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

Foreword:

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

The Real Justin Trudeau: Red Like His Daddy

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

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

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

Discours référendaire

Referendum position

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Worthington went further:

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

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

(That latter story is the source of the domain name, NoSnowinMoscow.com.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
Pierre Merely “admired Castro”?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sshhhh! This is not secret information!

Sshhhh!

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

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

Reports on Separatism continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New World Order is Communist terminology.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communist Voting (courtesy of Freaking News.com)

Communist Voting (courtesy of Freaking News.com) 2

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

Said Trudeau in the same Congressional Record:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communists cannot swear a valid one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

19 October 2015 Federal Elections - Incapable of being sworn

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

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

The Constitutional Oath of Allegiance and Limits on Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Communist Straight Jacket Over Canada

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

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

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

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

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

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

For background on the unconstitutionality of secession in Canada, visit the Alliance of the Founding Peoples of Canada – Alliance des peuples fondateurs du Canada (http://confederation1867.altervista.org/) and look in particular for John George Bourinot, John A. Macdonald, W.P.M. Kennedy and others to come.
 

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

They ordered it to be set up!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

North American Soviet Union

North American
Soviet Union

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

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

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

Thus corroborating the late Christopher Story when he said:

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

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

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

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

“This country, which could be called
The Canadian Union

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

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

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

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

“This country which could be called The Canadian Union.

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

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

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

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

Authors Graham Fraser and Ivon Owen in their book, René Lévesque and the Parti Québécois in Power (McGill-Queen’s Press — MQUP, Nov 21, 2001) quote Lévesque in a subsequent PQ Congress (page xxvi):

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the French book, René Lévesque, un enfant du siècle (1922-1960), a biography of René Lévesque byPierre Godin, published by Boréal on 15 November 1994 [ISBN 9782890526419], we learn at page 80 that René Lévesque signed his own name under his father’s name on the top right corner of the cover of a book annotated by his father (who was a Communist).  René Lévesque, we are told, will always retain certain of these annotations, chief among them:

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

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

NSIM Free Public Service Announcement No. 1

NSIM Free Public Service Announcement No. 1

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

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

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

VIDEO: CFR Seeks World Government

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

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

Peter Worthingon, Toronto Sun founder and journalist

Peter Worthingon, Toronto Sun founder and journalist

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

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

His genetic descendent will apparently inherit that opportunity.

 

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

______

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

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

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

3 :French original:

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

– 30 –

 

Advertisements

With NAFTA, U.S. Finally Creates a New World Order (18 July 1993) By Henry A. Kissinger – Full Text

 

Kissinger New World Order NAFTA (Western Hemisphere)

Exciting new post under the News Clippings tab! (Henry A. Kissinger – 18 July 1993):

With NAFTA, U.S. Finally Creates a New World Order 18 July 1993 By Henry A. Kissinger FULL TEXT”
 

– 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 –

The Plan for Quebec: Communist State?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Communist Party of Quebec declares in its Manifesto:

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

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

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

The Plan for Quebec – Communist State

The Plan for Quebec – Communist State

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

False Patriotism

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

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

Marxist Constitutions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The RIN and the Revolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tactics of the RIN

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jean Daujat

Jean Daujat

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

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

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

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

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

Who Was Pierre Bourgault?

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

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

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

To which Mister Bourgault replied:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the real goal of the separatist movement?

Pierre Bourgault (RIN)

Pierre Bourgault (RIN)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With respect to the Quebec people:

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

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

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

– Pierre Bourgault

Concerning terrorism:

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

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

Concerning social ethics:

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

– Pierre Bourgault in L’Indépendance December 1964

Concerning religion:

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

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

Concerning his adversaries:

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

– Pierre Bourgault, 2 February 1964, Ecole Champagnat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 30 –
____________________

TRANSLATOR’S FOOTNOTES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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