was forced to “vote” for in 1980 and again in 1995 in the Quebec “sovereignty” referendums:  COMMUNISM!
 

 

Advertisements

“Singing tomorrows?” or “Grinding tomorrows?” The Soviet Union is not yet Dead (Quebec, 1996)

“The pragmatic basis for a revised US response to ‘perestroika’ is the need to protect and preserve the American system from ‘restructuring’ preparatory to ‘convergence’ with the ‘reformed’ Soviet system, and to save the American people from the blood baths and re-education camps which such ‘conver­gence’ will eventually bring about, of which the West currently has no conception.”

— Anatoliy Golitsyn, writing in his “Post-script, the long-range deception strategy”, in The Perestroika DeceptionThe World’s Slide Towards the Second October Revolution (1995), p. 209

 
I have just found a document from 1996, the title of which strongly suggests that the 1995 Quebec referendum to “secede” (i.e., force all of Canada to “negotiate” a regional union) just missed the Soviet boat.

I’ve written this article in the order in which known information came to mind, topped off with the final research toward the end, which confirmed my intuition.

Had there really been a Cold War …

had there really been a post -Cold War …

had the Soviet Union indeed “collapsed” …

were Perestroika and democratisation of the USSR genuine …

then why would the Quebec Left in 1996 associate the very object of the 1995 Quebec referendum to “secede” with an ultimate triumph of the old Soviet Union?

I think the Left slipped up in a major way when certain exponents of it conferred a particular book title on a collection of essays on the 1995 Quebec referendum.

That book title inadvertently exposed the fact that Quebec’s referendums to “secede”, led by the veiled Communist Parti Québécois, are a Soviet tactic for restructuring Canada and North America.

The Soviet Union therefore necessarily did not “collapse”.

KGB defector, Anatoliy Golitsyn, in his 1995 book The Perestroika Deception, points out that the USSR undertook a superficial or “cosmetic” transformation to facilitate its own “convergence” with a “restructured” West.

After years of historical and constitutional research, it is my view that the Quebec referendums are undoubtedly one tool of that restructuring.

Middle-class French-Canadians unknowingly wave North American Union banners during 1995 Quebec “secession” rally.

Middle-class French-Canadians unknowingly wave North American Union banners during 1995 Quebec “secession” rally.

Moreover, as basic investigation will indicate — from the 1964 video footage of Communist Lévesque sweeping his arm across a map of Canada calling for its “profound” “restructuring”, to the questions on the 1980 and 1995 referendum ballots — the real goal is not for Quebec to become “sovereign”.

The goal is for Quebec to use a threat of dismantling Canada by secession, to force the “rest of Canada” to negotiate its complete restructuring to match whatever then-current stage of development is found in the European region.

In 1980, that stage was the European Economic Community (EEC). In 1995, it was the European Union (EU). Whatever the stage, for the clear purpose of deception, the desired restructuring is always called: “Canadian unity“.

René Lévesque, in English-language video footage, declares that the powers gained by Quebec in “seceding” will eventually be relinquished to unidentified recipients. These can only be regional authorities, municipal authorities and world government in a world state where nations have ceased to exist, and only cities and regions are on the signposts.

The title of the 1996 anthology in which Communists lament the 1995 Quebec Referendum loss is this:

Le goût du Québec.
L’après référendum 1995.
Des lendemains qui grincent…
ou qui chantent?

The title translates as follows:

The Taste of Quebec.
After the 1995 Referendum.
Singing tomorrows…
or grinding tomorrows?

The book (hereafter, “Lendemains“) (published at Montreal in 1996 by Les Éditions Hurtubise HMH, ltée, 260 pages) is divided into two sections of articles, one under the title “Des lendemains qui grincent…” (Grinding tomorrows?) and the other under the title: “Des lendemains qui chantent?” (Singing tomorrows?)

Le goût du Québec. L’après référendum 1995. Des lendemains qui grincent… ou qui chantent?

Le goût du Québec. L’après référendum 1995. Des lendemains qui grincent… ou qui chantent?


The part entitled “Des lendemains qui grincent” (“Grinding tomorrows”), has been written under a single name, the pseudonym “Jean du Pays“. “Jean du Pays” is a French pun on the title of a famous French-Canadian patriotic song, “Gens du pays” by Gilles Vigneault with music co-written by Gaston Rochon, and first performed by Vigneault on June 24, 1975.

In contrast to “Des lendemains qui grincent“, we have a cluster of authors unified under the necessarily (as we shall see) militant Red theme of “Singing tomorrows” — “Des lendemains qui chantent“, the ultimate triumph of the apparently not really reformed Soviet Union.

We have Myra Cree, Henry Mintzberg, Julien Bauer, Peter G. White, Claude Corbo, René Boudreault, Marco Micone, James O’Reilly, Robin Philpot, Bernard Cleary, Joseph Rabinovitch, Louis Cornellier, Isabelle Guinard, and Naïm Kattan, with Philippe Resnick in annex and labor commissioner, Marc Brière (aka the class-conscious Marxist “judge”) doing a post-script. A veritable “multicultural” plea for a new, essentially “territorial” common “nation” and new “people-hood” in order to re-engineer the vote next  time for the desired outcome.

The expression, “singing tomorrows” is a well known paean to the eventual triumph of the Soviet Union, as will be more clear further below.

The editor of the volume, an anthology published in 1996, is Marc Brière. Brière, born in 1929, calls himself an “Attorney, judge and Québécois essayist” (“Avocat, juge et essayiste québécois). (He is actually not a judge, but a commissioner of an administrative board. Who says Marxists are not class-conscious?)

Brière, who claims credit for the idea of the post-referendum anthology, calls himself a “member of Cité Libre“, the magazine founded by card-carrying Communist Gérard Pelletier and his pro-Soviet friend Pierre Elliott Trudeau. (“Lendemains” p. 257) Here is the full statement:

FRENCH ORIGINAL:

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

Ancien élève du collège Stanislas de Montréal, il [Brière] passa deux ans à l’école navale de Royal Roads, en Colombie britannique, et devint officier de la Marine Royale du Canada, pour entreprendre ensuite des études de droit aux universités de Montréal et de Paris. Membre de Cité libre et de la Fédération libérale du Québec, il participa activement à la Révolution tranquille aux côtés de Paul Gérin-Lajoie et de René Lévesque. Il contribua à la fondation du Mouvement souveraineté-association, en 1967, puis à celle du Parti québécois. Robert Bourassa le nomma au Tribunal du travail en 1975.

A former student of Stanislas College in Montreal, he [Brière] spent two years at the Royal Roads naval college in British Columbia, and became a Royal naval officer of Canada, to then take up the study of law at the universities of Montreal and Paris. A member of Cité libre and the Liberal Federation of Quebec, he took an active part in the Quiet Revolution at the side of Paul Gérin-Lajoie and René Lévesque. He contributed to the founding of the Mouvement souveraineté-association in 1967, and to that of the Parti Québécois. Robert Bourassa appointed him to the Labor Board in 1975.

So, Brière has a personal interest and investment to vindicate in this book. He is a founding member of the MSA which was organized to become the veiled Communist PQ. He is a “member” of Cité libre  run by and for the goals of Communists in Canada. He is thus close to secret committee men from Cité libre who ordered the Parti Québécois  to be set up in the first place. He helped to set it up by contributing to the founding of the MSA which led to it. Brière then worked for the Parti Québécois  for four years “in government”. Brière is thus an insider. His 1996 book is necessarily a Communist tactic. He even got himself a little military training at the expense of Canada; and so he was possibly in a command chain at the time of the 1995 referendum. The implications of his book’s title, discussed below, should be taken seriously.

Alan Stang in “CANADA” (April 1971) identified Cité Libre as harboring Communists. Robert Rumilly (The Leftist Infiltration in French Canada, 1956 / L’Infiltration Gau­chiste au Canada Français) identified Cité Libre as the self-described “little sister” of Esprit, a crypto-Communist magazine in France founded in October 1931. Esprit’s  first issue featured a favorable travel journal of a voyage behind the Iron Curtain.

We later find the principal figures of Esprit linked to UNESCO at the founding of the UN. You can search the UNESCO web site today for the names of Emmanuel Mounier and Jacques Maritaine, both leading lights of the crypto-Communist Esprit.

(For stunning information on the Communist nature of the UN’s origins, G. Edward Griffin has narrated a superb exposé entitled The Subversion Factor. It is absolutely essential viewing. If you have never looked into Communism, this is the one film you must see. If you are familiar with Communism but haven’t seen it, you need to see it.)

With Marc Brière, we are thus firmly on territory of the far left associated by “former” Marxist-Leninist leader, Jean-François Lisée,* with Power Corporation of Canada, whose “secret committee” of Communist-infested “Liberals” in the federal cabinet of Soviet agent and (de facto) prime minister, Lester Bowles (aka “Mike”) Pearson, appointed René Lévesque to set up the “separatist” Parti Québécois and the referendums.

However, the Parti Québécois is a veiled Communist party, according to the terms of its own 1972 manifesto, which proposed a totalitarian government to run the economy, centralized production, the virtual obliteration of private business, and a self-managed work-force, all on the model of what Charles Perrault, then of the Conseil du patronat (Quebec Employers Council) and Narciso Pizarro, a Marxist socialist, both identified as the kind found in “socialist countries” such as Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Poland.

Given the title of this 1996 post-referendum book of Brière’s, “Singing tomorrows”, one may reasonably infer that not only has the purpose of the Parti Québécois not changed since 1972, but in some as yet unknown way, it is a direct creation of the Soviet agenda for the overthrow of North America. In a future post, I will explain the links discovered between international covert intelligence operations, the “secret committee” of Power Corporation, UNESCO, the creation of the Parti Québécois, and North American Union.

All this merely underscores the interpretation to be made of the book’s French title, explained in detail below, as implying that the failure of the 1995 referendum narrowly averted a Soviet overthrow of Canada.

Thus, the clear allusion in the title, in effect the banner under which the small host of writers has come to collaborate, is that the failure of the 1995 Quebec referendum was a near-miss to a Soviet takeover.

Moreover, the authors are writing in 1995-1996, well past the alleged “collapse of the Soviet Union” at the hands of Mr. Glasnost, or Mr. Perestroika, as you will, Mikhail Gorbachev.

“Collapse” Backup @ Calameo: http://en.calameo.com/read/00011179071a3fc0eb0c5

Keep in mind the name of KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn and his important books, New Lies for Old and The Perestroika Deception, in which Golitsyn only feigned “collapse” as a tactic in its “long-term strategy”.

Anatoliy Golitsyn was born in the Ukraine in 1926. He became a member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union at the age of nineteen, when he also joined the KGB. In 1959, he graduated with a law degree from a four-year course at the KGB Institute in Moscow. He “graduated from the Moscow School of Military Counter-espionage, the counterintelligence faculty of the High Intelligence School, and the University of Marxism-Leninism” according to his profile in the foreword to his 1995 book (paperback 1997), The Perestroika Deception.

From 1959 to 1960, Golitsyn served as a senior analyst in the NATO section of the Information Department of the Soviet intelligence service. He repeatedly served in Vienna and Helsinki on counterintelligence assignments.

He defected to the USA in (1961??)

According to the late Christopher Story, who edited The Perestroika Deception, the book

“reveals how the largely unseen Soviet collective lead­ership, borrowing the mind-control ideas of Gramsci, implemented their long-pre­pared shift from Lenin’s ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ to his ‘state of the whole people’, the primary characteristic of which is a theatrical display of ‘democratism’ designed to convince the West that a decisive ‘Break with the Past has taken place, in order to encourage Western Governments to abandon caution and to embark upon an open-ended programme of collaboration with the ‘former’ Soviet Bloc.”

In the chapter entitled, “The Fourth Key: Lenin’s ‘Forging of New and Old Forms’ for Developing Socialism, and Chicherin’s idea of False Representative Institutions through the Admission of Non-Communists (p. 86), Golitsyn writes:

One key to understanding this basis lies in Lenin’s advice to Communist Parties ‘to study, to search for, to find and to grasp the one particular powerful, specifically national tactic which will solve our international task… until the final victory of Communism’. All parties, advised Lenin, must rid themselves of the radical phrase­ology of the Left Wing. They must be ready to use a variety of tactics, old and new, legal and illegal. ‘International Communism’, he went on, ‘must subordinate to itself not only new, but old forms too — not simply to reconcile the new with the old, but to forge all forms, new and old, into a single weapon which will bring full, complete and decisive victory for Communism’. Following Lenin’s advice, the Soviet strat­egists and Arbatov’s Institute for the Study of the USA and Canada have studied Western democracy, its political processes and its media. …

“It is also likely”, Golitsyn says:

“that prominent agents of influence in the West with knowl­edge of American conditions will have suggested that, to conquer the United States, Communism would have to be Americanised and dressed in ‘democratic’ garb.”

Given the title of Marc Brière’s 1996 socialist lament for the failure of the 1995 Quebec referendum (no “singing tomorrows”), then mutatis mutandis, I would ask, is Arbatov’s Institute for the Study of the USA and Canada involved in “Canadianising” Communism and dressing it up in the ‘democratic garb’ of Quebec referendums under the Communist-infested Parti Québécois which is a “false representative institution”? The referendums to “secede” (translation: to force the rest of Canada to “negotiate” the new regional system unfolding in Europe) are not only unconstitutional, they are forbidden by it.

I can explain this quickly in a way that Americans in particular will understand, because they understand the political and legal purposes of their own constitutional division of powers. I am referring to the distribution of legislative and political power between the federal and State levels. In America, the central or federal government has “enumerated” powers, a legal term meaning that its hands are tied; it can do only those things on the list of powers that constitutionally it is given to do.

In Canada, the reverse is true. The “state” or provincial powers are enumerated, with a small “general” or “residual” power confined to “local purposes” only. (See Section 92 of the British North America Act, 1867 — still the only lawful Constitution for Canada.)

As a result of this Canadian division of powers, a province literally has no power to take any steps outside the list, including holding referendums to “secede”; or drafting “laws” with preambles containing a unilateral declaration of independence, etc. There is no power on the list under which it can be done.

The Canadian division of powers was designed specifically to prevent them doing it. A province has no power to “secede”, and therefore no power to take a step in that direction, intended to facilitate “seceding”.

The 1998 opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada pretending the constitution (the current one, part of a coup d’etat imposed by Trudeau in 1982, with much of the language of the 1867 original) is “silent on the ability of a province to secede”. They lied. They ignored the division of powers deliberately, as well as every other feature designed to deny a provincial power to secede, or a federal power to annex Canada… to the USA or (ejusdem generis rule) into a regional union.

Therefore, since the time of the secret committee of Power Corporation (circa 1967), the referendums to “secede” — recommended by Trudeau and his Communist friends to René Lévesque — are entirely outside the lawful Constitution. They are unconstitutional and void. This is more clear from the words of the Hon. Justice John Wellington Gwynne of the Supreme Court of Canada (in better days), writing in Citizens’ and The Queen Insurance Cos. v. Parsons, (1880), 4 S.C.R. 215, pp. 347-348:

“To enjoy the supremacy so conferred by the B.N.A Act, these local legislatures must be careful to confine the assumption of exercise of the powers so conferred upon them, to the particular subjects expressly placed under their jurisdiction […]”

“True it may be, that the Acts of the local legislatures affecting the particularly enumerated subjects placed by the B.N.A. Act under their exclusive control, if not disallowed by the Dominion Government, are supreme in the sense that they cannot be called in question in any court, but this supremacy is attributable solely to the authority of the B.N.A. Act, which has placed those subjects under the exclusive control of the local legislatures, and is not, in any respect, enjoyed as an incident to national sovereignty.”

There is no power in the lawful Constitution for a Province to “secede” or to do anything “in relation to” (legal term) seceding. The provincial powers reserved to a Province in Canada are enumerated, i.e., confined to the list of constitutional subject matters. A Province can do nothing that is “in relation to” “secession”, which includes conducting referendums “in relation to” “seceding”.

Gilles Duceppe (“former” Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) of the veiled Communist Bloc Québécois (at the federal level) has suggested that Quebec has a parliamentary “privilege” to conduct the referendums and to ask the public any question it pleases. This is untrue. Parliamentary privilege is confined to the exercise of existing legal powers essential to the conduct by the Legislature of its affairs as such a Legislature. There is no “parliamentary privilege” to act as a putsch, or in any way outside the existing legal powers of a Province. Privilege ceases to exist when the Legislature clearly shows by deliberate unconstitutional behavior that it is not acting as a Legislature, but as the perpetrator of a coup: i.e., as a usurper.

Further, Provincial powers are confined to their local territory. No Province can take any action which substantially affects any other Province or all of Canada. In other words, a Province has no such “extra-territorial” power. Therefore, referendums in Quebec as a pretext to “negotiate” the restructuring of all of Canada are fundamentally extra-territorial in character (legal term), and therefore unconstitutional.

Trudeau, a constitutional lawyer, and a law professor, knew that a Province has no power to “secede”. He thus used a ploy to conceal the illegality: he tabled a federal Bill  to conduct a Canada-wide referendum on “national unity”, while declaring that the referendum might be done instead only in Quebec (under his Communist friend, Lévesque). The federal Bill was never passed (which saved it from judicial review and thus from exposure as unlawful: — the federal government, also, has no constitutional power to dismantle Canada). But the public fell for it: the illegal Quebec referendums have proceeded since that time on a blind assumption derived from Trudeau’s unlawful public statement.

The entire operation is an exercise in mass mind-control, which depends in turn upon media control. The latter has been achieved, for example, through creation of the State-controlled CBC-Radio Canada which underpins the sedition, subversion and propaganda of the Left, wrongly conveying these to the public as normal events; while planting fifth-columnists (such as Rhodes Scholar Rex Murphy and Bilderberger Peter Mansbridge) in editorial news positions to help engineer public compliance with illegality until Canada is done and disposed of.

It can be no coincidence that Pearson retired suddenly while in office, the same year the secret committee decided to create the veiled Communist Parti Québécois  (PQ). Pearson’s retirement allowed Trudeau to rise from  that secret committee to the Prime Minister’s Office, precisely in time to seem to “fight” “Lévesque’s” new “separatist” party to “save” Canadian “unity” by “negotiating” the European system to replace Confederation. The very system Mikhail Gorbachev has called “the New European Soviet”.

The Parti Québécois  which is running these referendums therefore certainly fits the label of a “false representative institution”. The Soviet ploy for convergence thus obviously includes not only the creation of false (merely cosmetic) “democratic” agencies in Communist countries to encourage convergence, but the concocting of false “political” parties and other “dummy” entities in target countries to guide their dismantling, ostensibly by their own citizens under the guise of “democratic” procedure.

Now, let me get back to the sinister title of Brière’s 1996 anthology.

I am reading that anthology now. So far, its appearance immediately after the failed 1995 referendum seems to be an aggressive tactic to keep the “secession” ball in the air.

However, I will not discuss the various articles in the book right now. I will stick to the title of the book, which is fundamental. In particular since it also serves to divide the book into two sections, “Singing tomorrows” (implied Soviet victory) and “Grinding tomorrows” (misery until the day of victory).

I would not have recognized the allusion to ultimate Soviet victory in the title of the 1996 book on the 1995 Quebec referendum, but for Alan Stang.

Jean-Louis Gagnon at the Microphone

Jean-Louis Gagnon at the Microphone

The 1971 offprint by American Opinion of Stang’s CANADA How The Communists Took Control features a reproduction at p. 14 of a telegram sent by a known Soviet agent (exposed by Igor Gouzenko): one Jean-Louis Gagnon. Gagnon used the expression “singing tomorrows” in connection with an eventual triumph of “the great Soviet Union”.

Remarking on Gouzenko’s naming of Gagnon (among many other agents in Canada for Soviet espionage), Alan Stang says:

“The papers brought by Igor Gouzenko to the Canadians from the Soviet Embassy in Ottawa revealed that it was Jean-Louis Gagnon who had supplied Soviet Colonel Zabotin with the information that the exact date of D-Day was June 6, 1944.”

D-Day was the date of the Allied landing in France, in World War II.

To enhance that picture, anticommunist author Eric D. Butler (an Australian) wrote as follows in his important article “The Real Communist Menace”:

“Colonel Zabotin, for whom Gouzenko worked, and who figures prominently in the [Canadian] Commissioner’s Report, suddenly departed from Ottawa in December, 1945, without notifying the Canadian authorities, to whom he was accredited. He sailed from New York in a Soviet ship which left secretly at night without complying with port regulations. Just after the publication of the Canadian Report, a newspaper item said that Colonel Zabotin “died from heart failure four days after his return to Russia from Canada.”

Source url: http://en.calameo.com/books/00011179074d7854a29cc
The Real Communist Menace

In his 1982 article, “Inside the ‘Featherbed File’? Canada’s Watergate — The story of treason in Ottawa”, former RCMP undercover agent, Patrick Walsh, further describes the fact that Jean-Louis Gagnon was a member of Soviet spy rings operating in Canada exposed by Igor Gouzenko:

“The almost incredible story of Soviet penetration into the Canadian civil service has never been written, with the exception of the Gouzenko expose of the ’40s which uncovered one branch of Soviet spying: the GRU military intelligence network masterminded by Col. Zabotin. However, the Royal Commission Report dealing with Soviet espionage in the ’40s revealed that other Soviet spies active in the External Affairs Department had either fled the country (Jean-Louis Gagnon fled to Brazil, with the cooperation of Mitchell Sharp, then a director of Brazilian Traction Corporation) or could not be positively identified because only their code names were known.”

Mitchell Sharp deserves further mention. Sharp — who helped to protect the Soviet infiltration of Canada that Gouzenko had begun to expose — would become a future Trudeau advisor, and a future member of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission.

Sharp is seen here whispering in Trudeau’s ear at the Liberal convention which elects Trudeau as de facto Prime Minister (Alan Stang has generally described this event in his chapter “The Big Switch”).

Mitchell Sharp whispering in the ear of Pierre Elliott Trudeau at the 1967 Liberal Leadership Convention

Mitchell Sharp whispering in the ear of Pierre Elliott Trudeau at the 1967 Liberal Leadership Convention

The Rockefellers’ Chase Manhattan was among those banks (Kuehn Loeb of the Warburgs was another) which deliberately and consciously financed the 1917 Bolshevik revolution.

That so-called “revolution” was in fact the aggressive invasion of Russia by radical Communists. The so-called “revolution” resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of innocents, mostly Christian Russians. It created the most brutal tyranny the world has ever seen, whose butchers have never been brought to justice despite the alleged “fall” of the now “former” Soviet Union.

Mitchell Sharp is thus an associate of these same Rockefellers and their Trilateral Commission, whose literature, by the way, includes an article by Peter Sutherland in which he extols the French crypto-communists of Esprit as “Catholic socialists”. The mire expands. Esprit is linked to Trudeau’s Cité libre, to UNESCO (arm of the UNO as world government), and to the Trilateral Commission.)

After a “cooling off” period, Jean-Louis Gagnon returned from Brazil only to be employed by the federal government of Canada! Most notably, he found protection with “pilgrim of Moscow” Pierre Elliott Trudeau, as Quebec historian Rumilly calls him.

Stang points out that Gagnon’s telegram, sent from Washington to a Communist May-day rally in Montreal on May 1st, 1946 conveys the adoration of Gagnon for “the great Soviet Union”.

Here is the English translation published by Alan Stang along with the French telegram in the John Birch Society’s offprint of Stang’s April 1st, 1971 “CANADA” article in American Opinion:

“On this first post-war victorious May Day we
can foresee the victory of the working
class STOP Fraternal greetings to all trade
union leaders STOP Let us go forward to Peace STOP
Long live the glorious Soviet Union STOP Long live
singing tomorrows
STOP”

Stang was not alone in publishing a copy of the telegram. In the same month of April, 1971, the journal Straight Talk! of the Edmund Burke Society (EBS) (based in Scarborough, Ontario), also featured an image of the telegram. Its unsigned article said that Jean-Louis Gagnon had been “a member of the Communist Party” at the time he sent the telegram to a Communist May Day rally.

Telegram sent by Soviet agent and Communist Party member Jean-Louis Gagnon to a Montreal Communist May-Day Rally on May 1st, 1946: “Singing Tomorrows” (“les lendemains qui chantent“), published in the April 1971 issue of Straight Talk!, journal of The Edmund Burke Society (EBS); and by the John Birch Society in the April 1971 article in American Opinion by Alan Stang entitled “CANADA How The Communists Took Control”.

 
Here is my transcript of the original French telegram:

“Ce premier mai victorieuse d’après-guerre laisse
prévoir l’avènement de la victoire [de la] classe
ouvrière STOP Saluts fraternels aux chefs
unionistes STOP En avant pour la paix STOP Vive
la grande Union soviétique STOP Vive les
lendemains qui chantent
STOP.”

 

Militant Communist origin of the term
les lendemains qui chantent“.

The phrase “les lendemains qui chantent” originates in a 1937 “song of the Left” entitled “Jeunesse” (Youth) with lyrics by Paul Vaillant-Couturier, and music by Arthur Honegger. It appears, in the singular, in the last line of the first six-line stanza of the song, which celebrates the history of Communism while anticipating its ultimate triumph. That ultimate triumph is embodied in the last line of the first verse, which reads:

“Nous bâtirons un lendemain qui chante
(We will build a singing tomorrow)
 

Here’s the first stanza:

FRENCH ORIGINAL:

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

JEUNESSE
Paroles de Paul Vaillant-Couturier
Musique d’Arthur Honegger – 1937

YOUTH
Lyrics by Paul Vaillant-Couturier
Music by Arthur Honegger – 1937

Nous sommes la jeunesse ardente
Qui vient escalader le ciel
Dans un cortège fraternel
Unissons nos mains frémissantes
Sachons protéger notre pain
Nous bâtirons un lendemain qui chante

We are the passionate youth
Who come to scale the heights
In fraternal procession
Unite our trembling hands
We know the way to defend our bread
We will build a singing tomorrow

Source: “Les chansons de GaucheCentenaire du Parti socialiste (1905-2005)

Backup @ Calameo: http://en.calameo.com/read/00011179026db4b7638cd

The explanation provided in the footer to the song at the web site of the Parti socialiste, in the section “Centenaire du Parti socialiste” (Centenary of the Socialist Party) describes the fifth and final stanza of the same song as an allusion to the Communist war-cry of the French Front. The French Front was the enlargement of the Front Populaire (Popular Front) to include Catholics and former members of the “Croix de Feu” (Cross of Fire).

The theme of “we will build a singing tomorrow” is taken up again by the militant Communist, Gabriel Péri, in his final letter, before being executed at Mount Valérien in December 1941: “je meurs pour des lendemains qui chantent” (“I die for singing tomorrows”).

Péri’s 59-page autobiographical letter was published posthumously in Paris in 1947 by Éditions sociales under the title, Les lendemains qui chantent. This was one year after Soviet agent Jean-Louis Gagnon’s May 1st telegram to the Communist May-Day rally in 1946.

However, the phrase was already current from Paul Vaillant-Couturier’s Communist battle hymn of 1937, Jeunesse.

See: SearchWorks catalog at Stanford University Libraries.
Les Lendemains qui chantent : autobiographie, Péri, Gabriel, 1902-1941. Paris : Éditions sociales, 1947.

Backup @ Calameo: http://en.calameo.com/read/00011179040bc00a0b84f

Paul Vaillant-Couturier (1892-1937) was a journalist, writer, member of the French parliament, and editor-in-Chief of the Communist review, l’Humanité.
 

Conclusion:

To sum up, the very title of this 1996 anthology — “Le goût du Québec. L’après référendum 1995. Des lendemains qui grincent… ou qui chantent?” — by a raft of socialists lamenting the 1995 Quebec referendum loss, appears to imply that the Left expected a Soviet conquest of Canada in 1995 by means of the ballot box.

International state recognition of Quebec and the other dismantled Provinces would have conferred a “treaty power” so that all might sign “treaties of accession to the European system”. A system that Mikhail Gorbachev has called “the new European Soviet”.

The phrase “les lendemains qui chantent” in the title of the 1996 book therefore suggests that Jean-Louis Gagnon’s “great Soviet Union” indeed has not collapsed: the Quebec referendums are a “specifically national tactic” — a part of its “Long Term Strategy” for complete Communist conquest.

Anatoliy Golitsyn warned in his books New Lies For Old, and The Perestroika Deception, that the Soviet Union did not collapse. It went “underground” in execution of a long-range strategy of “convergence” with and “restructuring” of Western countries.

The Quebec referendums under the Parti Québécois in 1980 and in 1995 were attempts to fundamentally restructure all of Canada for Communism. The referendums (for both political dismantling and horizontal east-west restructuring on the heels of socialist policies), are interspersed with “trade deals” for vertical north-south integration, restructuring and convergence.

The so-called “trade deals” are a pretext for the vertical integration of Canada, USA and Mexico into a Communist regional union.

So far, the power centers of the existing nation-state framework — although controlled from without — remain within their original countries. It is absolutely essential to recover constitutional control of these power centers — our national governments — before they are used to dismantle us. It may or may not be possible to do this politically; but it must be done, legally.

It is vital to launch constitutional challenges to unconstitutional action and to hammer our respective rogue governments with a torrent of constitutional lawsuits. The people must not be presumed to accept or to obey our unconstitutional regimes. Above all, we must not allow ourselves to be manipulated into cooperating or even seeming to cooperate with our nations’ demise. The international community views non-revolt as passive compliance.

A Final Closing Note

Looking over the list of writers who contributed to the 1996 anthology, most are not yet familiar to me. However, a couple stand out.

Peter G. White is President of the Canadian branch of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the world-government crowd, i.e., the Canadian Institute of International Affairs (CIIA) now called Canadian International Institute (CIC) and simply “Open Canada”. The CIC named billionaire Communism-promoter, George Soros, “Globalist of the Year” in 2010.

White is also Vice-president of the phony Council for Canadian Unity, which keeps the “secession” ball up in the air so Quebec can be used to dissolve what remains of the constitution of Canada for regional “union”, that being the real meaning of “unity”.

Also at the time of publishing the 1996 book, White is an associate of Conrad Black and is President and administrator of the Quebec branch of Black’s Hollinger Inc., which owns a slew of French-language Quebec daily newspapers, including Le Droit in Ottawa-Hull. Le Droit is known to have been involved in manipulating political affairs in Ontario linked to the 1998 Supreme Court of Canada “Quebec secession” Reference. (Well, it’s known to me, anyway, in addition to being known to the “secession” conspirators; I’ve done my homework. The case in question is Lalonde v. Ontario (Commission de restructuration des services de santé), 2001 CanLII 21164 (ON C.A.) [56 O.R. (3d) 577].

In addition, White was sitting on the Boards of Directors of Téléglobe, Télésystème Inc., and Southam Inc., all bastions of communications and media control. Through the CIIA and Southam, White is therefore linked to Power Corporation of Canada, which sits on the Board and Senate of the CIIA (world government), and which purchased the money-losing Southam chain of newspapers in 1994. Power Corp. thus acquired control of Quebec’s one and only English-language daily newspaper, The Montreal Gazette, the year before the 1995 Quebec referendum subject of the 1996 anthology.

Power Corp. appointed a new publisher, Michael Goldbloom to run The Gazette. Goldbloom, along with other Gazette figures including Editor, Sheila Fraser, published signed editorials urging English-speaking Canadians in Quebec to vote “Yes” in the upcoming 1995 referendum. Fraser was later appointed to Canada’s Senate where she led a Senate committee to unlawfully adopt the 1998 Secession opinion of the non-judicial advisory board of the Supreme Court of Canada as the so-called “Clarity Act”, a federal “law” purporting to authorize Quebec “secession”.

White moreover was principal Secretary to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney (Mr. NAFTA, i.e. Mr. Continental Union) from 1983 to 1986. From 1986 to 1988 White was chairman of Domgroup Ltd. and editor of Saturday Night Magazine: more media control.

White is linked to Maurice Sauvé, who sat on the secret committee of socialist-infested “Liberals” at Power Corporation of Canada. That secret committee of mostly Ministers from Quebec in the federal cabinet of Soviet agent Lester Bowles Pearson instructed Communist René Lévesque to create and lead the Parti Québécois (PQ) in 1967. The PQ ran both Quebec referendums to “secede” in 1995 and 1980. The PQ’s political manifesto is Communist; that’s the one I’ve been translating. Look for it in the sidebar: Quand nous serons vraiment chez nous.

Charles Taylor is a Rhodes Scholar with a PhD in philosophy from Oxford; and is President of the Quebec Section of the New Democratic Party (NDP), as well as leftist “guru” to the late Jack Layton, the former leader of Canada’s federal NDP, which is a full member of the Socialist International (SI) and signed up to world government. The NDP’s party constitution intends to abolish private property.

In the back of the 1996 anthology, Taylor is declared to be a “world recognized authority”, having published, amongst others, Explanation of Behaviour  (1964), Pattern of Politics  (1970), Hegel  (1975), Hegel and Modern Society  (1979), Philosophical Papers  (1985), Sources of the Self  (1989), and The Malaise of Modernity  (1991). Taylor is a member of the Royal Society of Canada and of the British Academy. As a Rhodes Scholar, he himself is undoubtedly one of the chief causes of the “malaise of modernity”.

Charles Taylor is perhaps best known in Quebec for his cheer-leading of the French Canadians in an attempt to destroy their racial and cultural homogeneity through a process of endless “reasonable accommodation” of the 200+ cultures of incoming mass-immigrated foreign races imported for the purpose of anti-national unconstitutional “multiculturalism”…. apparently the intended format of the upcoming multicultural regional North American Union.

______
* Lisée is counted among “former” “(translation:) leaders of Marxist-Leninist organizations in the 1970s, who joined the upper spheres of the bourgeois political class after having atoned for their “crimes” and expressed their repentance”. That quote is from issue No. 71 (20-11-2005) of the Drapeau Rouge Express (Red Flag Express), the online journal of the Parti Communiste Revolutionnaire (Revolutionary Communist Party). Also see the book: Ils voulaient changer le monde. Le militantisme Marxiste-Léniniste au Québec (They wanted to change the world. Marxist-Leninist militancy in Quebec) by sociologist, Jean-Philippe Warren. Lisée himself addresses the history in that book during a radio broadcast by the French-language CBC (Radio-Canada) entitled “Le marxisme-léninisme, une utopie?” aired on Monday, October 22nd, 2007. The thing is, Lisée is not a “former” Marxist-Leninist. He’s doing the regional union now, under protection of the so-called “bourgeoisie”, the super-capitalists. Lisée crafted the strategy for the 1995 Quebec referendum and wrote the question on the ballot.

In a review of the Warren book at http://www.revueargument.ca (Vol. 11, No. 1, Autumn 08 — Winter 09), both Lisée and Gilles Duceppe are introduced as coming from the “extreme left”: “… But as long as one is satisfied to grasp the adventure of the extreme-left by its most delirious and most disastrous end […] one will not be able to understand the reasons which led a number of educated and politicized young people — today occupying eminent positions in the media, the universities and the political parties (Jean-François Lisée, Gilles Duceppe, Robert Comeau, Alain Saulnier) — to give body and soul to the construction of a communist society from coast to coast.”

We are supposed to believe that these “former” Marxist-Leninists “repented” of their “crimes” and joined the “Establishment” in politics. I think that is as much of a myth as the Cold War and the fall of Communism. These men are conducting their revolution, right now, under protection of the so-called “bourgeoisie”, the bankers and the supercapitalists, without whose money the first Bolshevik Revolution could not have been done.

The Communist revolution is underway. They are replacing our populations with mass immigration, they are changing the form of government, eliminating international borders, they are forming the regional unions. Everything they are doing now in Establishment “politics” is what the Marxist-Leninists always wanted to do. Could it be that the Establishment has fooled the Marxist-Leninists? Or have the Marxist-Leninists fooled the Establishment?

1972: Peter Worthington Accompanies Igor Gouzenko to British Intelligence

Foreword:

On the evening of September 5, 1945 Igor Gouzenko, a cipher clerk for the military attaché, Colonel Nikolai Zabotin of the Soviet embassy in Ottawa, left the embassy carrying a number of secret documents. Gouzenko tried to give the documents to the Ottawa Journal and to the Minister of Justice, Louis St. Laurent. Both turned him away.

On February 5, 1946, Prime Minister MacKenzie King informed his Cabinet about the Gouzenko case. Ten days later, after the first arrests were made, King informed Canadians of the creation of the Royal Commission to Investigate the Facts Relating to and the Circumstances Surrounding the Communication, by Public Officials and Other Persons in Positions of Trust of Secret and Confidential Information to Agents of a Foreign Power.

Gouzenko exposed Joseph Stalin’s efforts to steal nuclear secrets, and the technique of planting sleeper agents. The “Gouzenko Affair” is often credited as a triggering event of the Cold War.

The evidence provided by Gouzenko led to the arrest of 39 suspects; 18 of whom were eventually convicted of a variety of offences.

Among those convicted was Fred Rose (born Fred Rosenberg) (December 7, 1907 – March 16, 1983), the first, and the only known member of the Communist Party — at that time called the Labour-Progressive Party — to be elected to the House of Commons of Canada. Rose is also the only Member of the Canadian Parliament ever convicted of spying for a foreign country.

As a Member of Parliament, Rose proposed the first anti-hate legislation, (i.e., the criminalization of emotions through state-imposed mind control).

Also convicted in the wake of the Gouzenko disclosures were Sam Carr, the Communist Party’s national organizer; and scientist Raymond Boyer.

In the March 1963 edition of Cité Libre, a French-language, pro-Communist magazine run by Communists Gérard Pelletier and Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Boyer is listed not merely as a contributor, but as a “Collaborator”:

[calameo code=000111790b6ca30b8eea9 width=300 height=194]

Other participating Reds of Cité Libre include Stanley B. Ryerson, principal theoretician of the Communist Party and editor of Marxist Review; and Pierre Gélinas, Quebec director of AGIT-PROP (Agitation and Propaganda) for the Communist Party.

[At left below (not speaking metaphorically) Igor Gouzenko with and without the white hood he wore for anonymity]

 
__________

Former Director of MI5 Was a Soviet Spy

Source: Peter Worthington, “Former Director of MI5 Was a Soviet Spy“, August 5th, 2009 at 8:04 am”, Frum Forum; http://www.frumforum.com/former-director-of-mi5-was-a-soviet-sp/

Igor Gouzenko (1919-1982). Photograph by: Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Photo HandoutThis year, 26 years after his death in 1983, the embargoed manuscript memoir of Anthony Blunt is being reviewed more generously than the man deserves.

Blunt tells how and why he became a spy for the Soviet Union -– recruited at Cambridge by Guy Burgess who, he says, persuaded him not to join the Communist party but to spy for the NKVD, forerunner of the KGB.

Blunt says his hatred of fascism motivated him to spy for Stalin against his own country. He joined MI5, Britain’s security service, and betrayed it from within as a “talent scout” for the NKVD.

As Surveyor of the Queens’ Pictures, Blunt was knighted. When exposed as a spy and disgraced, his knighthood was rescinded, but he was never prosecuted.

Margaret Thatcher, then Britain’s PM, reviled Blunt but exonerated another suspect Soviet mole — Sir Roger Hollis, Director of MI5 from 1956-65. Hollis died under a cloud of suspicion. Former MI5 agent, Peter Wright, wrote a book, Spycatcher, which claimed Hollis was a Soviet agent, and which Mrs. Thatcher tried but failed to prevent from being published.

For some, the jury remains out on Hollis — but not for me.

Igor Gouzenko, who escaped in 1945 from the Soviet embassy in Ottawa with documents that showed a massive Soviet spy ring, asked in 1972 if I’d accompany him to a meeting with British intelligence officers.

Gouzenko had been debriefed by the British in 1945, and was wary about meeting them in 1972. He feared they might try to assassinate him, and he wanted a friendly witness.

I told him I’d be as welcome as a polecat at a garden party. He said he had no intention of committing suicide, as Czechoslovakia’s Jan Masaryk supposedly did in 1948 when Soviet agents threw him out a window in Prague. If he were to die, Gouzenko wanted it seen as murder, not suicide.

After the meeting, we met again and Gouzenko was indignant. The Brits had shown him his original debriefing. “It was fabricated,” he said. “It was such nonsense that the person who interviewed me had to be a Soviet agent. The interview had me talking of British spies in the Kremlin. There were no British spies in the Kremlin.”

“Why didn’t you say something at the time, in 1945?” I asked.

“I wanted to check the transcript for corrections, but since I didn’t have security clearance, I wasn’t allowed to see what they had written.”

I chuckled -– typical, I thought, of bureaucracy.

“Who was the British agent who interviewed you?” I asked.

“I don’t know. They wouldn’t tell me. But he was a Soviet agent.”

As it turned out, it was Roger Hollis — apparently sent by Kim Philby (whom Blunt apparently later tipped off that he was about to be arrested).

Ever since, I’ve had no doubt that Hollis was a Soviet mole.

In the early 1990s I appeared on a British TV program, The Trial of Roger Hollis, to tell Gouzenko’s story, since he had died. Then, as before, TV prosecutors [producers?] weren’t interested in the possibility of Hollis’s guilt and ignored Gouzenko’s 1972 interview with British intelligence.

Part of the reason for covering up may be that by acknowledging Hollis’ guilt, many honorable careers in British intelligence would have been diminished into nothing.

If the KGB had a pipeline into MI5 and MI6, better to ignore treason and espionage, than to admit your loyalty and patriotism were betrayed.

– 30 –

 

The Featherbed File: Trudeau Squelches Own RCMP File

INSIDE THE FEATHERBED FILE: Treason in the Civil Service
by RCMP Undercover Officer Patrick Walsh

BAMBOOZLED JOE CLARK

Pierre Elliott Trudeau

Pierre Elliott Trudeau

It was his home-town publication, The Gazette, which pinpointed how secret Orders-in-Council were used by Trudeau to ensure that the new Prime Minister Joe Clark would be bamboozled into an agreement whereby the hitherto unpublished portions of the Gouzenko report as well as the subsequent Featherbed File remained sealed for at least 20 years.

Following, are excerpts from a report published in the 1 October 1979 issue of The Montreal Gazette:

In a secret Order-in-Council issued in his last days as Prime Minister, PierreTrudeau ordered all the police intelligence files on him and his Cabinet colleagues be sealed for at least 20 years, The Gazette has learned.

The files were part of a top-secret investigation called ‘Operation Featherbed’ that was started by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the early 1960s.

Prime Minister Joe Clark agreed in a letter dated June 2 that Trudeau’s final Order-in-Council would be respected, an undertaking which has angered some Conservative MPs.

Repeated efforts by Trudeau and other senior Liberals to gain access to the Featherbed files were turned down by the RCMP security branch. But senior members of the security service have told the Gazette that the files include material on the private lives of influential Canadian figures, their past political affiliations, contacts with agents of foreign powers, private weaknesses or vices and even sexual practices. [Emphasis added]

Trudeau’s decision to issue an Order-in-Council sealing this Featherbed material just four days after the last federal election, but while he was still Prime Minister, also brought sharp rebukes from his former Cabinet colleagues.

There was such an uproar from backbenchers in the short-lived Clark government over this ‘Operation Cover-Up’ that pressure from the grassroots finally forced PM Joe Clark to make an amazing statement concerning the suppressed Featherbed File. The following excerpts are from a Toronto Star report, 1 December 1979:

The Prime Minister (Clark) said he has no intention of ever making the (Featherbed) file public. ‘Were we to publish that, we would be giving credence to gossip that affects people, some of whom are still in Ottawa, he told a news conference.

Clark’s blunt remarks conflict with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and back-bench MPs in his own party who maintain that the files show direct links between government officials and the Communist party.

Several MPs in the last month have demanded the government review the Taschereau Papers, secret records of a Royal Commission investigation of the 1946 Igor Gouzenko spy case, and check out reports that a ‘fifth man’ in the Anthony Blunt Soviet spy ring in Britain was Canadian.

Accusations also surfaced in Parliament this week that Jean-Louis Gagnon, a member of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, was connected with subversive groups…

The Sunday Star (Toronto), 7 June 1981, published a significant story by reporter John Picton. The first part of his report confirmed much of the Ottawa-based treason I have already mentioned, and then continued:

Lawrence also told the Sunday Star about the time he says he was asked not to check the Trudeau files.

He said he was approached ‘early on in the game’ (meaning Clark’s term of office) by a man who’d been appointed as custodian of Trudeau’s cabinet documents.

Under a so-called ‘convention,’ leaders of incoming governments traditionally have signed an agreement not to delve into cabinet papers of an outgoing administration.

Tory leader Joe Clark signed such an agreement – drawn tip by Trudeau’s office – the night before he was sworn in as prime minister.

Before signing, Clark wanted to consult Lawrence since he was appointing him solicitor-general, but couldn’t find him (‘I don’t know why he couldn’t find me’).

Some Tory MPs – Lawrence among them – think that was a mistake because the agreement, they allege, went much farther than any previous pact and effectively locked away many more papers than just cabinet documents.

(Tory MP Tom Cossitt describes the signing as ‘a grave error’).

‘He (the custodian) asked me specifically not to request documents relating to Trudeau’s personal life,’ Lawrence said. He said the RCMP had them, like past history associations.

‘They related to security questions about Trudeau himself in his younger days,’ when Trudeau was a world traveller.

The custodian – named by Lawrence but unavailable for comment -‘was obviously perturbed about he availability to me of these documents, and he indicated to me it would be a blow below the belt if I started looking at those.’

Lawrence wouldn’t say if he did look at them.

…. Cossitt (the Tory MP) also says that one of Trudeau’s last acts as prime minister in 1979, before handing over office to Clark, was to sign an order-in-council preventing the McDonald commission into RCMP wrongdoing from seeing certain cabinet documents without his permission.

The agreement Clark signed ensured that the order would stand.

But, says Lawrence, that agreement covered far more than cabinet documents. As solicitor-general he’d tried to see documents relating to the 35-year-old Gouzenko spy case dealing with a Soviet espionage ring.

Civil servants wouldn’t show them to him because of a previous order from Trudeau’s office.

When Lawrence asked officials why certain ‘security breaches’ weren’t prosecuted, he was told that was the policy of the day. The reasons for that policy were locked away in cabinet papers.

‘I was given reports on what happened, but not on the reasons for the government decisions on why they didn’t prosecute. Canadian governments have hushed up all sorts of things.’

Lawrence added: ‘One of the weird aspects of this is that we can see more about our affairs in other countries than we can see in Canada.’

So much for the Star report which confirms three decades of warnings by Canadian Intelligence publications that treason has been riding high in Ottawa. It also confirms the fact that Joe Clark was so politically immature that Old Machiavelli, before handing over the keys to him for a brief interlude in 1979, tricked young Joe into actually covering up the Featherbed File scandal and thus unwittingly becoming himself a party to treason.

It was, as Mr. Lawrence implies, the civil servants, still under the former PM’s ‘orders,’who called the tune, not the ministers in the Clark Government!

TRUTH IS FINALLY EMERGING

The Edmonton Journal (30 March 1981) concluded an article on Lester Pearson’s cover-up for Soviet spy John Watkins:

A remaining question is why Pearson and the Liberal hierarchy decided to cover up for Watkins.

Was it simply because Pearson and Watkins were huge personal friends?’

If so, this meant that Pearson’s own priorities came ahead of those of Canadians in general would lead to many more exposures and create shattering embarrassment for the Liberal bureaucracy?’

E. D. Ward-Harris, Editor of the Victoria Times-Colonist, reviewing Chapman Pincher’s remarkable book, Their Trade is Treachery, in the 30 May 1981 issue, says that the mind ‘boggles’ at the extent of Soviet penetration in high government circles, and adds: ‘Why, after reading this book it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that some Western president or prime minister had been recruited by the KGB in his youth and was taking his orders from Moscow Centre through a handy controller. It wouldn’t surprise me at all.’

– 30 –