Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism with Ben Wattenberg (Think Tank)

In large part, Canada has America to thank for our little headache up here with socialism. This neat historical film identifies the “grass roots” of the CCF and the NDP in a well produced and interesting 5 minutes 19 seconds.

There is a marvelous web site for the film, with all kinds of resources: http://www.heavenonearthdocumentary.com/index.html

Visit and enjoy it!  But watch this, first!

TRANSCRIPT

[ Voice of ROBERT BOTHWELL, Author, Canada and the United States: ]

As the Socialist Party faded from the U.S. political scene, some of the farmers who had embraced its ideals would take their politics north, to Canada.

Today, Americans think of Canada as a lot more radical, a more socialist place. But the irony is that Canada’s first socialist politicians, Canada’s first socialist intellectuals, are Americans. And that is something that people today have forgotten. Uh — socialism, when it comes to Canada — in an effective way, is an American import.
 

[ Moderator: ]

Between 1898 and 1915, nearly a million people emigrated from America to Canada. Lured by cheap farmland, most settled in the Western Canadian Provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba: the last North American frontier.

They brought their knowledge of how to wrest a living from the soil, and a set of political convictions rooted in their experience.
 

[ Voice of Robert McMath, Author, American Populism: ]

Farmers in the Prairie Provinces of Canada and the northern Great Plains of the United States all faced similar problems in the early 20th Century. They were all growing wheat. They felt that they were being gouged by the railroads, by the bankers. They felt that the market conditions were working against them.

Rather than seeing this in terms of impersonal market forces, they personalized it and viewed bankers, railroad men, lawyers as the enemy.
 

[ Voice of ROBERT BOTHWELL, Author, Canada and the United States: ]

The way you express your protest at the turn of the Century is, “Hey, wait a minute, why don’t we nationalize these things?”

And from that, as the institutions resist, you move fairly logically and pretty quickly towards radicalism.

And they’re radicalized in Canada in the same way, by the same people, and the same organizations, as they are in the United States. But let me emphasize, these organizations start not in Canada, but in the United States.
 

[ Moderator: ]

Every major U.S. farmer’s organization would resurface in Canada in some form. By the 1920s, these organizations and their successors began to make their voices heard throughout the Prairie Provinces.
 

[ Voice of Robert McMath, Author, American Populism: ]

They were very soon able to influence electoral politics in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, simply by the power of their numbers.

But it’s really not until the Great Depression begins on the Prairies, really in the 1920s, not the 1930s, with drought, with the collapse of the wheat market, that farmers began to contemplate forming their own, independent political force.
 

[ Moderator: ]

In 1932, a new political party emerged from a conference in Saskatchewan, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. The CCF.
 

[ Voice of ROBERT BOTHWELL, Author, Canada and the United States: ]

The CCF is a kind of Big Bang among radical groups. Radical farmers, socialist labor unions, and radicalized socialist intellectuals, many in the universities, many also in the Protestant churches. And they get together, and they write a platform that calls for the socialization, essentially, of the means of production and the means of finance.

I mean, it’s, it is a classic socialist platform.

The party would later moderate its platform to appeal to a broader base. In 1944, the CCF swept the provincial elections in Saskatchewan, becoming the first socialist government in North America, and leaving a lasting imprint on Canadian politics.
 

[ Voice of ROBERT BOTHWELL, Author, Canada and the United States: ]

Well, CCF stayed in power in Saskatchewan until 1964. And one of its last acts was to bring in a socialized medicine scheme for the Province of Saskatchewan, which they imposed in the early 1960s and which had such tremendous appeal that it actually pushed Canadian politics in that direction later in the 1960s.

The CCF’s ideas were adopted by the governing Liberal party of Canada, amd the Liberals were the ones who finally brought in national medicare in Canada.
 

[ CONCLUSION — Voice of Ben Wattenberg: ]

Socialism found more of a following in Canada than in the United States.

In 1961, the CCF became the New Democratic Party. It is still largely socialist in its convictions, and still a force in Canadian politics.

In America, some of the ideas championed by socialists also found their way into the mainstream. Ideas like unemployment insurance, social security, and the 8-hour work day. But socialism, itself, never took root.

Be sure to join us for the second episode of Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism.

For Think Tank, I’m Ben Wattenberg.

 

More on Willy Brandt, René Lévesque and the Socialist International

René Lévesque - Attendez que je me rappelle...

In my post of January 4th, 2015, I published the first English translation of a 1982 letter of René Lévesque to the Socialist International (SI), scooped from the unpublished files of the Parti Québécois by the Fédération des Québécois de souche (FQS).

Let’s take another look at that letter.

The New American (Tuesday, 01 March 2011 15:40) in its article by Christian Gomez (“Involvement of Socialist International in 2011 Protests”), describes the origins of the Socialist International:

“Initially founded in Paris in 1889, the Second (or Socialist) International was led by Friedrich Engels — until his death in 1895 — in conjunction with other leaders. After being dissolved on the eve of the First World War, the SI, although by then committed to the ideals of Leon Trotsky*, reorganized in 1951, serving as an ally to the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact communist satellite republics.”

Source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/africa-mainmenu-27/6516-involvement-of-socialist-international-in-2011-protests

Backup @ Calameo: http://en.calameo.com/read/000747447955ecbba25a9

Friedrich Engels was a Socialist who wrote the Communist Manifesto with Karl Marx in 1848.

The New American goes on:

“During its 1962 Congress in Oslo, Norway, the Socialist International officially publicized its aims abroad, declaring, ‘The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government,’ adding, “Membership of the United Nations must be made universal.”

The text of the Declaration of the Socialist International endorsed at the Council Conference held in Oslo on 2-4 June 1962, is online at the web site of the SI, itself.

Source: http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=2133

Backup @ Calameo: http://en.calameo.com/books/000747447c87ba69f7cac

It says:

“SOCIALISM AND WORLD PEACE

“The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government. As a first step towards it, they seek to strengthen the United Nations so that it may become more and more effective as an instrument for maintaining peace.”

Again, The New American:

“Several years later, in 1976, Willy Brandt — the former Chancellor of West Germany who was forced to resign in 1974 after he was exposed as an agent of the Stasi, the KGB-backed secret police of communist East Germany — became the President of the SI, serving as its longest-running leader from 1976 to 1992….”

 

The Parti Québécois Adheres To The Goal
Of World Government:

With respect to both SI congresses, and in particular to the SI’s “1962 Congress in Oslo, Norway”, we note that René Lévesque, at page 1 of his 1982 letter to SI president Willy Brandt, requesting PQ membership in the Socialist International, specifically states, in the second to last paragraph on that page:

“… le Parti Québécois adhère sans aucune restriction aux principes énoncés dans les déclarations de Frankfort (1951) et d’Oslo (1962).”

“… the Parti Québécois adheres without any restriction to the principles enunciated in the declarations of Frankfort (1951) and Oslo (1962).”

Therefore, in 1982 when René Lévesque attempted to admit the Parti Québécois to the Socialist International, he was expressly assuring them of his support for their plan of world government.

Flattr this

 

But this is no surprise. In his Memoirs published in 1986, René Lévesque entitles a brief sub-chapter, “I Am a Federalist”. In that sub-chapter, he explains that he is a federalist “in world terms“. Here is a compressed extract:

KEY EXCERPT: 17. I Am a Federalist [ … ]

“All of this means that on two or three absolutely essential levels, the nation-state has had its day. It must give up part of its powers and resources to an authority that would be a Security Council for humanity at large. It’s not for tomorrow, of course. But if we want to count on a tomorrow, no other solution is in sight. There, at any rate, is what I think, and what I repeat every time I get a chance, and what I’ll risk saying again here: to put an end to the massacre of innocents, to give children everywhere a minimum of equal opportunities, one cannot be anything but federalist… at least in world terms.”

The chapter section can be viewed online, English edition, as published:

“I Am a Federalist” – chapter section in the Memoirs of René Lévesque (published 1986):
http://en.calameo.com/books/000111790e51d4555c0f5

The original chapter section in French, entitled “Je Suis Fédéraliste” – being a section of a chapter in the Memoirs entitled Attendez que je me rappelle… les Mémoires de René Lévesque (also published in 1986), is online here:

http://en.calameo.com/books/0001117901d697922e1af

The pertinent extract in the French-language Mémoires reads as follows (again, compressed to the point):

“Cela signifie que, sur deux ou trois plans absolument existentiels, l’État-nation a fait son temps. Il lui faudra céder cette portion de ses pouvoirs et de ses ressources à une autorité qui soit un Conseil de Sécurité pour l’humanité tout entière. Ce n’est pas demain la veille, bien sûr. Mais si l’on veut compter sur un demain, quelle autre issue ?

Pour ma part, en tout cas, ce que je pense et que je répète à chaque occasion, et que je me risque à écrire ici : pour mettre un vrai holà au massacre des innocents, pour donner aux enfants de partout un minimum d’égalité des chances, on ne peut qu’être fédéraliste. Mondialement parlant…”

René Lévesque was not a nationalist, a sovereignist or a patriot. He was a known Communist and a globalist.

As René Lévesque asserted in his 1982 letter to Willy Brandt, attempting admission of the Parti Québécois to the Socialist International, “… the Parti Québécois adheres without any restriction to the principles enunciated in the declarations of Frankfort (1951) and Oslo (1962).”

However, the Frankfurt Declaration of 1951, at its article 5, states as follows:

“5. In many countries uncontrolled capitalism is giving place to an economy in which state intervention and collective ownership limit the scope of private capitalists. More people are coming to recognise the need for planning. Social security, free trade unionism and industrial democracy are winning ground. This development is largely a result of long years of struggle by Socialists and trade unionists. Wherever Socialism is strong, important steps have been taken towards the creation of a new social order.”

A moderator of the May 9th, 1972 radio broadcast discussing the Parti Québécois manifesto, online at CBC Archives, (transcribed and translated into English here), quoted then-President of Bell Canada, Mr. Robert Scrivener, as characterizing

“this program as ‘dangerous’, ‘unrealistic’, and who envisioned a kind of ‘Apocalypse of Business’, if ever this program, if ever one attempted to apply this program.”

While the radio hosts and others attempted to link the manifesto to Swedish-style socialism, seasoned businessman and President of the Quebec Employers’ Council, Charles Perreault, declared:

“For all practical purposes here, they are going to give to the Government the role it plays in socialist countries in Eastern Europe. They are going to centralize production, they are going to construct plans – uh – coercive plans – and for all practical purposes, as I said – uh – give to the Government total control. And one must expect that the, the, the economy will progress pretty much like that of the Poles or the Czechs or the East Germans.” (11 min. 01 sec.)

Perreault continued:

“This is clearly a coercive – uh – which ref – uh, which represents the kind of, of – of, uh – of system known in socialist countries.

But surely not, surely not (the kind one finds in) Sweden, and surely not in France, either.” (12 min. 34 sec.)

Narciso Pizarro, a Marxist sociologist interviewed in the same broadcast, and who specializes in trade-unionism, admitted that the Parti Québécois manifesto took its inspiration from “the Yugoslav model“. (2 min. 26 sec.) The former Yugoslavia, of course, was a Communist state under Marshal Tito until his death in 1980. Thus, in 1972, at the time of the Parti Québécois manifesto, the plan for Quebec is admittedly Communist.

The Parti Québécois is therefore obviously Communist.

The referendums in Quebec to “secede” are an obvious device to acquire temporary sovereignty sufficient to sign “treaties” undertaking to destroy that same sovereignty in Communist regionalism subject to world government.

That regionalism, intended to stretch horizontally, East-West, with the “rest of Canada” signing on to the “partnership”, is moreover modeled on the regionalism now unfolded in Europe. At the time of the 1980 Quebec referendum it was called the European Economic Community; at the time of the 1995 Quebec referendum, it had become the European Union. By 2001, Mikhail Gorbachev was calling it “The New European Soviet“.

Both referendums failed — despite attempts to rig the outcome — thus the regionalization of North America was pursued vertically, North-South, by means of so-called “trade” deals to incorporate Canada, the USA and Mexico into a single unit. When NAFTA stalled, 9/11 occurred, conveniently kick-starting the final leg of the forced march to North American…. Soviet Union.

Building A North American CommunityIt should be no surprise that René Lévesque himself called his plan for the re-federation of Canada with a (temporarily) sovereign Quebec both a new “Canadian Union” and a new “Canadian Community.” These designations must be familiar…. they are clearly echoed in the Council on Foreign Relations’ 2005 blueprint for “Building A North American Community,” commonly known as the North American Union. They were also based on the European Economic Community, and the European Union.

Moreover, one of the signatories to the 2005 “Building A North American Community” plan is Pierre-Marc Johnson, leader of the Parti Québécois after Lévesque, and therefore the Communist Premier of Quebec. The North American Union, modeled on the European Union — the “New European Soviet” — must therefore be Communist.

As to who really founded the Parti Québécois — because René Lévesque is just the front man — I’ll give you that in another post another day.
______
* Leon Trotsky, also known as “Lev Bronstein”.

– 30 –

Flattr this

 

UPDATE: FREE DOWNLOAD now available for researchers:

Download a FREE 18-MB copy of QUAND NOUS SERONS VRAIMENT CHEZ NOUS

The 7zip folder contains: (1) the AUDIO TAPE of the French CBC radio show discussing the Manifesto; (2) The Table of Contents of the Manifesto (Translated); (3) an 18-MB PDF file of the manifesto (scanned at the law library of the French University of Montreal; (4) an OCR of the manifesto.

QUAND – The PQ Manifesto – PDF file & OCR.zip

OR:

QUAND – The PQ Manifesto – PDF file & OCR.zip

 

 

 

 

How The West Built the USSR

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

Foreword by NoSnowinMoscow:

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

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

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

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

Host’s Introduction:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Applause ]

Antony Sutton Speaks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Applause ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Julius Epstein, Operation Keyhole.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All at the same time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And uh–

[ Laughter. ]

they can– they can repeat what I did.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, that is part of the story.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The constitutional independence of the United States has been abandoned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 30 –

/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 30 –

/

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

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

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

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

KM/NoSnow

– 30 –

/

Publication Titles by Professor Antony C. Sutton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>> Gold for Survival, by Antony Sutton.

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

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

>> Platinum, Antony C. Sutton.

– 30 –

The Plan for Quebec: Communist State?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Communist Party of Quebec declares in its Manifesto:

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

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

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

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

False Patriotism

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

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

Marxist Constitutions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The RIN and the Revolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tactics of the RIN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Was Pierre Bourgault?

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

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

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

To which Mister Bourgault replied:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the real goal of the separatist movement?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With respect to the Quebec people:

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

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

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

– Pierre Bourgault

Concerning terrorism:

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

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

Concerning social ethics:

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

– Pierre Bourgault in L’Indépendance December 1964

Concerning religion:

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

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

Concerning his adversaries:

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

– Pierre Bourgault, 2 February 1964, Ecole Champagnat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 30 –
____________________

TRANSLATOR’S FOOTNOTES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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