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-Queens University Press, 19xx) quote Lévesque in a subsequent PQ Congress in [[[xxx year]]] (year):

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 even—do you remember, a sort of new Canadian community.”

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, Enfant du siècle, a biography of René Lévesque by xxx xx, published by Boréal in (year) [ISBN], 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 –

 

“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 –

The New Treason of the Clerics: Pierre Elliott Trudeau

Pierre Elliott Trudeau [1919-2000]

The New Treason
of the Clerics

English translation
by Kathleen Moore
13 April 2013

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

http://www.habeascorpuscanada.com

MORE SITES IN THE NETWORK:

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

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

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

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

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

separatism

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

 Red Starred notable quote

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

 

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

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

(Julien Benda, La trahison des clercs1)

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

 
I – The Geographic Perspective

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ambiguity remains total.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FN 5 The Encyclopaedia Britannica.

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

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

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

FN 6 In the Catholic Historical Review, July 1961.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
II — The Historical Perspective

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Red Starred notable quoteThe third observation that I derive from the unfolding of history is that the very idea of the Nation-State is absurd.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
III — Genesis of Nationalisms

 Red Starred notable quoteAbsurd in its principle and retrograde in its application, the idea of the Nation-State has nonetheless enjoyed and still enjoys extraordinary favour.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
IV— Interaction of the Nationalisms in Canada

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is what I would now like to explain.

 
V — The Misfortunes of French-Canadian Nationalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
VI — The 20-Something Generation

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

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

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

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

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

FN 28 Feb. 1962, p. 24.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FN 30 Op. cit, p. 10.

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

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

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

FN 32 Op. cit., p. 144.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
VII — The Future

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

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

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

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

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

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

FN 37 Op. cit., p. 141.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Better than the “melting-pot” of America,

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

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

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

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

 Red Starred notable quoteThe theory of nationality, therefore, is a retrograde step in history.38

FN 38 Op. cit., passîm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FN 40 Op. cit., p. 194.

– 30 –