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

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

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

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

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

Had there really been a Cold War …

had there really been a post -Cold War …

had the Soviet Union indeed “collapsed” …

were Perestroika and democratisation of the USSR genuine …

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

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

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

The Soviet Union therefore necessarily did not “collapse”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The title translates as follows:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

FRENCH ORIGINAL:

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He defected to the USA in (1961??)

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

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

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

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

“It is also likely”, Golitsyn says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jean-Louis Gagnon at the Microphone

Jean-Louis Gagnon at the Microphone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
Here is my transcript of the original French telegram:

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

 

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

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

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

Here’s the first stanza:

FRENCH ORIGINAL:

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Final Closing Note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 –

How The West Built the USSR

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

Foreword by NoSnowinMoscow:

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

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

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

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

Host’s Introduction:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Applause ]

Antony Sutton Speaks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Applause ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Julius Epstein, Operation Keyhole.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All at the same time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And uh–

[ Laughter. ]

they can– they can repeat what I did.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, that is part of the story.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The constitutional independence of the United States has been abandoned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 30 –

/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 30 –

/

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

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

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

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

KM/NoSnow

– 30 –

/

Publication Titles by Professor Antony C. Sutton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>> Gold for Survival, by Antony Sutton.

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

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

>> Platinum, Antony C. Sutton.

– 30 –