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

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

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

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

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

Had there really been a Cold War …

had there really been a post -Cold War …

had the Soviet Union indeed “collapsed” …

were Perestroika and democratisation of the USSR genuine …

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

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

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

The Soviet Union therefore necessarily did not “collapse”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The title translates as follows:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

FRENCH ORIGINAL:

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He defected to the USA in (1961??)

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

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

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

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

“It is also likely”, Golitsyn says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jean-Louis Gagnon at the Microphone

Jean-Louis Gagnon at the Microphone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
Here is my transcript of the original French telegram:

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

 

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

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

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

Here’s the first stanza:

FRENCH ORIGINAL:

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Final Closing Note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisements

Marxism and the Problem of a World State

FOREWORD:

The quotations below, taken from the work of Professor Grigoriĭ Ivanovich Tunkin, are offered in contemplation of the North American regional (Soviet) Union, extrapolated from the progressive “association” of nations in regional blocs first seen in Europe, emulated in South America and in Africa, and emerging now through deceptive “trade deals” in North America.

The ongoing mass immigration toward that end, the end of “Sovietism” or “communism”, also eradicates national borders while “amalgamating” and eliminating racial nations to whom “sovereignty” has heretofore been ascribed in the context of the “nation state”.

North American Soviet UnionBritannica has this to say about Professor Tunkin:

Grigory Ivanovich Tunkin, (born Sept. 30 [Oct. 13, New Style], 1906, Chamovo, Russia—died Aug. 23, 1993, Moscow), Soviet legal scholar and diplomat who played a major role in formulating Soviet foreign policy as a key adviser to Soviet leaders Nikita Khrushchev and Mikhail Gorbachev.

Tunkin graduated from the Moscow Law Institute in 1935 and received a doctorate from Moscow State University in 1938. He began his diplomatic career in 1939, with postings in such countries as Canada and Korea. From 1952 to 1965 he was head of the Treaties and Legal Division of the Soviet foreign ministry and was involved in both treaty drafting and treaty negotiation. He also taught law at Moscow State University during this period. Tunkin exerted considerable influence in the de-Stalinization movement that prevailed until Khrushchev’s political demise in 1964, and he is credited with initiating the theory of peaceful coexistence between the Soviets and the West.

Specializing in maritime and Antarctic law, Tunkin participated in several significant international law conferences. His published works include Foundations of Modern International Law (1956), Problems of the Theory of International Law (1962), Ideological Struggle and International Law (1967), Theory of International Law (1970), and International Law in the International System (1975). Tunkin also served as a delegate to the United Nations General Assembly. From 1964 to 1988 he was the head of the department of international law at Moscow State University.

A succinct but informative biography of Professor Grigoriĭ Ivanovich Tunkin appears under a mint copy of William E. Butler and Vladimir G. Tunkin’s The Tunkin Diary and Lectures, being The Diary and Collected Lectures of G. I. Tunkin at The Hague Academy of International Law published by Eleven International Publishing, 2012 (ISBN 10: 9490947539 / ISBN 13: 9789490947538) offered for sale by Abe Books.

“Grigoriĭ Ivanovich Tunkin was a Soviet jurist and diplomat who became a leading international lawyer in the Soviet Union. His interests were always multi-dimensional. From 1957 to 1966, Tunkin led the Soviet Union’s Legal Department of the Foreign Ministry. In 1961, he was President of the United Nations International Law Commission. Tunkin was professor and Chief of the Chair of International Law at Moscow State University’s Faculty of Law. He also served as President of the Soviet Association of International Law, from its founding in 1957 until his death. Tunkin’s textbooks on international law formed the core of the international law curriculum in the USSR for over 40 years. His works continued to have a lasting influence following the dissolution [sic! — so-called] of the USSR. The present volume brings together a set of materials unique to the Tunkin family and of considerable interest to historians of international law, legal doctrine, and international diplomacy. The book opens with recollections of Tunkin by his youngest son, Vladimir Grigorevich Tunkin, prompted by the discovery that Tunkin kept a diary when he traveled abroad. These are followed by the texts of Tunkin’s lectures at The Hague Academy of International Law, delivered on four occasions between 1958 and 1986.”

We are further informed by translator William E. Butler in his Introduction to his own English edition of Professor Grigoriĭ Ivanovich Tunkin’s Theory of International Law (Harvard University Press, 1974. ISBN 0-674-88001-3), that:

“From 1942 to 1944, Professor Grigoriĭ Ivanovich Tunkin was posted in Canada as counselor of the Soviet Embassy.”

That should suffice to establish the credibility of the quotations below as a reliable mirror of Soviet ideology. These are taken from Tunkin’s own Theory of International Law (supra), in the chapter entitled “The Legal Nature of International Organizations” in the section “Marxism and the Problem of a World State“.

Professor Grigoriĭ Ivanovich Tunkin

Professor Grigoriĭ Ivanovich Tunkin:

“Marxism-Leninism links the possibility of a world association of nations first and foremost with the liquidation of capitalism as the last exploitative socioeconomic formation and with the creation of a socialist society.” — p. 374

“The purpose of socialism,” wrote V. I. Lenin, “is not only to eliminate the splintering of mankind into petty states and any isolation of nations; is not only the rapprochement of nations, but also their amalgamation.”31 But in order to create the conditions for this, more than just the liquidation of private ownership and the creation of a socialist state is needed. Lenin pointed out that national and state differences among peoples and countries will last “for a very, very long time even after realization of the dictatorship of the proletariat on a world-wide scale.” — p. 374

“Even on the domestic plane in a number of instances socialism inherits from capitalism such deep roots of national discord and economic, political, and cultural inequality that a considerable time is required to liquidate them. In international relations, naturally, the matter is far more complex. Each state represents both a political and an economic unit. With the various historical strata of contradictions between states and between nationalities are associated a number of economic, political, cultural, and other problems.” — p. 374

“Within the framework of the world socialist system, however, these differences and contradictions gradually are being overcome on the basis of a new socialist social structure and Marxist-Leninist ideology. Various forms of state unions of socialist states are possible on the path to a classless, stateless communist society.” — p. 374

The creation of a world federation or another form of uniting free states and nations is conceivable, therefore, only on the path of liquidating private ownership, exploitation, class and national contradictions, on the path of constructing socialism and communism.” — p. 374

“A United States of the World (and not of Europe),” wrote V. I. Lenin, “is that state form of union and freedom of nations which we link with socialism, as the complete victory of communism does not lead to the final disappearance of any state, including a democratic state.” — p. 374-75

“The causes of war, whose liquidation is the leitmotif of all plans for a world state, bourgeois scholars misrepresent as state sovereignty, whereas the very existence of sovereign states is a natural consequence of the economic structure of society, and both sovereignty and the state will disappear only when this structure is changed.” — p. 375

“The deep roots of wars are found in the economic system and in the specific class structure of society which it determines. Moreover, bourgeois concepts of a world stale originate, and by their class nature can not but originate, from the possibility of creating a world state and liquidating wars without affecting the economic system of capitalism.” — p. 375

AFTERWORD:

The Canadian Yearbook of International Law, Volume 41; Volume 2003 edited by D.M. McRae offers a memorable statement ofn Tunkin’s legal value as an expositor of Soviet ideology in the framework of international law.

/ 619

Tunkin’s standing among Soviet international jurists of his vin­tage alone suffices to impart more than passing interest to this edi­tion. From the mid-1950s until he died in 1993, he bestrode Russian

/ 620

international legal scholarship as no jurist since F.F. Martens (1845-1909) had done.3 He outstripped contemporary Soviet jurists by combining distinguished academic appointments at home and abroad with a prominent role in formulating Soviet foreign policy in the post-Stalin era. His scholarly works underwent translation into various languages, including English, French, Spanish, Ger­man, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese. More than any other contemporary Soviet international jurist, he could expound authoritatively a theory of international law mirroring Marxist-Leninist ideology and Soviet geopolitical relations from the early 1950s onwards. Most likely, his exposition in the present edition will remain that era’s foremost exposition of Soviet thinking on international law — if not the foremost exposition of Soviet inter­national legal thought generally.

A central pillar of Tunkin’s theory of international law was his conviction that capitalist and socialist countries could coexist under norms of general international law. From 1956, he advanced a theory of “peaceful coexistence,” in which general international legal norms arose through agreement between states.4 As Butler has correctly remarked, this theory underpinned cooperation between capitalist and socialist countries at least until the Soviet Union col­lapsed in 1991.5

More immediately, Tunkin’s theory of “peaceful coexistence” informed his exposition of the international legal issues treated in the present edition.

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

 

 

 

 

What Would Communism Be Like? (Question to the West)

Since the Rockefellers are among the handful of international financiers who bankrolled Lenin and Trotsky’s Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, let’s see how life actually was for working Americans employed by the Rockefellers…

William Lyon Mackenzie King and John Davidson Rockefeller II

William Lyon Mackenzie King and John Davidson Rockefeller II

John Davidson Rockefeller II was born in 1874 and died in 1960. John D. owned several coal and iron mines in the Colorado Rockies in Ludlow, Colorado. JD paid the miners less than $700 a year and forced them to live in company houses and shop at the company store. The mining camps were patrolled by armed guards and infiltrated by company spies…

In 1913, 9,000 miners went on strike… they demanded union rights. More money, better conditions, an end to the prison camp-type of system and they wanted to talk to Junior (J.D. Rockefeller). J.D. refused to talk to the workers and instead he brought in Texas and West Virginia gunmen, the Colorado State militia, the National Guard and the Cavalry to protect his mines…

… Then Rockefeller’s army attacked… they charged through the miners’ tent camps in armored cars, raking the miners with machine gun fire and they burnt one camp to the ground… Dozens of men, women and children were shot or burned to death…

That December, the cold, starving miners who survived gave in to John D. Rockefeller II… two years later, the National Guard shot to death three striking Standard Oil workers in New Jersey…

That pretty much sounds like Communism, don’tcha think? Nationalized “housing”, forced labor, starvation wages, spies, prison-camp conditions, and the use of the National troops to murder you and your family if you don’t cooperate.

The Rockefellers are just some of the people who subsidized the Sovietization of Russia into a vast slave labor camp where only for starters, 10 million Catholic ethnic Ukrainians died by forced starvation for refusing to hand over their farms and property for “redistribution”.

As well, the USSR’s great Baltic White Sea canal was built with unfed slave labor under the reign of Joseph Stalin. The Soviet authorities deemed it cheaper to work a man or a woman to death for a few days, than to feed them; because with the neighborhood-fascist spy system in the USSR, there were always plenty of free replacements. If a man did not denounce a minimum number of his own neighbours to the secret police, he himself was taken into forced labor.

Given that the Rockefellers also bankrolled the setup of the United Nations, facade of our intended future world government, the question “What would Communism be like?” is very appropriate to anyone in the West who has not experienced Banker-financed subjugation.

In closing, you will notice how careful Canada’s de facto government archive is when describing the infamous strike at the Rockefeller-owned mining company. Says our government, “During this bitter and violent strike, which lasted 15 months, more than 40 people were killed.” They neglect to mention that the Rockefellers murdered their own workers and their families — men, women and kids — in cold blood, using State-supplied troops.

Perhaps the omission of this unpleasant historical detail is related to a wish to keep sacrosanct the “image” of Canada’s one-time Prime Minister, who was John D. Rockefeller’s “Real Companion and Friend”, that is, The Honourable William Lyon Mackenzie King.

– 30 –

Notorious turncoat Philby ran interference in Gouzenko spy sensation, author finds

BY RANDY BOSWELL, POSTMEDIA NEWS SEPTEMBER 30, 2010
Source: Canada.com

Harold "Kim" Philby (British Secret Service) 1955 file photoUNDATED — Harold “Kim” Philby (British Secret Service) 1955 file photo. (Died May 1988). A new book about the history of Britain’s foreign intelligence service has shed fresh light on Canada’s most famous spy case — the 1945 defection of Soviet embassy employee Igor Gouzenko — and the clandestine efforts by notorious British double-agent Kim Philby to manipulate events in Ottawa and London to Moscow’s advantage.

Queen’s University Belfast historian Keith Jeffery, author of The Secret History of MI6: 1909-1949, says classified documents that only he was authorized to see while researching the book show the powerful and traitorous Philby issuing memos at MI6 headquarters with a “cautious and soothing tone” — a strategy designed to “downplay” the significance of what were, in fact, sensational revelations from Gouzenko about the existence of a Soviet spy ring in North America.

Igor Gouzenko (1919-1982).  Photograph by: Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Photo HandoutGouzenko, a cipher clerk at the Soviet embassy in Ottawa, defected in September 1945 with about 100 telegrams and other classified documents he’d snatched from a consular safe, exposing an extensive espionage network — including scientists, bureaucrats and even the Montreal-area socialist MP Fred Rose — operating in North America and Britain at the end of the Second World War.

Among the secret dispatches stolen by Gouzenko were several that revealed the August 1945 handover of experimental uranium samples to Soviet agents in Montreal by Alan Nunn May, a British nuclear scientist working in Canada at the time.

Gouzenko’s revelations about May, later dubbed the “Atom Spy” when his crimes became public, stunned political leaders in Canada, Britain and the U.S.

Secret papers declassified in 2007 through the U.K. National Archives and others published last year in historian Christopher Andrew’s official history of the MI5 — Britain’s domestic spy agency — have previously documented some of Philby’s efforts to stymie the Gouzenko investigation.

But Jeffery told Postmedia News that the secret MI6 files he probed contained “spanking new stuff” that showed how Philby was exploiting his position as head of counter-intelligence at MI6 to restrict information flows in London and to thwart Canadian, British and American officials who were trying to understanding the scope and implications of Gouzenko’s disclosures.

“It would appear,” Philby notes in one memo unearthed by Jeffery, that Gouzenko’s information is “genuine though not necessarily accurate in all details.”

And when Canadian and British intelligence officials make arrangements to arrest May at a meeting he had scheduled with his Soviet handler in London, Philby pointedly asserts in a report that “other members of the (Soviet spy) network will have been warned” of Gouzenko’s defection and predicts that the expected rendezvous “between May and the Soviet agent in the U.K. will fail to materialize.”

As Jeffery writes, it was Philby himself who was secretly notifying Moscow about the Soviet spy crisis unfolding in Ottawa, and his memos to unsuspecting MI6 colleagues and Canadian partners included “predictions of developments which he had already engineered himself.”

Furthermore, Jeffery discovered, Philby took steps to make certain that MI6 sent agent Roger Hollis instead of the more competent Jane Archer to interrogate Gouzenko.

Philby’s “preference, significantly, was for Hollis rather than Archer, whom he considered the abler and more knowledgeable, and therefore more of a threat.”

Jeffery — reached for an interview in Washington, where he’s scheduled to discuss his book on Friday at the Woodrow Wilson International Center — describes the Gouzenko affair as “the start of the Cold War.”

What he discovered in the secret MI6 archives on the Canadian episode, he said, “are the footprints of Kim Philby” appearing everywhere as he scrambled to dampen British interest in Gouzenko’s revelations.

“He was in a powerful position — just the right place — to impede the investigations that the Gouzenko defection triggers,” said Jeffery. “He was communicating directly to the Soviet Union. He knows that Nunn May is coming back to London and that a rendezvous is set up” with a Soviet agent outside the British Museum — and that British and Canadian intelligence officials are planning to arrest the pair at the meeting.

Philby and his Soviet contacts “are not able to warn Nunn May or to get him out — he’s kind of sacrificed,” said Jeffery. “But the Soviet link — of course crucial if he’d been captured — never turns up for the rendezvous because he’d been tipped off by Philby.”

Nunn May was eventually charged and convicted of passing official secrets to the Soviets. He was sentenced to 10 years hard labour, but served only six before his release in 1952.

He worked as a scientific researcher in Ghana until the late 1970s, and died in Britain in 2003.

The fallout from the Gouzenko affair was far-reaching and — according to many experts — the episode locked the U.S., Britain and their allies into a political and military standoff with the Soviet Union that would dominate global politics for nearly 50 years.

In the end, notes Jeffery, Philby “can’t prevent the big picture” revealed in Gouzenko’s smuggled documents that Soviet agents had penetrated North American society.

“What he manages to succeed to do in the micro-story is to manipulate things a bit and to protect the Soviet network in the United Kingdom.”

Philby’s accurate “prediction” that Nunn May’s contact won’t show at the planned sting even had the effect of reinforcing for MI6 brass “what a brilliant man he is — this man who can see how the Soviets are operating.

“Self-fulfilling prophecies are great — especially if you know what’s going to happen,” Jeffery said. “It actually confirmed his reputation within the service as a man of very sharp intelligence.”

Philby wasn’t exposed as a double-agent until 1963, when he escaped to the Soviet Union. He was “absolutely trusted” in Western intelligence circles until that time, said Jeffery.

The historian’s 800-page book — published in Britain under the title MI6: The History of the Secret Intelligence Service, 1909-1949 — was researched under what Jeffery has acknowledged was a “Faustian pact” with the spy agency that gave him unprecedented access to secret files but allowed MI6 officials to vet the final manuscript prior to publication.

© Copyright (c) Postmedia News

1972: Peter Worthington Accompanies Igor Gouzenko to British Intelligence

Foreword:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
__________

Former Director of MI5 Was a Soviet Spy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 30 –

 

The "Money Power" and The Left

Source: Tragedy and Hope, A History of the World in Our Time by Carroll Quigley, Volumes 1-8, New York: The Macmillan Company 1966.

This text has been taken from a non-paginated OCR of the book.

The Chief Links Between Wall Street,
the Left and Communists

Thomas W. Lamont

Thomas W. Lamont

Our concern at the moment is with the links between Wall Street and the Left, especially the Communists. Here the chief link was the Thomas W. Lamont family. This family was in many ways parallel to the Straight family. Tom Lamont had been brought into the Morgan firm, as Straight was several years later, by Henry P. Davison, a Morgan partner from 1909. Lamont became a partner in 1910, as Straight did in 1913. Each had a wife who became a patroness of Leftish causes, and two sons, of which the elder was a conventional banker, and the younger was a Left-wing sympathizer and sponsor. In fact, all the evidence would indicate that Tom Lamont was simply Morgan’s apostle to the Left in succession to Straight, a change made necessary by the latter’s premature death in 1918. Both were financial supporters of liberal publications; in Lamont’s case The Saturday Review of Literature, which he supported throughout the 1920’s and 1930’s, and the New York Post, which he owned from 1918 to 1924.

The Files of the House Un-American Activities
Committee

The chief evidence, however, can be found in the files of the HUAC which show Tom Lamont, his wife Flora, and his son Corliss as sponsors and financial angels to almost a score of extreme Left organizations, including the Communist Party itself. Among these we need mention only two. One of these was a Communist-front organization, the Trade Union Services, Incorporated, of New York City, which in 1947 published fifteen trade-union papers for various CIO unions. Among its officers were Corliss Lamont and Frederick Vanderbilt Field (another link between Wall Street and the Communists). The latter was on the editorial boards of the official Communist newspaper in New York, the Daily Worker, as well as its magazine, The New Masses, and was the chief link between the Communists and the Institute of Pacific Relations in 1928-1947. Corliss Lamont was the leading light in another Communist organization, which started life in the 1920’s as the Friends of the Soviet Union, but in 1943 was reorganized, with Lamont as chairman of the board and chief incorporator, as the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship.

Corliss Lamont Was One of the Chief Spokesmen for the
Soviet Point of View in America

During this whole period of over two decades, Corliss Lamont, with the full support of his parents, was one of the chief figures in “fellow traveler” circles and one of the chief spokesmen for the Soviet point of view both in these organizations and also in connections which came to him either as son of the most influential man in Wall Street or as professor of philosophy at Columbia University. His relationship with his parents may be reflected in a few events of this period.

Lamont Refuses to Testify Before Congress

In January 1946, Corliss Lamont was called before HUAC to give testimony on the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship. He refused to produce records, was subpoenaed, refused, was charged with contempt of Congress, and was so cited by the House of Representatives on June 26, 1946. In the midst of this controversy, in May, Corliss Lamont and his mother, Mrs. Thomas Lamont, presented their valuable collection of the works of Spinoza to Columbia University. The adverse publicity continued, yet when Thomas Lamont rewrote his will, on January 6, 1948, Corliss Lamont remained in it as co-heir to his father’s fortune of scores of millions of dollars.

The McCarran Committee Shows that China Was Lost to the Communists
by the Deliberate Actions of the State Department and the Institute of Pacific Relations

In 1951 the Subcommittee on Internal Security of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the so-called McCarran Committee, sought to show that China had been lost to the Communists by the deliberate actions of a group of academic experts on the Far East and Communist fellow travelers whose work in that direction was controlled and coordinated by the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR). The influence of the Communists in IPR is well established, but the patronage of Wall Street is less well known.

The IPR Was Financed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations

The IPR was a private association of ten independent national councils in ten countries concerned with affairs in the Pacific.

The headquarters of the IPR and of the American Council of IPR were both in New York and were closely associated on an interlocking basis. Each spent about $2.5 million dollars over the quarter-century from 1925 to 1950, of which about half, in each case, came from the Carnegie Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation (which were themselves interlocking groups controlled by an alliance of Morgan and Rockefeller interests in Wall Street). Much of the rest, especially of the American Council, came from firms closely allied to these two Wall Street interests, such as Standard Oil, International Telephone and Telegraph, International General Electric, the National City Bank, and the Chase National Bank. In each case, about l0 percent of income came from sales of publications and, of course, a certain amount came from ordinary members who paid $15 a year and received the periodicals of the IPR and its American Council, Pacific Affairs and Far Eastern Survey.

Large Funds Were Given to IPR by Wall Street
and the Large Foundations

The financial deficits which occurred each year were picked up by financial angels, almost all with close Wall Street connections. The chief identifiable contributions here were about $60,000 from Frederick Vanderbilt Field over eighteen years, $14,700 from Thomas Lamont over fourteen years, $800 from Corliss Lamont (only after 1947), and $18,000 from a member of Lee, Higginson in Boston who seems to have been Jerome D. Greene. In addition, large sums of money each year were directed to private individuals for research and travel expenses from similar sources, chiefly the great financial foundations.

The IPR Line Was Parroted by the State Department,
Ivy League Schools and Scholars Funded by Wall Street

Most of these awards for work in the Far Eastern area required approval or recommendation from members of IPR. Moreover, access to publication and recommendations to academic positions in the handful of great American universities concerned with the Far East required similar sponsorship. And, finally, there can be little doubt that consultant jobs on Far Eastern matters in the State Department or other government agencies were largely restricted to IPR-approved people. The individuals who published, who had money, found jobs, were consulted, and who were appointed intermittently to government missions were those who were tolerant of the IPR line. The fact that all these lines of communication passed through the Ivy League universities or their scattered equivalents west of the Appalachians, such as Chicago, Stanford, or California, unquestionably went back to Morgan’s influence in handling large academic endowments.

IPR Scholars, the State Department and the Kremlin
Promote the Same Viewpoint

There can be little doubt that the more active academic members of IPR, the professors and publicists who became members of its governing board (such as Owen Lattimore, Joseph P. Chamberlain, and Philip C. Jessup of Columbia, William W. Lockwood of Princeton, John K. Fairbank of Harvard, and others) and the administrative staff (which became, in time, the most significant influence in its policies) developed an IPR party line. It is, furthermore, fairly clear that this IPR line had many points in common both with the Kremlin’s party line on the Far East and with the State Department’s policy line in the same area. The interrelations among these, or the influence of one on another, is highly disputed. Certainly no final conclusions can be drawn.

There Was a Great Deal of Intrigue Used
to Influence U.S. Policy

Clearly there were some Communists, even party members, involved (such as Frederick Vanderbilt Field)…. Furthermore, there was a great deal of intrigue both to help those who agreed with the IPR line and to influence United States government policy in this direction., but there is no evidence of which I am aware of any explicit plot or conspiracy to direct American policy in a direction favorable either to the Soviet Union or to international Communism. [The evidence alluded to here exists, however,

the real aim of these individuals and groups was to betray China into the hands of the communists in order to build a new Imperial System. The Soviet Union is a part of this secret Imperial Order and was set up by the Money Power in 1917. They planned to support and build Communist China into a new Super Power to rule Asia.]….

Many People in the U.S. Accept the Communist Ideology

The true explanation of what happened is not yet completely known and, as far as it is known, is too complicated to elucidate here. It is, however, clear that many persons who were born in the period 1900-1920 and came to maturity in the period 1928-1940 were so influenced by their experiences of war, depression, and insecurity that they adopted, more or less unconsciously, certain aspects of the Communist ideology (such as the economic interpretation of history, the role of a dualistic class struggle in human events, or the exploitative interpretation of the role of capital in the productive system and of the possessing groups in any society). Many of these ideas were nonsense, even in terms of their own experiences, but they were facile interpretative guides for people who, whatever their expert knowledge of their special areas, were lacking in total perspective on society as a whole or human experience as a whole…. This outlook was, for example, prevalent in that ubiquitous intriguer, Lionel Curtis, who was the original guide and parent of the IPR and of many similar organizations….

The Right’s Fairy Tale

The … Right[‘s] version of these events as written up by John T. Flynn, Freda Utley, and others … had a tremendous impact on American opinion and American relations with other countries in the years 1947-1955. This … Right fairy tale, which is now an accepted folk myth in many groups in America, pictured the recent history of the United States, in regard to domestic reform and in foreign affairs, as a well-organized plot by extreme Left-wing elements, operating from the White House itself and controlling all the chief avenues of publicity in the United States, to destroy the American way of life, based on private enterprise, laissez faire, and isolationism, in behalf of alien ideologies of Russian Socialism and British cosmopolitanism (or internationalism). This plot, if we are to believe the myth, worked through such avenues of publicity as The New York Times and the Herald Tribune, the Christian Science Monitor and the Washington Post, the Atlantic Monthly and Harper’s Magazine and had at its core the wild-eyed and bushy-haired theoreticians of Socialist Harvard and the London School of Economics. It was determined to bring the United States into World War II on the side of England (Roosevelt’s first love) and Soviet Russia (his second love) in order to destroy every finer element of American life and, as part of this consciously planned scheme, invited Japan to attack Pearl Harbor, and destroyed Chiang Kai-shek, all the while undermining America’s real strength by excessive spending and unbalanced budgets.

The Right’s Fairy Tale Does Have a Modicum of Truth

This myth, like all fables, does in fact have a modicum of truth. There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the … Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s. to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies (notably to its belief that England was an Atlantic rather than a European Power and must be allied, or even federated, with the United States and must remain isolated from Europe), but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.

The Round Table Groups Have Played a Very Significant
Role in the History of the U.S.

The Round Table Groups have already been mentioned in this book several times, notably in connection with the formation of the British Commonwealth in chapter 4 and in the discussion of appeasement in chapter 12 (“the Cliveden Set”). At the risk of some repetition, the story will be summarized here, because the American branch of this organization (sometimes called the “Eastern Establishment’) has played a very significant role in the history of the United States in the last generation.

The Original Purpose of the Round Table Groups

The Round Table Groups were semi-secrel discussion and lobbying groups organized by Lionel Curtis, Philip H. Kerr (Lord Lothian), and (Sir) William S. Marris in 1908-1911. This was done on behalf of Lord Milner, the dominant Trustee of the Rhodes Trust in the two decades 1905-1925.

The original purpose of these groups was to seek to federate the English-speaking world along lines laid down by Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902) and William T. Stead (1849-1912), and the money for the organizational work came originally from the Rhodes Trust.

By 1915 Round Table groups existed in seven countries, including England, South Africa, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, and a rather loosely organized group in the United States (George Louis Beer, Walter Lippmann, Frank Aydelotte, Whitney Shepardson, Thomas W. Lamont, Jerome D. Greene, Erwin D. Canham of the Christian Science Monitor, and others). The attitudes of the various groups were coordinated by frequent visits and discussions and by a well-informed and totally anonymous quarterly magazine. The Round Table, whose first issue, largely written by Philip Kerr, appeared in November 1910.

The Leaders of the Round Table Groups

The leaders of this group were: Milner, until his death in 1925, followed by Curtis (1872-1955), Robert H, (Lord) Brand (brother-in-law of Lady Astor) until his death in 1963, and now Adam D. Marris, son of Sir William and Brand’s successor as managing director of Lazard Brothers bank. The original intention had been to have collegia! leadership, but Milner was too secretive and headstrong to share the role. He did so only in the period 1913-1919 when he held regular meetings with some of his closest friends to coordinate their activities as a pressure group in the struggle with Wilhelmine Germany. This they called their “Ginger Group.” After Milner’s death in 1925, the leadership was largely shared by the survivors of Milner’s “Kindergarten,” that is, the group of young Oxford men whom he used as civil servants in his reconstruction of South Africa in 1901-1910. Brand was the last survivor of the “Kindergarten”: since his death, the greatly reduced activities of the organization have been exercised largely through the Editorial Committee of The Round Table magazine under Adam Marris.

Financial Backers of the Found Table Groups

Money for the widely ramified activities of this organization came originally from the associates and followers of Cecil Rhodes, chiefly from the Rhodes Trust itself, and from wealthy associates such as the Beit brothers, from Sir Abe Bailey, and (after 1915) from the Astor family. Since 1925 there have been substantial contributions from wealthy individuals and from foundations and firms associated with the international banking fraternity, especially the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, and other organizations associated with J. P. Morgan, the Rockefeller and Whitney families, and the associates of Lazard Brothers and of Morgan, Grenfell, and Company.

The Existing Financial Network in New York and London

The chief backbone of this organization grew up along the already existing financial cooperation running from the Morgan Bank in New York to a group of international financiers in London led hy Lazard Brothers. Milner himself in 1901 had refused a fabulous offer, worth up to S100,000 a year, to become one of the three partners of the Morgan Bank in London, in succession to the younger J. P. Morgan who moved from London to join his father in New York (eventually the vacancy went to E. C. Grenfell, so that the London affiliate of Morgan became known as Morgan, Grenfell, and Company). Instead, Milner became director of a number of public banks, chiefly the London Joint Stock Bank, corporate precursor of the Midland Bank. He became one of the greatest political and financial powers in England, with his disciples strategically placed throughout England in significant places, such as the editorship of The Times, the editorship of The Observer, the managing directorship of Lazard Brothers, various administrative posts, and even Cabinet positions. Ramifications were established in politics, high finance, Oxford and London universities, periodicals, the civil service, and tax-exempt foundations.

Front Organizations Established in Key Countries

At the end of the war of 1914, it became clear that the organization of this system had to be greatly extended. Once again the task was entrusted to Lionel Curtis who established, in England and each dominion, a front organization to the existing local Round Table Group. This front organization, called the Royal Institute of International Affairs, had as its nucleus in each area the existing submerged Round Table Group. In New York it was known as the Council on Foreign Relations, and was a front for J. P. Morgan and Company in association with the very small American Round Table Group. The American organizers were dominated by the large number of Morgan “experts,” including Lamont and Beer, who had gone to the Paris Peace Conference and there became close friends with the similar group of English “experts” which had been recruited by the Milner group.

In fact, the original plans for the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Council on Foreign Relations were drawn up at Paris.

The Council of the RIIA (which, by Curtis’s energy came to be housed in Chatham House, across St. James’s Square from the Astors, and was soon known by the name of this headquarters) and the board of the Council on Foreign Relations have carried ever since the marks of their origin. Until 1960 the council at Chatham House was dominated by the dwindling group of Milner’s associates, while the paid staff members were largely the agents of Lionel Curtis. The Round Table for years (until 1961) was edited from the back door of Chatham House grounds in Ormond Yard, and its telephone came through the Chatham House switchboard.

The Council on Foreign Relations in New York Was Dominated
by J. P. Morgan

The New York branch was dominated by the associates of the Morgan Bank. For example, in 1928 the Council on Foreign Relations had John W. Davis as president, Paul Cravath as vice-president, and a council of thirteen others, which included Owen D. Young, Russell C. Leffingwell, Norman Davis, Allen Dulles, George W. Wickersham, Frank L. Polk, Whitney Shepardson, Isaiah Bowman, Stephen P. Duggan, and Otto Kahn. Throughout its history the council has been associated with the American Round Tablers, such as Beer, Lippmann. Shepardson. and Jerome Greene.

Wall Street Contacts

The academic figures have been those linked to Morgan, such as James T. Shotwell, Charles Seymour, Joseph P. Chamberlain, Philip Jessup, Isaiah Bowman and, more recently, Philip Moseley, Grayson L Kirk, and Henry M. Wriston. The Wall Street contacts with these were created originally from Morgan’s influence in handling large academic endowments. In the case of the largest of these endowments, that at Harvard, the influence was usually exercised indirectly through “State Street,” Boston, which, for much of the twentieth century, came through the Boston banker Thomas Nelson Perkins.

Wall Street Law Firms

Closely allied with this Morgan influence were a small group of Wall Street law firms, whose chief figures were Elihu Root, John W. Davis, Paul D. Cravath, Russell Leffingwell, the Dulles brothers and, more recently. Arthur R Dean. Philip D. Reed, and John J. McCloy. Other nonlegal agents of Morgan included men like Owen D. Young and Norman H. Davis.

J. P. Morgan and Company Were the Center of the
Round Table Group in America

On this basis, which was originally financial and goes back to George Peabody, there grew up in the twentieth century a power structure between London and New York which penetrated deeply into university life, the press, and the practice of foreign policy. In England the center was the Round Table Group, while in the United States it was J. P. Morgan and Company or its local branches in Boston, Philadelphia, and Cleveland. Some rather incidental examples of the operations of this structure are very revealing, just because they are incidental. For example, it set up in Princeton a reasonable copy of the Round Table Group’s chief Oxford headquarters. All Souls College. This copy, called the Institute for Advanced Study, and best known, perhaps, as the refuge of Einstein, Oppenheimer, John von Neumann, and George F. Ken nan. was organized by Abraham Flexner of the Carnegie Foundation and Rockefeller’s General Education Board after he had experienced the delights of All Souls while serving as Rhodes Memorial Lecturer at Oxford. The plans were largely drawn by Tom Jones, one of the Round Table’s most active intriguers and foundation administrators.

The American Branch Exerted Its Influence Through
Five American Newspapers

The American branch of this “English Establishment” exerted much of its influence through five American newspapers (The New York Times, New York Herald Tribune. Christian Science Monitor, the Washington Post, and the lamented Boston Evening Transcript). In fact, the editor of the Christian Science Monitor was the chief American correspondent (anonymously) of The Round Table, and Lord Lothian, the original editor of The Round Table and later secretary of the Rhodes Trust (1925-1939) and ambassador to Washington, was a frequent writer in the Monitor. It might be mentioned that the existence of this Wall Street, Anglo-American axis is quite obvious once it is pointed out. It is reflected in the fact that such Wall Street luminaries as John W. Davis, Lewis Douglas, Jock Whitney, and Douglas Dillon were appointed to he American ambassadors in London.

The Double International Network Extended into New Countries through
Institute of International Affairs

This double international network in which the Round Table groups formed the semi-secret or secret nuclei of the Institutes of International Affairs was extended into a third network in 1925, organized by the same people for the same motives. Once again the mastermind was Lionel Curtis, and the earlier Round Table Groups and Institutes of International Affairs were used as nuclei for the new network. However, this new organization for Pacific affairs was extended to ten countries, while the Round Table Groups existed only in seven. The new additions, ultimately China, Japan, France, the Netherlands, and Soviet Russia, had Pacific councils set up from scratch. In Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, Pacific councils, interlocked and dominated by the Institutes of International Affairs, were set up. In England, Chatham House served as the English center for both nets, while in the United States the two were parallel creations (not subordinate) of the Wall Street allies of the Morgan Bank. The financing came from the same international banking groups and their subsidiary commercial and industrial firms. In England, Chatham House was financed for both networks by the contributions of Sir Abe Bailey, the Astor family, and additional funds largely acquired by the persuasive powers of Lionel Curtis. The financial difficulties of the IPR Councils in the British Dominions in the depression of 1929-1935 resulted in a very revealing effort to save money, when the local Institute of International Affairs absorbed the local Pacific Council, both of which were, in a way, expensive and needless fronts for the local Round Table groups.

The Chief Aim of the Elaborate and Semi-secret Organization

The chief aims of this elaborate, semi-secret organization were… to coordinate the international activities and outlooks of all the English-speaking world into one (which would largely, it is true, be that of the London group);

to work to… help backward, colonial, and underdeveloped areas to advance toward stability, law and order, and prosperity along lines somewhat similar to those taught at Oxford and the University of London (especially the School of Economics and the Schools of African and Oriental Studies). (Democratic socialism, finance capitalism, monopoly capitalism, secularism, internationalism, ect.)

These organizations and their financial backers were in no sense reactionary or Fascistic persons, as Communist propaganda would like to depict them. Quite the contrary. They were gracious and cultured gentlemen of… social experience who were much concerned with the freedom of expression of minorities and the rule of law for all, who constantly thought in terms of Anglo-American solidarity, of political partition and federation, and who were convinced that they could gracefully civilize the Boers of South Africa, the Irish, the Arabs, and the Hindus, and who are largely responsible for the partitions of Ireland, Palestine, and India, as well as the federations of South Africa, Central Africa, and the West Indies. Their desire to win over the opposition by cooperation worked with Smuts but failed with Hertzog, worked with Gandhi but failed with Menon, worked with Stresemann…. If their failures now loom larger than their successes, this should not be allowed to conceal the high motives with which they attempted both.

Contrary to published claims, the real goal of these individuals and organizations is to further the development of a New Imperial Order and World Empire.]

Round Table Groups Jettison Communists When Congress
Discovers Their Activities

It was this group of people, whose wealth and influence so exceeded their experience and understanding, who provided much of the framework of influence which the Communist sympathizers and fellow travelers took over in the United States in the 1930’s.

It must be recognized that the power that these energetic Left-wingers exercised was never their own power or Communist power but was ultimately the power of the international financial coterie

and, once the anger and suspicions of the American people were aroused, as they were by 1950, it was a fairly simple matter to get rid of the Red sympathizers.FN1

The Reece Committee to Investigate Tax Exempt Foundations

Before this could be done, however, a congressional committee, following backward to their source the threads which led from admitted Communists like Whittaker Chambers, through Alger Hiss, and the Carnegie Endowment to Thomas Lamont and the Morgan Bank, fell into the whole complicated network of the interlocking tax-exempt foundations.

The Eighty-third Congress in July 1953 set up a Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations with Representative B. Carroll Reece, of Tennessee, as chairman.

It soon became clear that people of immense wealth would be unhappy if the investigation went too far and that the “most respected” newspapers in the country, closely allied with these men of wealth, would not get excited enough about any revelations to make the publicity worth while, in terms of votes or campaign contributions. An interesting report showing the Left-wing associations of the interlocking nexus of tax-exempt foundations was issued in 1954 rather quietly. Four years later, the Reece committee‘s general counsel, Rene A. Wormser, wrote a shocked, but not shocking, book on the subject called Foundations: Their Power and Influence. See the Staff Reports prepared by the Committee under the direction of Norman Dodd. 1

Jerome D. Greene Is One of the Key Figures in the Establishment of the
Council on Foreign Relations

One of the most interesting members of this Anglo-American power structure was Jerome D. Greene (1874-1959). Born in Japan of missionary parents, Greene graduated from Harvard’s college and law school by 1899 and became secretary to Harvard’s president and corporation in 1901-1910. This gave him contacts with Wall Street which made him general manager of the Rockefeller Institute (1910-1912), assistant to John D. Rockefeller in philanthropic work for two years, then trustee to the Rockefeller Institute, to the Rockefeller Foundation, and to the Rockefeller General Education Board until 1939. For fifteen years (1917-1932) he was with the Boston investment banking firm of Lee, Higginson, and Company, most of the period as its chief officer, as well as with its London branch. As executive secretary of the American section of the Allied Maritime Transport Council, stationed in London in 1918, he lived in Toynbee Hall, the world’s first settlement house, which had been founded hy Alfred Milner and his friends in 1884. This brought him in contact with the Round Table Group in England, a contact which was strengthened in 1919 when he was secretary to the Reparations Commission at the Paris Peace Conference. Accordingly, on his return to the United States he was one of the early figures in the establishment of the Council on Foreign Relations, which served as the New York branch of Lionel Curtis’s Institute of International Affairs.

Green Sells Fraudulent Securities of Ivor Kreuger

As an investment banker, Greene is chiefly remembered for his sales of millions of dollars of the fraudulent securities of the Swedish match king, Ivor Kreuger. That Greene offered these to the American investing public in good faith is evident from the fact that he put a substantial part of his own fortune in the same investments. As a consequence, Kreuger’s suicide in Paris in April 1932 left Greene with little money and no job. He wrote to Lionel Curtis, asking for help, and was given, for two years, a professorship of international relations at Aberystwyth, Wales. The Round Table Group controlled that professorship from its founding by David Davies in 1919, in spite of the fact that Davies, who was made a peer in 1932, had broken with the Round Table because of its subversion of the League of Nations and European collective security.

Greene Returns to America

On his return to America in 1934, Greene also returned to his secretaryship of the Harvard Corporation and became, for the remainder of his life, practically a symbol of Yankee Boston, as trustee and officer of the Boston Symphony Orchestra, the Gardner Museum in Fenway Court, the New England Conservatory of Music, the American Academy in Rome, the Brookings Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the General Education Board (only until 1939). He was also director of the Harvard Tercentenary Celebration in 1934-1937.

Greene Was Wall Street’s Chief Conduct of Funds
for the IPR

Greene is of much greater significance in indicating the real influences within the Institute of Pacific Relations than any Communists or fellow travelers. He wrote the constitution for the IPR in 1926, was for years the chief conduit for Wall Street funds and influence into the organization, was treasurer of the American Council for three years, and chairman for three more, as well as chairman of the International Council for four years.

There Is a Very Real Power Structure in Existence

Jerome Greene is a symbol of much more than the Wall Street influence in the IPR. He is also a symbol of the relationship betAveen the financial circles of London and those of the eastern United States which reflects one of the most powerful influences in twentieth-century American and world history. The two ends of this English-speaking axis have sometimes been called, perhaps facetiously, the English and American Establishments. There is, however, a considerable degree of truth behind the joke, a truth which reflects a very real power structure. It is this power structure which the… Right in the United States has been attacking for years in the belief that they are attacking the Communists. This is particularly true when these attacks are directed, as they so frequently are at “Harvard Socialism,” or at “Left-wing newspapers” like The New York Times and the Washington Post, or at foundations and their dependent establishments, such as the Institute of International Education.

Misdirected Attacks by the Right

These misdirected attacks by the… Right did much to confuse the American people in the period 1948-1955, and left consequences which were still significant a decade later. By the end of 1953, most of these attacks had run their course. The American people, thoroughly bewildered at widespread charges of twenty years of treason and subversion, had rejected the Democrats and put into the White House the Republican Party’s traditional favorite… Dwight D. Eisenhower. At the time, two events, one public and one secret, were still in process. The public one was the Korean War of 1950-1953: the secret one was the race for the thermonuclear bomb.

– 30 –

FN1 NoSnow: It’s a little bit difficult to take Professor Quigley seriously at this point. First, because Quigley himself has said that the “Money Power” set up the Soviet Union in 1917. Then, Quigley says, the real aim of Sovietizing Russia and China, (an aim which was a secret), is the set-up of a new Imperial Order. Finally, if the “Reds” were dispensed with, as Quigley says, in the aftermath of the Reece and McCarran investigations…. how does a Soviet spy, Lester Bowles Pearson, (exposed as such in the McCarran hearings) nonetheless then become President of the CIIA — the Canadian counterpart of the CFR (and the secretariat in Canada to the Institute of Pacific Relations) and rise into federal politics in Canada despite the RCMP’s having been warned by the FBI?

If the “Reds” were cleared out, why is Communist Pierre Trudeau a member of the CIIA? How does he become Prime Minister of Canada? Trudeau, on succeeding Pearson in the Prime Minister’s Office, appointed elite Soviet spies to run Canada’s national security, police, and communications.

It doesn’t sound to me as if the Reds were cleared out at all; nor, given the plans alleged by Quigley for a Soviet new world empire, would it be logical. Said Quigley:

the real aim of these individuals and groups was to betray China into the hands of the communists in order to build a new Imperial System. The Soviet Union is a part of this secret Imperial Order and was set up by the Money Power in 1917.

Norman Dodd‘s revelations (in the video clip above) of White House secret instructions to the tax-free foundations to affect education so as to Sovietize America, substantiate Quigley’s allegations.

The Reds were not cleared out; they’ve just got themselves a much better cover story, and better propaganda departments.

– – –