Web Site In Development!

ME - Admin ACA
 

 

UPDATE 25 August 2017:

It’s extremely hard to upload a wordpress site from Localhost to wordpress.com, as it doesn’t copy the images in the posts. Until I can get this huge job done manually, I’ve put a STATIC (html) copy of the site online here, so you can enjoy the materials (will try to give it working search, but not yet sure I can do that in the static site):

ACA screenshot 400 x 316

Anticommunist_Archive
 

UPDATE 5 August 2017:

I apologize for the delay in fixing up this web site (Anticommunist Archive). 
I’ve been translating a book, Adrien Arcand’s A BAS LA HAINE! from 1965. 

The first rough draft is now online — DOWN WITH HATE!:

https://downwithhate.wordpress.com/

Expecting the final English some time soon.

Subscribe to the new site and check back!

Thanks for reading.

– – –

Hello.  Thanks for dropping by.  Am re-doing this web site, about time, with lots of incredible new materials.  Please bookmark and come back.  Sorry for the mess in the meantime!

 

Zone de développement

 
Salut!  Merci d’être passé.  Je suis en train de re-faire ce site Web, il est grand temps, avec beaucoup de nouveaux matériaux incroyables.  Veuillez marquer et revenir.  Désolée pour le désordre dans l’intervalle!

 

Advertisements

I’m Back From Moscow, Le Devoir  (1952) #2

Exclusive English!

 
SourceLe Devoir, June 16th, 1952.  Second article in a series by Pierre Elliott Trudeau on his return from the 1952 Moscow Economic Summit.
 

Je reviens de
Moscou”

“I’m Back
from Moscow”

Premières
rencontres

First
encounters

Comment je passe en Russie — Chaude réception — Un plan de Moscou?… — Des vieux dans les églises — Balle de neige sur le Petit Père

How I got to Russia — Warm reception — A plan of Moscow? — Old folks in the churches — A snowball for Stalin

par Pierre Elliott-Trudeau

by Pierre Elliott-Trudeau

— II —

— II —

Le moi est haïssable” (Pascal)

The ego is hateful” (Pascal)

Si la souplesse d’un système administratif peut s’apprécier à son habileté à resoudre le cas particulier, je dois marquer quelques points au crédit des Soviétiques, car je suis un cas particulier incarné et ambulant.  Plutôt que de prendre l’avion Paris-Prague-Moscou comme tous ceux qui partaient de la France, j’imaginai d’aller en train via Autriche.

If the flexibility of an administrative system can be appreciated according to its skill in solving the particular case, I must credit the Soviets with a few points, because I am an incarnated particular case, and travelling.  Rather than take the Paris-Prague-Moscow plane like all those who departed via France, I imagined going by train via Austria.

Des raisons que la raison ignore me firent aboutir à Linz, à la limite de la zone américaine.  Il s’agissait alors de traverser cent milles de territoire soviétique pour arriver à la frontiere tchèque, et je demandai aux autorités les permis nécessaires.

For reasons which I forget, I went as far as Linz, at the boundary of the American zone.  It was then a matter of travelling a hundred miles over Soviet territory to reach the Czech frontier, and I asked the authorities for the necessary permits.

Les Français soutinrent que c’était impossible.  Les Britanniques me proposèrent une alternative d’ailleurs parfaitement impracticable.  Les Américains me conseillèrent de tenter la chance en prédisant que je m’éveillerais dans les mines de la Sibérie.  Force m’était donc de m’adresser aux Soviétiques.

The French affirmed it was impossible.  The British proposed an alternative moreover perfectly impracticable.  The Americans advised me to tempt fate, predicting that I would awaken in the mines of Siberia.  I had no choice then but to speak to the Soviets.

Je passe !

I’m in !

Je traversai le Danube; aussitôt happé par l’engrenage militaire, je franchis vite la distance qui me séparait de la commandantur.  Là, il me restait à m’expliquer avec un officier russe qui parlait un allemand aussi boiteux que le mien.  Surprise!  il me laissa passer sans la moindre formalité.  Et je songeât que le Danube à Linz était large de la distance entre Washington et Moscou, et qu’on ignorerait complètement d’un côté ce qui se passait de l’autre.

I crossed the Danube; as soon as I was picked by the military apparatus, I quickly covered the distance which separated me from the command.  Then, I was left to explain myself to a Russian officer who spoke a German as halting as my own.  Surprise!   He let me pass without the least formality.  And I had thought that from the Danube to Linz was as far as the distance from Washington to Moscow, and that one side would be completely unaware of what went on on the other.

Arrivé à Prague à trois heures du matin, et seul voyageur venant d’Autriche, j’escomptais bien prendre quelqu’un au dépourvu.  Point du tout.nbsp; On me reçut à la gare, me logea magnifiquement, me nourrit, me procura le visa soviétique, et m’expédia vers Moscou avec une rapidité et une courtoisie exemplaires.

Arrived at Prague at three a.m., and the only traveller coming from Austria, I quite expected to catch someone at a disadvantage.  Not at all.  I was received at the station, magnificiently lodged and fed, obtained the Soviet visa, and was dispatched toward Moscow with exemplary speed and courtesy.

Moscou

Moscow

À Moscou, la machine continua admirablement à résoudre mon cas.  (Mais attendons la fin! …)

In Moscow, the machine continued admirably to solve my case.   (But wait for the punch line! …)

Arrivé quatre jours trop tôt à la Conférence, je fus reçu à bras ouverts et installé au nouvel Hôtel Sovietskaia, véritable chef-d’oeuvre de style parvenu.

Arrived four days too early for the Conference, I was received with open arms and installed in the new Hotel Sovietskaia, a true masterpiece of nouveau riche style.

L’on mit une interprète, un chauffeur et une Ziss (surprenante imitation d’une Chrysler de luxe) à ma disposition, et m’ayant invité à prendre possession de la ville, on fut un peu déroulé quand je demandai un plan de Moscou (du reste absolument introuvable, et aussi tabou que les caméras), et indiquai ma préférence pour les balades pédestres et solitaires.

An interpreter, a chauffeur and a Ziss (surprising imitation of a Chrysler de luxe)1 were placed at my disposal, and having invited me to take possession of the city, they came a bit unwound when I asked for a plan of Moscow (absolutely untraceable, and as taboo as cameras), and indicated my preference for secluded footpaths.

Il faut dire qu’on ne m’y encouragea point et qu’on fit tout pour organiser mon temps.  Mais par ailleurs on ne me gêna nullement; une seule fois j’eus le plaisir de me moquer d’un type qui me filait, mais il pouvait aussi bien être un badaud qu’un flie.  Et comme j’arrivai assez bien à me débrouiller avec le métro et les autobus, je pus aller où je voulais dans Moscou.

It should be said that no encouragement was given to this end, and that all was done to organize my time.  But on the other hand, by no means was I obstructed; I had the pleasure only once of mocking a fellow who was tailing me, but it could just as well have been a gawker as a tracker.  And as I managed rather well to navigate the subway and the buses, I could go anywhere I wanted in Moscow.

À la Messe !

To Mass!

J’annoncai mon intention d’aller à la messe le dimanche de la Passion.  On parut un peu étonné que je crusse encore à ces balivernes, mais apres quelques coups de téléphone on me donna les renseignements concernant le lieu et l’heure.  J’allai quatre dimanches à la messe, en trois lieux différents, durant mon séjour en Urss.  J’entrai aussi dans une synagogue et de nombreuses églises orthodoxes.  D’autres délégues m’ont rapporté qu’ils étaient allés dans des mitaines protestantes.

I announced my intention to go to Mass on Easter Sunday.  They seemed somewhat astonished that I still believed in all this nonsense2, but after some telephone calls I was given the information concerning the place and time.  I went to Mass on four Sundays, in three different places during my stay in the U.S.S.R..  I also entered a synagogue and numerous orthodox churches.  Other delegates told me they had visited Protestant meeting places.

Or, les jours de grande fete, ces temples sont remplis à craquer, — mais uniquement de vieillards.  La liberté de culte n’est donc pas éteinte; mais faute d’instruction religieuse cette chrétienté est amputée de sa jeunesse.  Sauf en Georgie toutefois, où les jeunes paraissent encore assez dévots./b>

Now, on high feast days, these temples are filled to bursting — but only by the elderly.  Freedom of religion is therefore not extinct; but for want of religious instruction this Christendom is cut off from youth.  Except in Georgia, however, where the young seem still rather devout.

Je continuai de demander toutes sortes de permissions particulières.  Je voulais assister à des procès, parler avec des prêtres, étudier les bases économiques du Gosplan, rencontrer des universitaires, etc. …  Rien ne me fut refusé, bien que le moi continuât d’être haïssable, voir insolent.

I continued to ask for all kinds of particular permissions.   I wanted to attend at court trials, to speak with priests, to study the economic bases of the Gosplan, to meet academics, etc. …   Nothing was denied me, although I continued to be hateful, even brazen.

Je commets un sacrilège

I commit a sacrilege

Je questionnai le juge sur son salaire et son train de vie.  Je fis subir aux académiciens un examen sur les doctrines économiques.  Je narguai les syndicalistes sur l’impossibilité de faire la grève.  Dans les Kolkhoz, je m’intéressai aux mesures des paysans plutôt qu’aux écuries modernes.   Je me détachais sans cesse du groupe qui visitait le Kremlin, ouvrant des portes et suivant les couloirs dans l’espoir de trouver quelque belle icône.

I questioned the judge on his wages and his lifestyle.  I subjected academicians to an examination on economic doctrines.  I taunted trade unionists on the impossibility of striking.  In the Kolkhoz, I was interested in the methods of the peasants rather than in the modern stables.  I perpetually detached myself from the group which visited the Kremlin, opening doors and following corridors in the hope of coming upon some beautiful icon.

Une autre fois, impressionné de voir de par la ville et la campagne dans les lieux publics et même les privés, des effigies, des bustes, des statues, des photos, des peintures, des gravures, des mosaïques, des broderies, des bas-relief, des haut-relief, des carton-pâtes, des ébènes, des ivoires, des marbres, des grains de riz sculptés et que sais-je, représentant le Père des Peuples, l’Idole des Masses ouvrières, le Dirigeant du Socialisme universel, le Libérateur des Opprimés, le Chef du Camp de la Paix, le Philosophe de l’Histoire, le Guide des Démocrates, le Sage, l’Éminent, le Doux, le Dur, l’Infaillible, le Grand Camarade Staline, je lancai affectueusement une balle de neige sur une statue où il était représenté en une attitude particulièrement bienveillante.

On another occasion, impressed with seeing all over town and country in public and even in private places, effigies, busts, statues, bas-reliefs, alto-relievos, paste-boards, mahoganies, ivories, marbles, sculpted grains of rice and for all I know representing the Father of Peoples, the Idol of the Working Masses, the Leader of Universal Socialism, the Liberator of the Oppressed, the Head of the Peace Camp, the Philosopher of History, the Guide of Democrats, the Sage, the Eminent, the Mild, the Hard, the Infallible, the Great Comrade Stalin3, I affectionately launched a snowball at a statue where he had been rendered with an especially benevolent expression.4

Scandale!  mais mes hôtes en exprimèrent de la douleur plutôt que de la colère.  Et je pus continuer à parler de Tito et de Tomski, de demander les oeuvres de Trotski dans les bibliothèques, et, généralement, de parler de corde dans la maison du pendu.

Scandal!  But my hosts expressed pain rather than anger.  And I was able to continue to speak of Tito and of Tomski, to ask for the works of Trotsky in the libraries, and, generally, to speak of rope in the house of the hanged.

MARDI:  Un peuple sympathique, mais conventionnel jusqu’à la nausée.

TUESDAY:  A sympathetic people, but conventional to the point of nausea.

 

Translator’s Notes

1  The Chrysler-Ziss is less likely an “imitation” than an actual product of a Chrysler foreign concession, or of actual Chrysler plans.  See the Hoover Institute’s Professor Antony Sutton on how the West financed the Bolshevik “revolution” and built the USSR.  It was not Communism that built the Soviet Union, but western technology, loans and capital.
 
2  Wake up.  This is “Catholic” Trudeau telling you that the Catholic faith (and religion in general) is “balderdash”, “nonsense”.  Now, the pretext for Red activities at Trudeau’s Cité Libre and in the French-Canadian Catholic Youth movement was the desire to improve and modernize the Church from within.  Trudeau battled in the press against Catholic priests and would defend himself on that basis, citing chapter and verse of Catholic dogma in his defense.  But, here, he straightforwardly admits, the Catholic religion is “balderdash”.  “Nonsense”.  He was therefore lying when he pretended that Cité Libre was founded by young Catholic intellectuals trying to reform the Church.  It was founded by Communists undermining French-Canadian Catholic culture, on the model of the crypto-Communist review, Esprit, in France.  Trudeau is a Communist pretending to be a Catholic for public consumption.  Regardless of your position on religion, you must be quite concerned that Pierre Trudeau intentionally misrepresents himself to deceive his listeners.  Not only does he lie about being a Catholic, he’s a Marxist who lied about being a “Liberal”.  He had himself buried in a Catholic ceremony led by a prelate who has moreover been tape-recorded on public radio stating that he advocates war for world government.  Anatoliy Golitsyn plainly states that in the late 1950s, the KGB recruited “devoted” young Communists to penetrate and subvert the priesthood.  Trudeau was a liar.  He pretended to be a Catholic to gain political acceptance from people he was undermining.
 
3  “[…] the Sage, the Eminent, the Mild, the Hard, the Infallible, the Great Comrade Stalin”:  here’s a little footage on the real Stalin, one of the world’s worst mass-murderers:

Stalin's Holodomor against the Kulaks

Stalin's Holodomor against the Kulaks

Above:  Photo from a film discussion of Stalin’s “body collectors” in Ukraine waging the Holodomor against peasants who refused to give up their homes and farms for collectivization.

Stalin was a liar, like his acolyte Trudeau.  Soviet factories did not run “without capitalists”.  Once again, see the Hoover Institute’s Professor Antony Sutton on how the West built the U.S.S.R.

“Stalin, the leader of the first worker-state, lived in reclusive comfort.”  So did Trudeau; (so does Trudeau Junior).

For more details on the benevolent Mr. Stalin and his criminal adjutants, read Sever Plocker (at Israel’s Y-Net News):  “Stalin’s Jews“.
 
4  Trudeau, ever the liar, was again undone.  (He undid himself above by admitting that religion is “nonsense”; his biographers, the Nemnis, have quoted him calling it “superstition”, although he always posed as a Catholic.)  However, this time, Alan Stang documents in 1971 that the press undid the lying Mr. Trudeau.  Said Stang:

“But Toronto Telegram correspondent Peter Worthington checked the meteorological records and found that there was no snow in Moscow during that conference in April, 1952.  Worthington published that fact, and for some reason Pierre has since been angry at him.”

As you may have noticed, that anecdote is the basis for NoSnowInMoscow, the domain here at WordPress and elsewhere.
 

Afterword

It’s too bad Trudeau made Treason his occupation.  He’d have been more interesting (and perhaps less damaging) as a writer.

 

PERMISSION:
Nota bene:  This French transcript and the exclusive English translation are by Kathleen Moore for the legal research purposes of Habeas Corpus Canada, The Official Legal Challenge to North American Union.  Document date: 17 September 2016, based on a rough draft on 16 September 2016.  Permission is given to use this document, with credit to its origin.  If you find this document useful or interesting, please support The Official Legal Challenge To North American Union:  nbsp; PayPal:  hccda@protonmail.com
 

I’m Back From Moscow Le Devoir  (1952) #1

Exclusive English!

 
SourceLe Devoir, June 14th, 1952.  “L’Auberge de la grande U.R.S.S.”.  First article in a series by Pierre Elliott Trudeau on his return from the 1952 Moscow Economic Summit.
 

Foreword:

 

Red Mole Pierre Elliott Trudeau

Red Mole Pierre Elliott Trudeau

In his March 1968 report appended to an issue of Ron Gostick’s The Canadian Intelligence Service, former RCMP undercover agent Patrick Walsh exposes Pierre Elliott Trudeau a few weeks before Trudeau’s first election as prime minister of Canada.  This report resulted in press coverage and TV interviews for Walsh and Gostick at the time.

Concerning Trudeau’s red activities in the 1950s, Walsh notes in particular:

“… as Mr. Trudeau approaches the age of 30, we find him playing an ever more prominent role in the international revolutionary move­ment.  We note his presence in China in 1950 when the Reds were taking over.  We note, too, his launching of the leftist publi­cation CITE LIBRE  in Montreal in 1951, with the collaboration of Gérard Pelletier, another leftist who was to join the Liberal Party with him in 1965.  CITE LIBRE  became the vehicle for a continuous stream of ‘reform’ writers, including such well known Reds as Prof. Raymond Boyer, the Soviet spy; Stanley B. Ryerson, leading theoretician of the Communist Party and editor of Marxist Review; Pierre Gelinas, Quebec director of Agita­tion and Propaganda of the Communist Party.

“In 1952 we find Mr. Trudeau heading a delegation of ‘businessmen’ — who turned out to be Communists! — to the Moscow Economic Conference.  This outraged even the French-lan­guage daily press to the point that Le Droit  (Ottawa) and L’Action Catholique  (Quebec City) called him a Communist for his pro-Soviet articles upon his return.  And the fol­lowing year, 1953, we find him barred from the United States, presumably for his left­ist activities.”

As far as I know, mine is the first English translation of Trudeau’s articles in Le Devoir  on his return from the Moscow Summit.  Feel free to suggest any corrections.

“Je reviens de Moscou”

“I’m Back from Moscow”

L’auberge de la grande U.R.S.S.

The auberge of the great U.S.S.R.

par Pierre Elliott-Trudeau

by Pierre Elliott-Trudeau

– Petit-Poucet rêveur, j’égrenais dans ma course / Des rimes.  Mon auberge était à la Grande Ourse.  (Rimbaud) *
– Little Tom Thumb dreamer, I husked rhymes / Along my route.  My Auberge was the Great Bear. (Rimbaud) **

Pour beaucoup de gens, l’Union Soviétique c’est l’enfer, et l’on ne saurait y mettre pied sans faire un pacte avec le diable.  Ce préjugement a empêché beaucoup d’économistes et d’hommes d’affaires de se rendre à la Rencontre économique internationale de Moscou.

For many people, the Soviet Union is Hell, and one could never set foot there absent a pact with the devil.  This prejudgement has prevented many economists and businessmen from attending the international Economic Summit in Moscow.

Mais il me répugne doublement, comme avocat et comme économiste, de rejeter les pactes sans examen.  Pourquoi le cacher?  Si on me garantissait les sauf-conduits dont Dante apparemment a beneficié, j’irais volontiers en enfer chercher quelques statistiques relatives [sic] à la peine du dam.

However it is doubly repugnant to me, as a lawyer and as an economist, to reject pacts without examination.  Why hide it?  If I am guaranteed the safe conduct from which Dante apparently benefited, I would willingly go into Hell in search of a few statistics in connection with the penalty of damnation.

En fait, de quel pacte s’agissait-il?  A quoi s’engageait-on pour avoir le droit d’aller à Moscou discuter avec les plus eminents économistes, applaudir Lepechinskaia et Ulanova au Bolshoi, et bouffer le caviar à pleine cuillerée?

In fact, what pact was it?  To what did one commit oneself to have the right to go to Moscow to converse with the most eminent economists, to applaud Lepechinskaia and Ulanova at the Bolshoi, and to nosh caviar by the chock-spoonful?1

Une Rencontre
internationale

An International
Meeting

À la fin d’octobre dernier, se réunissait à Copenhague un Comité d’initiative internationale groupant des personnalités distinguées et d’opinions fort diverses.  Ce comité decida de convoquer pour le 3 avril 1952 une Rencontre économique internationale dans le but d’étudier:

At the end of last October, at Copenhagen, a Committee met (an international endeavour) comprised of a quite wide variety of distinguished notables.  This Committee decided to convene an international Economic Summit for April 3rd, 1952 with a view to studying:

Les possibilités d’améliorer les conditions de vie des peuples du monde, par la coopération pacifique des divers pays et des divers systèmes, et par le développement des échanges économiques entre tous les pays.

The feasibility of improving the living conditions of the peoples of the world, through peaceful cooperation of the various countries and the various sytems, and through development of economic exchanges amongst all countries.

Au nombre des principes qui devaient présider à l’organisation de la Rencontre, on spécifiait ce qui suit :

Among the principles having to govern the organization of the Summit, the following were specified:

La participation est ouverte à toute personne désireuse de promouvoir une coopération internationale pacifique dans le domaine économique, quelles que soient par ailleurs ses opinions économiques, politiques et sociales.  Les participants de chaque pays devraient constituer…  une représentation des différentes tendances…  La rencontre écartera toute discussion sur les mérites respectifs des différents systèmes économiques et sociaux…  Le nom (des personnes participantes) ne sera associé à aucune décision qu’elles n’auront pas expréssement approuvé.

Participation is open to anyone wishing to promote peaceful international cooperation in the economic sphere, whether it be by virtue of his or her economic, or political and social views.  Participants from each country should represent a variety of different currents …  The meeting will avoid all discussion of the repsective merits of the various economic and social systems …  Names (of participants) will not be linked to any decision which they will not have expressly approved.

L’Union soviétique s’engageant à donner des visas sans discrimination (ce que d’autres gouvernements ne voulaient pas promettre), il fut décidé de tenir la rencontre à Moscou.

The Soviet Union undertaking to issue visas without discrimination (which other governments did not wish to promise), it was decided to hold the Summit in Moscow.

Tel que proposé le pacte me parut acceptable; et je l’acceptai.  Dans quarante-neuf pays, près de cinq cents personnes, représentant les nuances d’opinion politique, l’acceptèrent aussi.  Ils appartenaient pour la plupart au domaine des finances ou des affaires; un petit nombre venait des milieux syndicaux et coopérateurs; et près de quatre-vingts étaient des économistes, dont plusieurs de réputation mondiale.

As proposed, the pact seemed acceptable to me, and I agreed to it.  In forty-nine countries, some five hundred people, representing the shades of political opinion2, also agreed to it. They belonged for the most part to the financial or business fields; a small number came from the trade union and cooperative milieux; and nearly eighty were economists, some of them world-renowned.

Or, tous ces gens n’étaient pas des suppots de Satan; il n’est pas inutile de le souligner.  Car certain gouvernement et certaine presse ont tendu à nous le faire croire, et leur opinion est devenue dogme dans tous les milieux politiques et financiers où s’étend leur hégémonie.  À ce propos, il faut reconnaître que le gouvernement du Canada n’a pris à ma connaissance aucune position officielle faisant ainsi preuve d’une indépendance d’esprit que tous le Canadiens n’ont pas eu la dignité d’imiter.  Je dois dire de plus que je ne me sens pas tout à fait damné aux yeux de mes compatriotes car les Canadiens français, pour antibolshevik qu’ils sont, entretiennent toujours une saine méfiance aà l’endroit de leurs bons voisins over the border:  et je pense qu’au pire on me prendra pour un flâneur qui, après avoir suivi sa bohème autour du monde, a succombé à la tentation d’un nouvel inconnu.

Now, all of these people were not the spawn of Satan; which it is not pointless to emphasize.  Because some governments and some of the press have attempted to have us believe it, and their opinion has become dogma in all political and financial circles under their hegemony.  In this respect, it should be recognized that the government of Canada to my knowledge took no official position,3 thus demonstrating an independence of mind that not all Canadians have dignified by imitating.  I must say moreover that I do not at all feel damned in the eyes of my compatriots because the French Canadians, antibolshevik as they are, always entertain a healthy mistrust of their good neighbors over the border:   and I think that at worst I will be taken for a wanderer who, having chased his Bohemia around the world, has succumbed to the temptation of a new unknown.

Mais je ne voudrais pas de cette absolution.  S’il y avait faute à entrer sur les terres ou trône le Père des Peuples, j’en suis solidairement coupable avec tous ces autres — conservateurs et socialistes, capitalistes et syndicalistes — qui se sont rendus à Moscou de bonne foi, à leurs frais, peu sollicités par le démon de la connaissance, et animés surtout par leur seul désir «de promouvoir une coopération internationale pacifique».

But I would not want this absolution.  If it was sinful to penetrate that soil where the Father of Peoples is enthroned, I am jointly guilty with all of these others  — conservatives and Socialists, capitalists and trade unionists  — who went to Moscow in good faith, at their own expense4, hardly wooed by the demon of knowledge, and above all motivated solely by their desire “to promote peaceful international cooperation”.

Problème de conscience

A problem of conscience

J’ai eu comme bien d’autres un problème de conscience à résoudre, et qui se posait à peu près comme suit.  Trop tôt après 1945 il devint apparent qu’il n’y avait plus que deux grandes puissances, basées sur deux systèmes fondamentalement incompatibles.  la formation de deux blocs s’ensuivit, et on nomma guerre froide les échanges de bons procédés de désagrégation.  Diverses tactiques plus ou moins honorables, plus ou moins habiles, furent essayées, puis survint l’offensive de la paix.

I, like many others, had a problem of conscience to resolve which presented itself more or less like this.  Too soon after 1945 it became apparent that there were only two superpowers, based on two fundamentally incompatible systems.  The formation of two blocs followed, and the name cold war was given to the exchange of fitting procedures of disaffiliation.  Various more or less honorable, more or less deft tactics were tried, then came the peace offensive.

Des million répondirent à l’appel de Stockholm et signèrent le manifeste antiguerre.  Des millions (et j’en étais) n’y virent que propagande, destinée à saper dans le bloc occidental la confiance des peuples en leurs gouvernements.  L’appel nous paraissait a sens unique; car nous savions que dix millions de voix canadiennes (par exemple) forceraient aisément le gouvernement du Canada a reduire ses préparatifs militaires; alors que cent cinquante millions de signatures soviétiques pourraient bien n’avoir aucun effet quelconque sur les décisions du Politbureau.

Millions responded to the Stockholm Appeal and signed the anti-war manifesto.  Millions (and I was one of them) saw in this mere propaganda, intended to undermine in the Western block the peoples’ confidence in their governments.  The appeal seemed to us one-sided; because we knew that ten million Canadian votes (for example) would easily force the government of Canada to reduce its military preparations; whereas a hundred and fifty million Soviet signatures could have no effect whatsoever on decisions of the Politbureau.5

Surgit alors l’idée de la Conférence économique.  Tactique encore, pouvait-on penser, par laquelle l’U.R.S.S. tentait de déterminer la politique des gouvernements adverses en misant sur la vénalité de leurs milieux d’affaires.  Car il était clair qu’à la Rencontre des agents soviétiques pour le commerce extérieur ne seraient que les instruments dociles d’un État monolithique; alors qu’au contraire les milieux commerciaux de l’Occident — s’ils y trouvaient leur avantage — exerceraient sur leurs gouvernements des pressions pour faire cesser la politique anti-soviétique de discrimination commerciale.

The idea then arose of the Economic Summit.  Another tactic, one might think, by which the U.S.S.R. was trying to determine the policy of adverse governments by betting on the venality of their business sectors.  Because it was clear that at the Summit, Soviet foreign trade agents would be nothing but the docile instruments of a monolithic State, while on the contrary, Western business milieux — if they found it to their advantage — would exert pressure on their governments to cease the anti-Soviet policy of trade discrimination.

Un risque légitime

A legitimate risk

L’objection étant de taille; mais à la différence de l’Appel de Stockholm, elle ne pouvait pas etre établie à priori.  Car on offrait ici un quid pro quo:  il s’afissait de voir quel il était.  La Rencontre se proposait d’augmenter les échanges commerciaux entre les nations, ce qui présupposait que chacune put y trouver son avantage.  Peu importe que les affaires fussent negociées entre individus privés et agences d’Etat, pourvu qu’elles fussent sérieuses et à l’avantage des deux parties.  Les affaires sont les affaires, et les démocraties capitalistes auraient mauvaise grâce de nier à leurs financiers d’explorer les avantages d’une offre commerciale.

The objection being proportionate; but unlike the Stockholm Appeal, it could not be established a priori.  Because there was an offer here of quid pro quo:   it was a matter of seeing what it was.  The Summit proposed to increase commercial trade among the nations, which presupposed that each one could derive an avantage.  It hardly matters that business was negotiated between private individuals and State agencies, provided that it was serious and to the benefit of both parties.  Business is Business, and it would be in poor grace if the capitalist democracies prohibited their financiers from exploring the advantages of a trade proposal.

On objecte alors que si l’U.R.S.S. était de bonne foi elle aurait pu s’adresser à la Commission économique de l’Europe, ou directement aux gouvernements occidentaux.  Mais il faut avouer que depuis cinq ans les discussions entre gouvernements n’ont guère entrainé le monde sur le chemin de la paix.

One then objects that if the U.S.S.R. was in good faith it ought to have addressed itself to the European Economic Commission, or directly to western governments.  But it must be admitted that for the past five years discussions between governments have hardly embarked the world on the road to peace.

Et puis, que risquions-nous?  Si la Rencontre était du truquage, nous pourrions tranquillement poursuivre la politique d’embargos.  Mais si, tout à coup, c’était sérieux, si, par peur ou par nécessité, ou par raison, les hommes du Politbureau voulaient vraiment développer le commerce multilatéral, devrions-nous refuser d’entendre leurs propositions?  Si notre blocus économique commencait véritablement à gêner les Soviétiques, si, en conséquence, ils se voyaient forcés à soulever un peu le rideau, devions-nous encore parler de reddition sans conditions et proclamer que plus rien n’importe sauf le blocus?  Était-ce la réaction ou la paix que nous voulions?  Et celle-ci avait-elle si peu de prix que nous devions rejeter sans examen le plus infime chance de la réaliser?

And so, what did we risk?  If the Summit was a trick, we could have quietly pursued the policy of embargoes.  But if all of a sudden it was serious, if, out of fear, or out of necessity, or out of logic, the men of the Politburo really wanted to develop multilateral trade, should we have refused to hear their proposals?  If our economic blockade had really begun to compromise the Soviets, if, in consequence, they felt forced to lift the curtain a bit, had we then to speak of unconditional surrender and proclaim that nothing matters any more except the blockade?  Was it the reaction or the peace that we wanted?  And was it at such a low price that we had to reject without examination the most negligible chance to bring it about?

Le citoyen moyen
n’est pas un imbécile

The average citizen
is not an imbecile

D’ailleurs, quelques centaines d’Occidentaux y auraient toujours gagné d’être allés jeter un coup d’oeil par derrière le rideau.  Si nous croyons encore à la démocratie, il faut avoir confiance que le citoyen moyen n’est pas un imbécile; qu’il ne sera pas complètement dupé du spectacle organisé pour son bénéfice; que c’est même son devoir de se former une opinion personnelle sur un pays quand même plus important que l’Andorre et le Liechtenstein, et qu’il n’est pas plus sot en affaires que les Soviétiques.  Nous pouvions même espérer que ces contacts entre hommes qui jusqu’alors se regardaient comme chiens de faience serviraient à amorcer pour l’avenir des rencontres sur une base plus humaine.  Le commerce reste la plus ancienne forme de collaboration internationale, et celle qui a forgé les liens d’interdependance les plus solides; aussi, la circulation des biens entre égaux vaut souvent mieux qu’ambassades et consulats.

Furthermore, several hundred Westerners would still have benefited from having gone to have a look behind the curtain. If we still believe in democracy, we must have confidence that the average citizen is not an imbecile, that he will not be completely fooled by the spectacle organized for his benefit; that it is even his duty to form a personal opinion on a country still larger than Andorra and Lichtenstein, and that he is no stupider in business than the Soviets.   We might even hope that these contacts among men who hitherto had stared at one another like earthenware dogs would serve to launch future meetings on a more human basis.   Trade remains the oldest form of international collaboration, and that which has forged the most solid bonds of interdependence; as well, the circulation of goods among equals is often worth more than embassies and consulates.

Mais pour profiter de cette chance au maximum, il eut été utile que des citoyens de première valeur vinssent à la Rencontre.  Tandis que — par la puissance du mot d’ordre américain — plusieurs délégations, telle la canadienne, n’étaient vraiment pas de première valeur.

But to glean the maximum benefit from this opportunity, it would have been useful had leading citizens come to the Summit.  Whereas — thanks to the power of the American war-cry — a number of delegations, such as the Canadian, were not really first-rate.

Faut-il y voir une nouvelle preuve d’une politique timorée et suiveuse?  Les Canadiens ont-ils failli encore une fois à exploiter les avantages d’une situation?  Ou ont ils fait preuve de réalisme en refusant de servir la propagande sovietique?  J’espère que les articles suivants fourniront les éléments d’une réponse.

Must this be seen as new evidence of a timid and conformist policy?  Have the Canadians once again failed to exploit the benefits of a situation?  Or have they been realistic in refusing to serve Soviet propaganda?  I hope that this series of articles will provide the elements of a reply.

LUNDI:  Premières rencontres.

MONDAY:  First encounters.

______
  

Translator’s Notes

 
1 Trudeau says the Moscow attendees noshed “caviar by the chock-spoonful”.  An interesting counterpoint to this 1952 assessment of conditions in the USSR is the 1956 short item in Vrai  (November 1955), “A Canadian Spy in Russia,” where René Lévesque affirms that the standard meal of the standard Russian under the Soviet regime is a big bowl of cabbage soup.  Said Lévesque, rather optimistically:

“Unhappy, miserable people?  No more than elsewhere.  The Russians seeming to eat rather well.  The equivalent of our “pea soup” might be this soup with boiled cabbages or beets which is served to you in very large bowls.”

 
2 Apparently, the “shades” most represented were pink to red.  According to Allan Stang in American Opinion (April 1971):

“Also in 1951, the Communist World Peace Council, and the Communist World Federation of Trade Unions, then run by V. V. Kuznetsov of Soviet Intelligence, began planning an international economic conference to be held the next year in Moscow. […]  The conference was held in April, 1952.  Of the 471 delegates, 132 were from officially Communist countries.  Observers at the time estimated that 300 of the remaining 339 were known or suspected Party members — which left 39 or so for window dressing.”

 
3 Trudeau says the Canadian government took no “official” position on the Moscow economic summit.  According to American Opinion (April 1971) Allan Stang (American Opinion, April 1971):

“Indeed, so obvious was the nature of the forthcoming conference that in December, 1951, then-Canadian Justice Minister Stuart Garson warned all Cabinet Ministers that it was a Communist operation, and advised that government employees should not attend.”

As we can tell from his paean to the Summit in Le Devoir, Trudeau, who was then an employee of Canada’s Privy Council Office in Ottawa under prime minister Louis Saint-Laurent, ignored that directive.
 
4 Trudeau says attendees at the Economic Summit came at their own expense; however, Trudeau’s own expenses had been covered by the Communist Party of Canada.  Allan Stang:

“The report of that conference, printed in Moscow, is now very hard to get.  All copies in Canadian libraries have disappeared.  You see a part of that report reproduced on Page 3.  As you see, one of the delegates was Pierre-Elliott Trudeau.  Indeed, the fact that Trudeau’s name appears first means he headed the Communist delegation.”

“Marcus Leslie Hancock, one of the six delegates from Canada, says the Canadian delegation was organized by the Canadian Communist Party, which also paid the delegates’ bills.  Hancock, then a Communist, says that everyone else he knew in the delegation was also a Party member.

 
5 And yet, while Trudeau was detaining the prime minister’s office in Canada, and despite the conclusions of the “Royal Commission on Security” that “the main current security threats to Canada are posed by international communism and the communist powers”, Trudeau himself reduced Canada’s military preparedness.  One cartoonist (Donato, Toronto Sun ) portrayed this reduction as Pierre Elliott Trudeau standing proudly under the dangling cork of a pop-gun.  Source:  Lubor Zink, writing in Viva Chairman Pierre, 1977, Griffin Press Limited, Toronto, pp. 25 and 94.  (Available at AntiCommunist Archive.com)  Which will tell you that Trudeau knew what he was doing; he deliberately subjected Canada to Soviet armed supremacy, while himself gearing up with the Parti Québécois (set up in 1967-68 on orders of a “secret committee” of “Liberals” of which he was a part, at Power Corporation) to dismantle Canada for Communism.  See my exclusive English translation of the PQ’s 1972 manifesto for a Communist state of Quebec, free download in the sidebar (blue lightning).
 
* This is a very, very nice French play on words using a couplet out of Arthur Rimbaud’s Ma bohème.  By association, it transforms the “U.R.S.S.” of Trudeau’s title, “L’auberge de la grande U.R.S.S.” into a homonym for “bear” in French, and the Great Bear is a well known symbol of Russia.  Great Bear is also a name of the northern Big Dipper; while Russia is northerly.

Unlike NAFTA (ALENA in French), U.S.S.R. (U.R.S.S. in French) is not pronounced as an acronym.  However, U.R.S.S.  on its own, as used here by Trudeau, can indeed be pronounced as an acronym, resulting in “OURSE” (French for “Bear”).  So this is a lovely pun on the Soviet Union as a northerly constellation, the Great Bear; and by pulling in Rimbaud, Trudeau transforms the Great Bear of the Soviet Union into his own “auberge” during the Moscow Economic Summit.
 

** It has been years since I have thought about reading a poem, let alone writing or translating one.  But Trudeau’s little coup d’état  up there with the Rimbaud couplet made me look up the whole poem, and I’ve attempted an English translation:

Ma bohème

Arthur Rimbaud

 

Je m’en allais, les poings dans mes poches crevées ;
Mon paletot soudain devenait idéal ;
J’allais sous le ciel, Muse, et j’étais ton féal ;
Oh ! là là ! Que d’amours splendides j’ai rêvées !

Mon unique culotte avait un large trou.
Petit-Poucet rêveur, j’égrenais dans ma course
Des rimes.  Mon auberge était à la Grande-Ourse.
Mes étoiles au ciel avaient un doux frou-frou

Et je les écoutais, assis au bord des routes,
Ces bons soirs de septembre où je sentais des gouttes
De rosée à mon front, comme un vin de vigueur ;

Où, rimant au milieu des ombres fantastiques,
Comme des lyres, je tirais les élastiques
De mes souliers blessés, un pied près de mon cœur !

My Wanderlust

Arthur Rimbaud
Translation by Kathleen Moore (16-09-2016)
 
Off I went, fists in my sagging pockets;
My overcoat suddenly become ideal;
Off I went, beneath the sky, Muse, loyal to you;
Ooh, la! la!  I dreamed only of splendid loves!

My only pants had a large hole.
Little Tom Thumb dreamer, I husked rhymes
Along my route.  My Inn was the Big Dipper.
My stars in the sky softly rustled

And I listened to them, sitting on the wayside,
Those good September nights when I felt the dew
Drops on my brow, like a strong wine;

Where, rhyming in the midst of fabulous shadows,
I pulled the elastics of my wounded shoes like harps,
one foot next to my heart!

 

PERMISSION:
Nota bene:  This French transcript and the exclusive English translation are by Kathleen Moore for the legal research purposes of Habeas Corpus Canada, The Official Legal Challenge to North American Union.  Document date: 16 September 2016, based on a rough draft on 14 September 2016.  Permission is given to use this document, with credit to its origin.  If you find this document useful or interesting, please support The Official Legal Challenge To North American Union:  PayPal: habeas.corpus.canada@live.com
 
P.S.  “Wanderlust”, my translation of Rimbaud’s “Ma bohème” is my copyright.

 

Bourgeois Leftism in the Student Movement

Category:  Enemy Sightings
Source:  “Bourgeois Leftism in the Student Movement”, McGill Daily, by Edward Goldenberg and Julus Grey.  (Stanley Gray is on the Editorial committee; and Soviet-agent Mark Starowicz is the Daily’s Editor)
DateMcGill Daily, Vol. 58, Np. 067.  Thursday, February 6, 1969, Page 5.

“Bourgeois Leftism in the Student Movement” by Edward Goldenberg and Julus Grey, McGill Daily, 6 February 1969

Foreword

At the time of publication of this piece co-authored by “Red Eddie” Goldenberg, there is a Communist front protest organized against English-language McGill University by Marxist professor Stan Gray and Oswald look-alike, François Mario Bachand.  McGill wants to fire Gray.  Instead, they all go to arbitration.

One of the agreed-upon arbitrators will be Walter Tarnopolsky.  “Red Walter” will show up again at the 1982 Marxist coup on Canada hidden behind an alleged patriation of the Constitution.  Tarnopolsky is a student of Soviet political institutions at Columbia University in the 1950s; and ever after spends his career issuing seditious speeches promoting the Soviet “human rights” system …for Canada … to Canadian groups and institutions.

During the Special Joint Committee of the House of Commons and Senate in Ottawa on the upcoming coup — disguised as patriation — Tarnopolsky is a privileged lobbyist.&nbps; In his presentation to the Joint Committee, he recommends re-drafting the “guarantee and limitation” clause, today known as Section 1 of the Charter.  The Charter will soon be imposed by Trudeau in a move designed to eradicate the lawful Parliament and Legislatures of Confederation.

Also on the McGill in ’69 scene are man-on-the-Soviet-payroll, Mark Starowicz and his colleague Bob Chodos.  The following year in Toronto, Starowicz and Chodos will publish a purloined copy of the “Poverty Report” sponsored by Canada’s “Liberal” Senator from Moscow, David (Davud) Croll.  The Poverty Report, written by a crew of far-leftists from the Marxist New Democratic Party’s Waffle, recommends Basic Guaranteed Income (BGI) for Canada.  In 1972, the manifesto of the Parti Québécois, produced in French only, will recommend the same thing, while declaring that to implement a BGI, there must be full-scale socialist (Communist) planning.  For this reason, the manifesto reveals, Quebec needs all the powers, and must secede to get them.

Anti-white racist and red smear artist who wrote for the Communist (um — “Canadian“) Broadcasting Corporation, Maxwell Cohen (see Ron Gostick’s 1956 Brief on Communist line at the CBC) is Dean of Law involved in McGill administration during the 1969 Red front led by Stan Grey.  In 1964, Cohen unilaterally (or, who appointed him?) was generous enough to offer Canada to the Americans (he was obviously trying early to capture the USA which indeed will be lassoed to Canada under a future post-9/11 military perimeter).  In 1968, Cohen is penning anti-white racist material for the Canadian Bar Review and the McGill Law Journal, and other attendant demagoguery to turn the French Canadians against the “English”.  Cohen is working on the big Canadians pushover for the incoming planned flood of foreigners to restructure Canada for “new men” (as Cohen calls them) and to Sovietize the country under Trudeau’s “Just Society”.

In the coming decades after his piece in the Daily, Eddie Goldenberg will succeed his father Carl Hyman Goldenberg as an adviser to prime ministers.  In Eddie’s case, adviser to Marxist prime minister Jean Chrétien, after Trudeau has carried off phase one of the Canadian overthrow:  his 1982 coup d’état.

Eddie is described as the “unelected prime minister of Canada” in his book, How It Works (in Ottawa).  See the clip of Eddie, above, spit glistening on his lips, leering while recalling his task of writing Marxist Jean Chrétien’s acceptance speech anticipating a “Yes” in the probably highly rigged 1995 Communist near-miss.

Eddie’s father Hyman will officiate in the Senate in the 1980-82 overthrow of the Parliament and Legislatures of Canada (the phony “patriation”).  Hyman was also a central figure in the Canada-USA joint war effort in WWII, at which time he no doubt kept his socialist world-planning nose well into American war affairs for the Soviets.

This is also the time when Pearson-Trudeau will be financing “student activists” (like the FLQ terrorists) to work in local slum communities, developing leftism and demands for socialist solutions.  What a coincidence that Red Eddie & al are busy encouraging student mobilization to this end in the 1969 McGill Daily during the big Red Front attack on “English” institutions in Quebec.

As well, the pair of authors (Red Eddie and Julius Grey) demand urgent action for conditions among Eskimos and Indians!  Our man Walter Rudnicki of the federal Privy Council Office (PCO) will soon show up with solutions (can’t wait to find out what they are) and I expect they will be to herd the aboriginals into municipalities in order to annex them to the future Moscow-style city-states.
 

Bourgeois Leftism in the Student Movement

By Edward Goldenberg and Julus Grey

The student movement at McGill as elsewhere has undergone a profound and remarkable transformation in the past few years.  If the focus of interest was once centres on winter carnivals, it is now irrevocably fixed on the problems of society.  The social consciousness of a whole generation has been awakened; the “Silent Generation” of the ‘fifties can be relegated to the scrapheap of history.

But the new student movement is not moving as smoothly or as surely as it should.  It should be a vehicle for social progress and should propagate the true ideals of democracy and progress.  Instead it seems to have taken a wrong turn and is in grave danger of losing sight of its original goals.  We are writing this article because we are concerned about the loss of direction of the student movement, and we feel that it is high time that serious debate takes place on some of the main principles involved.

We fear that the revolution talked about by our leaders is nothing more than a bourgeous coup d’état.  Power would shift from one elite to another, and it would be plain for everyone to see that “plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.”  Students do not need a new class of professional politicians to take care of their affairs.

We do not like the intolerance that is shown towards opinions that are different from those of the power elite (witness the McGill Daily).  A rigid dogmatism is no more welcome in student political thought than in any other political thought.  To us part of the meaning of freedom and democracy is the right to express and have heard any — not just one — opinion no matter how outrageous it may be to some.  Rational solutions to problems come from the expression of all ideas on the subject and not from the forced imposition of one idea.  The suppression of ideas is tyrannical even when it comes to the “Left.”

We believe that the university should be the vanguard of society:  it is not a microcosm of society.  The tearing down of the university cannot be the prelude to the tearing down of the whole social order and would be no more than an isolated act.  To think differently is to be the victim of illusions and self deceptions.

We believe as strongly as anyone else that the university is in great need of reform to make it more relevant to the problems of society; we do not believe that the university is run by evil men intent on imposing the evils of the military-industrial complex upon us.  Some of those in positions of authority are undoubtedly very reactionary, others are plainly and simply incompetent, others may even be progressive.  It is evident that a good many should be replaced by men who are in tune with the times.  But we reject the blind accusations of evilness; we would prefer to see the use of logical and rational arguments.  We would also like to remind our leaders that it has been said with justification that “after Clark Kerr comes not the millennium, but Ronald Reagan.”

We are worried that the student movement is becoming more and more bourgeois and is concerning itself almost exclusively with its own small problems to the detriment of the greater and more important problems of society as a whole.”

We want to see university reform, but we feel that it is impeded and much needed time is wasted when false enemies are created in order to bring about false confrontation situations.  To construct barriers (of paper) in order to smash through them and cry victory for the forces of progress is childish and immature.  And it is a waste of time when there are much more important things to accomplish.

For McGill’s student leaders to take stands in favour of unilingualism and independence for Quebec is not being progressive.  Nationalism is essentially retrograde especially in a society whose basic historical conditions are objectively right-wing.  An independent Quebec will not be a socialist paradise.  The solutions for the problems of a society that is almost in the post-industrial stage are not to be found in the nationalist slogans of the nineteenth century.  It is only the bourgeoisie that has time to debate the merits and demerits of a retrograde solution for the problems of the Quebec of 1969.  There is too much to be done to meet the real interests and needs of the people of Quebec for our leaders to waste our time talking about “independence” in a world of interdependence.

We believe that the student movement must regain its momentum as a force for social change.  First, an atmosphere of freedom of thought must be recreated in the university.  Logical and rational discussion should replace the intolerance that has been created by excessive emotionalism.  The real problems of society must be debated and exposed and dramatized.

Students should concern themselves with the intolerable slum conditions in which people are forced to live.  Student activists should encourage community organizations to fight for decent and sufficient urban renewal programmes as a top priority of Government.

Rather than demonstrate in favor of free education at the university level as the first priority for government, it might be more just to demonstrate for under-privileged sectors of society.  Universal accessibility begins at the primary level, and unless there can be equality of opportunity at the whole pre-university level, there can never be true universal accessibility to the university.

The war in Viet Nam has brought out the fact that secret war research is being carried out for the Pentagon in our universities.  We believe that it is very important that all research projects be made public so that it will be possible to gather public opinion to protest the carrying out of projects that aid causes that are repulsive to humanity.

The student movement should expose and demonstrate against the intolerable conditions in which Canadian Indians and Eskimos live.  The Government must be forced to correct these injustices, and the student movement has a constructive role to play in this area.

There is far too much poverty in a country that considers itself to be affluent.  Students have a duty to expose the shamefulness of the situation in a clear enough way that governments will be forced to rearrange their priorities to put the elimination of poverty at the top of the list.

We believe that the student movement has a vital role to play in creating a climate of opinion in Canada that will demand a reform and revamping of a woefully inadequate external aid program.  Egalitanianism must be practised abroad as well as at home.

These are but a few of the areas in which the student movement has a constructive role to play.  The student movement must become the conscience of our society, and must spend its time and energy in attempting to create the conditions necessary for the elimination of injustices and misery.  Therefore, the reforms that we seek within the university must be those that will facilitate the role of the student movement.  In other words, out courses should, in as much as possible, be given in such a manner that they will aid in the development of a social consciousness that will help us try to find rational solutions to the problems of society.

We believe that a student movement with the goals that we have outlined would be more progressive, more democratic, and definitely more constructive than one that spends its time engaged in sterile theoretical discussions of what can only be called bourgeois leftism.

The student movement cannot remain the prisoner of a small clique playing insignificant and irrelevant games of power politics.  There is too much to accomplish!

Edward GOLDENBERG
Julius GREY

– 30 –

Magnificent Annual Dinner And Seminar

ANNUAL DINNER AND SEMINAR ISSUE

THE NEW TIMES

“Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free”
Vol. 34, No. 10  October 1968

Magnificent Annual Dinner And Seminar

“WE FACE OUR FINEST HOUR” — ERIC BUTLER

The 1968 Annual Dinner of “The New Times” held on Friday, September 5, has passed into history.  But to those who had the good fortune to attend, it will remain as a vivid milestone in the march towards that time when, in the words of C. H. Douglas quoted by Dinner Chairman Edward Rock, “a world system founded upon lies will give way to one which is formed in truth.”

 


 
The largest audience ever to attend a Dinner gave the main guest of honour, Mr. Patrick Walsh, former undercover agent from Canada, a tremendous reception.  There was also a record audience at the annual League of Rights Seminar on the following day when Mr. Walsh presented the third and final paper.  The first two papers were presented by Mr. Eric Butler and Mr. T. C. McGillick, a former Communist who led a delegation to Moscow before the Second World War.

It was not only the spirit of the record attendances at both the Dinner and Seminar, which reflected the encouraging growth of the activities with which The New Times  has been associated, but the wide representation.  Supporters were present from all States except Tasmania.  There were both young and old.  Farmers, businessmen, professional men, housewives, students, wage earners, had all come together in a common cause.  Several clerical collars were to be seen at the Seminar.

There was a special round of applause at the Dinner when the Chairman welcomed Leith, the son of a South Australian supporter, Ern Bawden, who is at present doing his National Service training.  The Chairman explained that Leith had only been able to obtain leave to attend by doing extra Army duties.

Thought-Provoking Messages

Messages came from all parts of the Old British Commonwealth, including South Africa.  They all indicated support for ideas which transcend geography and time.  We specially recommend a study in depth of some of these messages.  We attempt in this special annual issue of The New Times  to capture the spirit of the Annual Dinner, truly a spiritual inspiration, it reflects the life beat of a movement growing ever stronger as it faces the perils of the mounting campaign of attack on what remains of Civilization.

 Mr. Pat Walsh, Mrs. Eric Butler and Mr. Eric Butler as they arrived at the Dinner.

Mr. Pat Walsh, Mrs. Eric Butler and Mr. Eric Butler as they arrived at the Dinner.

In proposing the toast to The New Times, pioneer supporter Mr. Roy Caldecott took guests back 33 years to when the journal was launched by Mr. T. J. Moore when he found as editor of the Catholic Tribune  in Melbourne that he had to cease his attack on a financial policy which at that time was causing widespread economic chaos and human misery in Australia.  Mr. Caldecott recalled the days when he first met Eric Butler, “The young orator”, travelling in those days by push bike, motor bike, and broken down motor cars in which he had to sleep.  Mr. Caldecott said that his generation was passing the torch to a new generation.

It was a member of the younger generation, Miss Monica Baldock, who so appropriately seconded the toast to The New Times.  The daughter of a pioneer Social Credit family, Monica symbolized the continuing growth of The New Times  and the principle it has supported over the years.  Responding to the toast, the Chairman of New Times Ltd., Mr. Edward Rock, said that the situation was such that he made no apology “for calling upon those reserves of the Christ-like image imbedded in every one of us”.

Mr. Walsh Pays Tribute
To League Of Rights

Mr. Pat Walsh spoke of the emerging grass roots movements throughout the old British Commonwealth and paid a special tribute to the Australian League of Rights for having made available the invaluable services of Mr. Eric Butler.  Mr. Walsh apologized for his accent, but said that Canadians had been bearing up under Eric Butler’s accent for years!  Many of the guests took the opportunity of meeting Mr. Walsh personally and talking to him.

Mr. Eric Butler’s use of a few words in French to greet Mr. Walsh produced loud applause, as did his references to his wife as his best supporter. After dealing with the highlights of his six months of work abroad. Mr. Butler concluded by saying that while the world situation was grim, and would become even worse before there was improvement, it did present those with knowledge and understanding with “an opportunity and a challenge to shift the course of history”.

The National Secretariat of The Australian League of Rights met in an all-day conference on the day of The New Times Dinner, discussing the year’s activities and planning for the future. Reports presented were most encouraging.

The League’s Annual Seminar had as its theme the conspiratorial nature of International Communism. Mr. Walsh’s paper on “Secret Communist Agents who have changed the course of history” is being expanded into book form. Many new contacts were made at the Seminar. Book sales were heavy. The weekend of intense activity was concluded on Sunday, September 7, when representatives of action groups met for an all-day conference to “exchange notes” and to discuss improved tactics. Short papers were presented on different aspects of League activities. All present left for home re-enthused to carry on with more intensive activity than ever.

In surveying the various activities, which have stemmed from the ideas first presented to the Australian people by this journal, we believe that we can with proper pride express the view that The New Times has already made a significant contribution to Australian history. The Annual Dinner is a very special reflection of the spirit, which has made that contribution possible.

– 30 –

The Decline of the American Republic

The Decline Of The American Republic

Chapter Five
in Somewhere South of Suez
By Douglas Reed (1950)

A former American Ambassador in London, Mr. Joseph P. Kennedy (who in 1940 thought Britain was beaten), in 1946 wrote:

‘The British Empire has progressively declined since the turn of the century — a process substantially accelerated by the events of the last ten years … The British Empire is now the third and last of the really great powers and is clearly in a category below the United States and Russia.’

Such opinions are often heard in America and may reflect surface appearances rather than deep realities, or derive in truth more from things heard in early class-rooms and playgrounds than from living events.  About that time I was beginning to be puzzled by the note of dejection and alarm I found in letters from American friends ‘who seemed to feel that much was wrong in the American Republic.  To me it looked, from afar, invulnerably powerful and inexhaustibly rich; secluded between two wide oceans its national safety and domestic prosperity seemed impenetrably secure; but they did not feel confident or even safe.  When I had enforced leisure, on a balcony over Durban, to study a mass of literature on the subject, I began to find the reasons for their anxiety (and later saw these more plainly in America itself).  The outward strength and security of the Republic were plain, but it had been much reduced from within through the two wars.  It could tranquilly face the four corners of the world in arms, but might not be safe from strangers in its midst; against these the straight boulevards of Washington, planned by a French military engineer to give long field of fire against rioters or invaders, would not avail, for they did not come with arms, or openly.  The Republic was going through a process of undermining from within similar to that which began in England in 1917, and this was far advanced.  It was 173 years old and, by all the signs, its great strength was being subtly diverted to serve the ends of external, alien causes in distant parts of the world.

These causes, as everywhere, were the twins Soviet Communism and Political Zionism, which found ways to enter the Republic, to penetrate to high places or plant pliant men in them, and to dictate or divert major undertakings of American policy to their ends.  The hidden mechanism revealed itself in the deviations of this policy during the second act.  It was more dangerous in the American Republic than anywhere else, because of the strength and wealth of the country, and, I think may fairly be added, because of its inexperience in handling explosive world affairs.  The prudent drafters of the American Constitution did not provide checks, if any are feasible, against such manipulation of the Republic’s power and of a presidential and parliamentary system.  They did not foresee invasions by mass-immigration, or the use of votes so gained to ‘deliver an election’, or the loosing of presidents in wartime to pursue any aims without public control, or the consequence of these things:  the irremovable or semi-permanent president.

Thus the American letters I received were in the disconsolate tone of Cassius:

Ye gods, it doth amaze me,
A man of such a feeble temper should
So get the start of the majestic world,
And bear the palm alone …
Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus; and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs, and peep about
To find ourselves dishonourable graves.
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
 

– 172 –

 

But in ourselves, that we are underlings …
Age, thou art sham’d!
Rome, thou hast lost the breed of noble bloods!

The authors felt themselves underlings, lamented the feeble temper of their presidents in this time, and saw the shadow of Communism and Political Zionism rising over them like a two-headed Colossus.  They could not see how to escape the thrall and cried that Washington’s Capitol had lost the breed of noble bloods.  Out­ward power and glory might be theirs, they said, but no longer their own Republic.

This development of the American Republic, they thought, was in the line of the Communist Revolution, the Balfour Declaration, the expansion of the Soviet Empire and the erection of the Zionist State.  They read it to mean that, while the Republic is predominantly European in population and tradition, much power there has passed into Asiatic or Eurasian hands.  The energies of the Republic, in these years, have visibly been diverted to the furtherance of ulterior causes.  The comedy, they said, continued with the rhythmic inevitability of Greek tragedy, in which the gods are masters of the plot, that men cannot avert or alter.

The process first became apparent, like all else, in the first war, when an American President received that large empowerment which is more dangerous than any Absolute Weapon; indeed, my belief is that atom bombs and poison gas are only brandished before the public eye in order to distract it from this much more lethal peril.  President Wilson, before election, said:

‘We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world — no longer a government by conviction and the free vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.’

Through him and his successors, many Americans told me, the words gained more truth than they then contained, for in his Presidency appeared the beginnings of new groups of dominant men whose dominance has hardly been interrupted since.

The first, and still the greatest, of the Advisers was a Mr. Bernard Baruch.  He accompanied President Wilson to the Peace Conference of 1919 and then remained counsellor to five later presidents, Messrs. Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Roosevelt and Truman. This is a phenomenon of the twentieth century, and I offer it for study as such.  The results of his advisership cannot be adjudged because overt acts of policy were always those of the President or Government. Non-accountability is inherent in the institution; the responsible figure passes in time, and the non-responsible, but possibly more powerful ones, go on.  In this case the lifework of a man who once described himself as the most powerful in the world, over a considerable period, and who continues to wield very great power, cannot be audited at all from public results.  Surmise alone is possible, and a general inference from the development of the American Republic during his time.  The innovation, in a rare case, might be good, but as an established source of power tends of itself, like that of kings, presidents and wartime prime ministers, to grow dangerous to the community, if immune from parliamentary and popular supervision.  The Americans I met thought so; they did not so much fear the consequences of Mr. Baruch’s own advisorships as the great expansion of the system of semi-secret advisorships which sprang up, once the seed was sown.  This they held wholly wrong and perilous.

Mr. Baruch in the first war represented this new, and previously unimaginable, prodigy in affairs of State:  the non-elected, non-accountable, non-supervisable potentate in a parliamentary land.  He is not solely important, only generically so as the archetype.  Beginning in a small way, the advisory system has in these thirty years spread outward and downward through every department of American life, so that today even American generals in the American zone of Germany, for
 

– 173 –

 
instance, have Zionist advisers beside them, to whom, apparently, they must defer.  The masses of the Republic are almost oblivious of this mechanism of remote control and of its workings.

During the first war Mr. Baruch was chairman of a War Industries Board.  Its powers reached beyond anything previously imagined possible and substantial public uneasiness arose concerning them; the public mind was much more sensitive then than in the second war.  An American Parliamentary Committee was set up after the war’s end to inquire into the extent and use of its despotic authority.  This inquiry, though it led to no future restraints, remains for the future historian one of the most revealing documents of the century.  Mr. Baruch was asked:  ‘You determined what anybody could have?’ and answered:  ‘Exactly; there is no question about that.  I assumed that responsibility, sir, and the final determination rested with me … That final determination, as the President said, rested with me; the determination of whether the Army or Navy would have it rested with me; the determination of whether the railroad administration could have it, or the Allies, or whether General Allenby should have locomotives, or whether they should be used in Russia or used in France.’

‘And all those different lines’ (he was asked) ‘really, ultimately, centred in you, so far as power was concerned?’ He answered:

‘Yes, sir, it did. I probably had more power than perhaps any other man did in the war; doubtless that is true.’

Clearly the nature of the power thus wielded far transcends that of the persons, political or military, outwardly responsible for the conduct of a war.  It was not merely that of expediting the output and delivery of the stuff of war, but of deciding who should have it and in what theatre of war.  That is power on the supreme political and military level; in a world conflict it is world power.  By the second war this startling innovation was become recognized wartime usage.

Mr. Baruch, and others of the growing community of advisers, retained great influence throughout the peace, especially under the long presidency of Mr. Roosevelt.  Just before the second war began Mr. Baruch was told by Mr. Winston Churchill (according to Mr. Robert E. Sherwood’s Roosevelt and Hopkins):  ‘War is coming very soon.  We will be in it and you’ (the American Republic) ‘will be in it.  You’ (Mr. Baruch) ‘will be running the show over there but I will be on the sidelines over here.’  Mr. Churchill did not remain on the sidelines long.  Mr. Baruch has not publicly stated if, or how far, he ran the show during the second war, when President Roosevelt was publicly thought to be all-powerful, but his influence remained large and perennial.

After the second war, in any case, he bade fair to become the most powerful man in the world again, if he had not remained so, for he was appointed head of what, in his own conception of it, was to be the most potent body of all, the Atomic Development Authority, or Ada.  This was to take over matters atomic, in which British research led the world until Mr. Churchill transferred the British discoveries to exclusive American use under his empowerment of the second war.  In 1946 (according to the Yorkshire Post) Mr. Churchill said there was no man in whose hands he would rather see ‘this awful problem placed’ than Mr. Baruch’s.  Mr. Baruch’s plan (see From Smoke to Smother, pp. 126-7) was that Ada (a committee of a few men) should have a world monopoly of atom bombs, worldwide powers of inspection to prevent their manufacture by others, and sovereign powers to drop them on any ‘who violate the agreements that are reached by nations’.  One example of an ‘agreement reached by nations’ was the agreement to partition Palestine.  Had Ada then been in existence, it would presumably have been empowered to drive the Arabs from their Palestine; were it in existence now, and ‘the nations’ agreed that the Zionist State needed more territory, it would presumably move to enforce such agreement.  The implications of this seem boundless and exempt none, anywhere, either in America or outside it.

This Plan, however, has as yet been delayed in fulfilment, though President Truman in October 1949 reaffirmed that he would continue ‘to back the Baruch Plan to the hilt’.  It seemed from such incidents that the American Republic’s major actions of State policy by this time were no longer
 

– 174 –

 
fashioned between government and parliament but took shape in the Plans of advisers, adopted by presidents.  Two of many instances indicate this.  The atom bomb, and atomic bombing, were to be entrusted to a committee under such a Plan.  The punishment of Germany was laid down in a ‘Morgenthau Plan’ signed by President Roosevelt at the urgency of ‘an old and loyal friend’!  Mr. Roosevelt later said he ‘had no idea how he could have initialled it’ and Mr. Churchill still later said, ‘I did not agree with it and I am sorry I put my initials to it’.  This Plan was supposed subsequently to have been dropped, but in fact the bisection of Europe on the Berlin line, which in my judgment makes a third war as inevitable as any human act could make it, was the fulfilment of its very spirit.

The identity of the ‘old and loyal friend’ remains unknown, as the initialling of the Plan for Germany itself remained unknown to President Roosevelt’s own competent Ministers until after their President initialled it.  By that time the disease of power appeared to be rife in a whole line of counsellors who were publicly unknown.  The long exercise of power exercised in such a manner may of necessity have an insidious effect on men who wield it.  The Plan for Germany, when it ultimately became public, had horrified all responsible men who saw it, particularly the Ministers who, in a parliamentary republic, would expect to be consulted in such paramount affairs; they thought it satanic.

But the damage was done and remains to be mended, if that is possible, and that is the point which worries Americans today.  By the mid-century they felt that the system of advisers, non-accountable to parliament, and of plans, born in anonymity and fathered on presidents, had so entwined itself about the machinery of government in the American Republic, at all levels, that its public representatives were coming to seem shadow-shapes, while its actions could no longer be forecast by standards of merely American interests.  These conditions also, they felt, were ideal for the working of forces which pursued aims outside America through the American Republic.  Such statements as those, quoted above, by President Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill, increased their alarm.

They could not see the shape or course of the future if the foremost political leaders remained oblivious to the true meaning and consequence of such grave measures, put before them.

Mr. Roosevelt, particularly, surrounded himself with mysterious, non-accountable colleagues, and the books of disclosure suggest that this was the source of his most fateful actions, particularly those decisive ones, when his appearance ‘frightened’ those about him and he contrived the capitulation of Yalta, which set the scenes for the third act.  The most remarkable was Mr. Harry Hopkins.  From a friendly portrait in Roosevelt and Hopkins and a critical one in Mr. John T. Flynn’s The Roosevelt Myth (an essential source-book for the period) he seems to have been a runabout between the President and superior advisers, less in the public eye.  Mr. Hopkins lived in the White House.  At first he was concerned mainly with quickening war-production.  Later he toyed with cosmic matters, rather like Hitler with the globe in Chaplin’s ‘The Dictator’.

In the earlier capacity he was clearly useful, having long experience as a charity-appeal organizer (American friends say he was of the type known as ‘little brothers of the rich’) and a natural bent for accelerating the work of others and cutting through dead wood.  In the later one, he might leave the later historian prostrate with tears or laughter, assuming that the transactions into which he rushed leave any later historians.  His private papers, as presented by Mr. Sherwood, show a trio of ghost-writers (Mr. Hopkins, Mr. Sherwood and a Mr. Sam Rosenman) preparing President Roosevelt’s speeches for him in permanent session at the White House.  Mr. Hopkins instructed the other two to insert in one speech (without the President’s knowledge and before the Republic entered the war) a Proclamation of Unlimited National Emergency.  Mr. Roosevelt retained it in his speech.  Later Mr. Hopkins advised the President not to meet Mr. Churchill ‘without Uncle Joe’.

When he learned that Mr. Churchill was to meet Uncle Joe and that Mr. Roosevelt ‘was dispatching a cable to Churchill … with the implication that he was content to let Churchill speak for the United
 

– 175 –

 
States as well as Great Britain’, he gave orders that the transmission of the President’s confirmatory message to Stalin be stopped’.  The sober-minded might shudder to see world affairs thus handled.

Mr. Sherwood describes the exploit as ‘one of the quick and arbitrary actions, far beyond the scope of his own authority, which had gained for him the affection and admiration of Roosevelt ever since the beginnings of the New Deal’.  (Another telegram, implicitly warning Stalin not to conclude any arrangements with Mr. Churchill, was then sent by the chastened President.)

Mr. Hopkins is portrayed (in his own documents) making stern interventions, by means of cable direct to Mr. Churchill and the like, in matters of monarchy in Italy or Greece, two countries unknown to him, and generally handling the affairs of millions like dimes.  At the final, fatal meeting at Yalta he told the President what to do through notes passed to him.  ‘The Russians have given in so much at this conference that I don’t think we should let them down.  Let the British disagree if they want to.’  Sometimes the wording and writing of these notes, and Mr. Roosevelt’s scribbled comments seems to show two men hardly master of their powers:  ‘All of the below refers to Churchill’s opposition to early calling of conference of United Nations.  There is something behind this talk that we do not know of its basis.  Perhaps we better wait until later tonight what is on his mind.’

At the end of that astonishing fiasco the mood of President Roosevelt and Mr. Hopkins was one of ‘supreme exultation’ (writes Mr. Sherwood).  From Mr. Lloyd George, Lord Balfour and President Wilson, through Mr. Chamberlain and Sir Horace Wilson, to President Roosevelt and Mr. Hopkins:  the Yalta Conference was the continuance of a course and a curse. When I studied the story of
Yalta, in the self-revelations of its participants, my mind’s eye went back to Budapest in September 1938.  There I followed the story of Munich, through radio items heard by chance at the British Legation or in my own flat with the lights of Buda spread below me, or read on sunny café terraces in the columns of the Pester Lloyd.  I felt again the shame I then felt, as a man and an Englishman, at the spectacle of men who frivolously handled affairs far outside their ken, and the sensation of inevitable tragedy which finally filled me from that moment.  After that, all hope of averting the second war was gone.  Yet the meeting of Munich, the part played in it by the unqualified Sir Horace Wilson and the joy of Mr. Chamberlain, all shrink into pallid triviality compared with the meeting at Yalta, the part played by the unqualified Mr. Hopkins (soon to receive a Doctorate of Oxford!) and the exultation of Mr. Roosevelt. All hope of averting the third act went then, in my judgment. The only difference was in my own playgoer’s feelings; I was come to think the thing a comedy, after all.

Nevertheless, the world might pay pilgrimage today to the tombs of the professional diplomats and ambassadors of old, who knew the stuff they handled and were Christian patriots.  If there are clubs in any life beyond this one, I like to imagine the sardonic amusement with which Wolsey and Richelieu, Metternich and Talleyrand, Pitt and Palmerston will receive the men of the Balfour Declaration, of Munich and of Yalta.

When Mr. Hopkins died, a little after President Roosevelt, and both soon after Yalta, an American newspaper wrote:  ‘Americans need not concern themselves now whether Harry Hopkins was great or little or good or bad; their care should be that the phenomenon of a Harry Hopkins in the White House does not recur.’  That meant also that the phenomenon of a President irremovable save by death should not recur, and that of the whole system of non-accountable advisers.  It was, too, a world problem, and not simply an American one; in many leading countries power over parliaments and parties was by this time wielded by ‘small groups of dominant men’, whose motives and actions could not be publicly scrutinized or audited.  In the American Republic the phenomenon continued after President Roosevelt’s death; the machinery for pursuing other than American interests through American power remained intact.  An earlier President Roosevelt, Theodore, was asked at the century’s turn ‘how long he gave our government to live’, and
 

– 176 –

 
answered, ‘About fifty years’.  The question and answer presumably meant, the constitutional American Republic, and the time is about up.

Throughout his presidency Mr. Franklyn Delano Roosevelt pursued the policy of opening the doors of the American Republic to new men who pursued one or other of the two new ambitions of the twentieth century, Soviet Communism and Political Zionism.  Whether their hearts beat for the American Republic first and foremost was something only they could know, but their support of either or both of these causes was a likelihood in the first case and something often avowed in the second.  Both were distinct from the native interests of the American Republic, so that time alone could show if their espousal by American Presidents was to its good.  As far as I know President Roosevelt did not publicly declare, like Mr. Hofmeyr in South Africa, that Zionism alone could save the world, but his actions led towards the establishment of Political Zionism in a place of power from which it could dictate the world’s salvation or ruination.  He placed avowed Political Zionists in posts of visible power.  Simultaneously, at lower levels, he opened the gates to Communist infiltration and penetration of the whole edifice of power in the Republic.  The process was one of the surrender of power from above, and corruption from below.

In 1932 a Jewish writer, Mr. Walter Lippman, wrote:  ‘It is evident that Mr. Roosevelt is not the leader of the forces behind him’ (in his first presidential campaign).  ‘He is being used by them.

They count heavily on controlling him because they look upon him as pliant.’  (This pliancy, proved in the next thirteen years, may count as President Roosevelt’s most marked characteristic.)  In 1936 a rabbi, Mr. Louis Gross, wrote:  ‘The Roosevelt Administration has selected more Jews to fill influential positions than any previous Administration in American history.’  (A similar development, the Jewish Chronicle once stated, occurred in Russia after the Communist revolution there.)  In 1938 the New York Times wrote, ‘after an interview with Mr. Roosevelt, Senator Wagner said the President is prepared to take a “more than formal action” to safeguard the Jewish National Home in Palestine and to prevent any restriction of Jewish immigration.  “I believe”, added the Senator, “that we are so situated that we can make our protests to the British Government effective.”

These quotations, and many others which I have, give glimpses of the ‘phenomenon’ of this century in action:  of power being wielded through an elected president to achieve aims far outside his country’s bounds or interests.  For a great country to become bellicose and expansionist in its own behalf is a familiar and recurring thing in history; for it to show these traits, in lands half across the earth, on behalf of a third party is unique, as far as I know.  The only comparable affair is that of Pontius Pilate, which, however, did not entail territorial conquest.  The process begun with Lord Balfour, Mr. Loyd George and President Wilson, was continued through President Roosevelt and his successor to its logical finish.  Towards the war’s end a prominent Zionist sympathizer in America, a Mr. La Guardia, was appointed head of the body called UNRRA, the funds of which were in the event largely used, in Europe, to promote the ‘second Exodus’ which made the war in Palestine.  General Morgan’s attempt to expose the thing before the clock struck too late was punished as quickly as if he were an American.  Mr. Truman’s proudest moment was the next stage.

His precipitate recognition of the new Zionist State may be regarded as the beginning of the third act.  In the American Republic political leaders outwardly responsible and elected representatives were swept aside.  General Marshall’s protest, as Foreign Secretary, was as unavailing as that of Mr. James Forrestal, Secretary for Defence.[3]

One Congressman, Mr. Lawrence H. Smith, said that the partition of Palestine would lead to ‘a war of annihilation’, and another, Mr. E. Gossett, that the American Republic ‘had perhaps planted the seeds of World War III’.  Many Jews spoke in similar terms of warning; all alike were derided or ignored.
 

– 177 –

 
The Political Zionists had their way and the results may be appraised in due time.  The American Republic took over from Britain, now alarmed, the leading part in promoting the rise of Zion, and, I fancy, in promoting its own decline, for countries are no longer free which allow themselves to be used for exterior designs.  Mr. James Truslow Adams, in his Epic of America, wrote:

‘As we compare America in 1931 with the America of 1912 it seems as though we had slipped a long way backwards.’

Were a comparison drawn between the America of 1950 and that of 1931, I think the result would show a much greater slipping-backwards, despite material wealth.  The same deterioration, in greater or lesser measure, shows in all countries which have accepted the paramountcy of Zion at a high level and allowed the permeation of Soviet Communism at lower ones.

In the American Republic the rise of Soviet Communism went side by side with the rise of Zion.

The Political Zionists worked from above:  that is, from the seats of the mighty and from the control of key-states in the Republic’s electoral system.  The Soviet Communists permeated from below, corrupting parties from within and seeping into government departments.  The ‘hatred of Americans for Communism’, in which the mass-newspaper reader of all countries believes today, is an illusion.  That is to say, it may be a native, inherent trait of the mass of Americans, but it does not find expression in the major acts of the Republic’s State policy; these have in their effects often promoted the spread of the Communist State in the last eight years.  The rise of Soviet Communism in the American Republic is not an increase of numbers or votes, any more than it was in the Eastern European countries or China, now enslaved by foreign-supplied arms.  It is the rise of influence through penetration, permeation and infiltration.  It is the old stratagem of the Trojan Horse in a new form.  The invaders, however, come or derive from the same place as the Political Zionists:  Russia or Russian-occupied Europe.  They are in the majority Khazars.

Under President Roosevelt many measures were taken to disguise the numbers, nature and political allegiance or motives of people entering the Republic.  To inquire into such matters began to be presented as ‘discrimination of race, colour or creed’.  After 1941 the practice of keeping records of Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe was abandoned.  A policy was adopted which Mr. Hilaire Belloc once described thus:

‘A deliberate policy … not only to use ridicule against anti-semitism but to label as anti-semitism any discussion of the Jewish problem at all, or for that matter any information even on the Jewish problem.  It was used to prevent, through ridicule, any statement of any fact with regard to the Jewish race save a few conventional compliments and harmless jests … If a man did no more than call a Jew, a Jew, he was an anti-semite.’

Any Jew who opposed Political Zionism was equally attacked.  In these years the truth of G.K. Chesterton’s dictum was shown:

‘Journalism is a false picture of the world thrown upon a lighted screen in a darkened room so that the real world is not seen.’

Under cover of this deterrent to public comprehension, two important results were achieved.  The administrations of President Roosevelt were ‘permeated at almost all levels with Jewish appointees, many of them Communistic’, according to the Economic Council Letter of December 15th, 1947; and masses of newcomers were brought into the Republic without the customary checks.  Thus the present Jewish population of the Republic can only be estimated.  At the last ‘religious’ census in 1936 it was about 5 millions and fair conjecture puts it at between 6 and 8 millions today, mainly concentrated in the seven ‘key-States’ of the electoral map.  The bulk of the increase came from the Eastern European area which produced both Political Zionism and Soviet Communism.

A new mass of persons of loyalty and origins not clearly discoverable, therefore, entered the Republic during President Roosevelt’s period.  After his death a powerful campaign was waged to ensure the continuance of the process, in favour of ‘displaced persons’ from Europe.
 

– 178 –

 
Under the hypnotic spell of wartime propaganda, the public expression of doubts about Communism in high places, or even about Communism itself, was akin to treason.  Young men who sniffed the wind rose in their careers in the American Foreign Service and other departments and prudent seniors were relegated.  Arrangements were made for someone called ‘Tito’ to have Yugoslavia, for the Soviet State to spread westward to Berlin and even (after the war) eastward across China.  Watching the lighted screen in the darkened room, the masses did not demur.  When the war ended, however, and for the purposes of the third act the new legend, ‘Don’t trust Stalin’, was flashed on the screen, public anxiety in the Republic revived.  If Communism had been wrongly trusted in Europe, why was Communism still powerful enough in the Republic to surrender China to the Soviet Empire?  Ah, to start ‘a witch hunt’ would be anti-semitism, came the answer.  One eye of the Trojan horse blazed in virtuous affront; the other winked.

Nevertheless, the business of fooling all the people all the time is a hard one, and the task of preventing discovery difficult.  If political leaders are sincere, this shows itself when they find that the suspicions of others were right and their own confidingness was wrong.  Next door to the American Republic lurid disclosures were made.  The Canadian Prime Minister, Mr. Mackenzie King at that time, was incredulous when he learned from Igor Gouzenko, the fugitive from the Soviet Embassy in Ottawa, that treasonable aliens had permeated Canadian services and departments and had succeeded in suborning native Canadians and Englishmen.  Once convinced, however, he knew his duty.  He set judges to work, unearthed and published the full truth, had the culprits tried and sentenced.  Also, he secretly flew to President Truman and Mr. Attlee and informed them that ‘the situation is as serious as ever existed in Canada at any time’.  Further he told them that it was only part of even graver situations in their own, more powerful countries.

From that moment further concealment was inexplicable, yet no governmental action or announcement followed, in either country, to match the Canadian one.  If the ‘situation was as serious as ever existed in the American Republic and England (and I think it is), it continued to be concealed, even when the tone of public references to Communism in Europe switched to one of alarm, reproof and talk of war.

In all countries, unless they have a government as dutiful as Mr. Mackenzie King’s, the only hope of public enlightenment lies in the efforts of persevering individuals, who persist in trying to expose what they see as a national danger.  By doing so they court quick retaliation from the powerful and organized forces, which forbid opposition to Soviet Communism and Political Zionism alike.  Mr. James Forrestal’s resignation and the smear-campaign which drove him to suicide are the counterparts, in the American Republic, of the attacks which led to General Morgan’s retirement.  Parties which claim to uphold the patriotic cause, like the Conservative Party in England and the Republican one in the American Republic, seem just as hostile to them, and thus show that they too accept that secret dominance.  The reluctance of the Conservative Party to accept Captain Roy Farran as a candidate, and its manager’s marked aversion against Mr. Andrew Fountaine are in the same long line.[4]

In the American Republic the spearhead of this individual effort to expose the undermining of elected government by alien and treasonable infiltration has been a parliamentary committee, The House of Representatives Committee on Un-American Activities, which for years has dug among the evidence.  The hidden strength of Communism throughout the world is shown by the derision which is poured on this body by newspapers in many countries (including Conservative ones in England), and by the sustained ‘smearing’ of its leaders and members.  Its best known chief, Mr. Martin Dies, was ‘smeared’ into oblivion.  When the Democratic Party is in power, as it has been for a generation save for two years between 1946 and 1948, the majority of the committee appears to be automatically used to frustrate its work.  Nevertheless a minority of its members persist and in
 

– 179 –

 
those two years they accumulated material which a generation ago would have been enough to send any government crashing in ruins.

The committee, between 1946 and 1948, sought to bring about a public investigation comparable with that of the Canadian Report.  Just before President Truman’s re-election in November 1948 it published a Report (September 27th, 1948).  This referred to the Canadian Report, saying the American people were deeply shocked by its disclosures and also ‘by the disloyal operations of some of Canada’s prominent citizens who were working in collusion with Soviet agents’.  Without specifically mentioning Mr. Mackenzie King’s intimation that matters were even graver in the American Republic, it said,

‘the American people applaud the vigorous manner in which the persons involved were brought to trial and, in view of the fact that the major effort of developing the atom bomb was being carried on in the United States, presumed that similar prosecutions would follow there’.  These never came and ‘the Committee has been endeavouring to find out why’.

The reason was bluntly stated:  Presidential opposition.  The Report says an American General testified on oath that he was prohibited by ‘a Presidential directive of August 5th, 1948’ from

‘discussing with you or your committee any information relating to the loyalty or integrity of any government employee or former government employee’.

He added, ‘as a general opinion’ in the matter, that ‘there was continued and persistent and well-organized espionage against the United States and particularly against the atom bomb project, by a foreign power with which we were not at war and its misguided and traitorous domestic sympathizers’.  The General said he had informed President Roosevelt of this in a report which the President read in his presence ‘just before he left for Yalta’, and that the same report was put before Mr. Truman by him immediately the new president took office.  The Un-American Committee’s report adds that it covers only one small, local field of its investigations, and in this found

‘three separate acts of treachery by scientists … which required immediate prosecution to the full extent of the law’.

It mentioned by name several persons of Eastern European birth or secondary origin and concluded that the full story of the conspiracy could not be told

‘because the Presidential veto denies Congress access to the evidence in the files of the Executive branch of the Government … The iron curtain imposed by Presidential directive must be forthwith lifted’.

That appeared to raise a clear and major issue between Parliament and President, even more clearly stated in Senator Homer Ferguson’s words: 

‘Congress is rapidly being pushed into the intolerable position of having either to legislate through a blind spot or compel the President to answer for his conduct in an impeachment proceeding … Congress is charged with the responsibility of protecting the security of our people through legislation.  But if, when it tries to do so, the President can deny to Congress the information it needs to legislate intelligently, then the President has gone beyond the prerogatives of his office and threatens the very foundations of representative government.’

The issue between Congress and President was obscured by one of those timely interventions which are so distinct a feature of this century’s deterioration; at moments when the rot seems about to be stayed, something happens to ensure continuance.  Five weeks after the issue of the Committee’s Report Congressional elections restored to the Democrats their majority in the House of Representatives.  At once the political writers foretold that the Un-American Activities Committee would not be allowed to make much more trouble.  Since then its minority members have been consistently baulked in their efforts and constantly ‘smeared’.  All this, moreover, was in the period when the menace of Communism was supposed to have been recognized and the chief aim of the American Republic’s policy was presented as the stopping of its spread.

Thereon the Committee, suspecting that its further inquiries might be impeded, published the material already accumulated.  This seemed, in perusal, even more startling than the Canadian Report, and if its statements were true they appeared to bear out Mr. Mackenzie King’s belief that
 

– 180 –

 
‘the situation’ in the American Republic was even graver than the Canadian one.  The witnesses heard by it included a Mr. Whittaker Chambers, until then a senior editor of the mass-circulation journal Time, who from remorse confessed to have been earlier a Soviet secret agent and courier.

He said he had obtained, and forwarded to Moscow, secret papers of the highest importance to the American and other Allied Governments.  He accused a high State Department (Foreign Office) official of Mr. Roosevelt’s Administration (who was a member of that President’s staff at the fateful Yalta meeting) of making these documents available to him.  The official brought a libel action.

At this stage President Truman called the affair ‘a red herring’ and during other, later inquiries and disclosures frequently and irritably used the same tone.  In some instances, as judicial and other investigations were under way, these comments might have been held to amount to contempt of court in any other man.  The President several times placed himself in this way between demands for investigation and the matters at issue.

Accused of libel, Mr. Chambers led detectives of a Grand Jury, which seemed to be slowly coming into the affair, and of the Un-American Committee to his farm in Maryland and to his pumpkin plot, where he pointed to one, the top of which had been sliced off and put back.  Inside were found masses of microfilm photographs of secret documents about American and British tanks, aircraft and war vessels, and diplomatic reports covering many parts of the world.  This proved that Mr. Chambers, as the investigating Committee of the House of Representatives stated, had in fact procured documents of the highest secrecy, from whatever source.  As to that, the appeal of the official concerned, from a conviction in the first instance, pends as I write.

Five days later a Mr. Laurence Duggan, also a State Department official during President Roosevelt’s time, fell to his death from the sixteenth storey of an office building in New York.  The Un-American Committee forthwith released material showing that he had also been accused of complicity in these matters.  The acting chairman of the Un-American Committee suspected murder, and so did an eminent colleague of President Roosevelt, Mr. Sumner Welles, who said:  ‘I find it impossible to believe that his death was self-inflicted.’  I know of no inquiry arising from these suspicions that Mr. Duggan was murdered.  The matter seems to have been passed over.

Within a few months a Minister for Defence, barely resigned, and two officials of the American Foreign Service (the second was Press Attaché at Santiago, in Chile, and his death may or may not have been connected with these matters) died through failing from high windows, while three other high officials or former officials, of various Departments, justly or unjustly accused in this or similar affairs, died suddenly; one was found in the river with his throat cut and another committed suicide in the Justice Building.  During this period many other disclosures or charges were made, relating to espionage in government departments or to conditions in the atomic research plants.  If these reached juries, the verdicts were usually of guilty; if congressional committees examined them they were generally pronounced empty.  A broad picture emerged of secret and subversive influences working through the organizations of the American Republic.  A persistent effort to conceal this was equally visible.

The various incidents I have enumerated formed a series of disclosures which, at any former time in almost any country would presumably have led to an irresistible public demand for complete investigation, exposure and the determination of responsibility and the punishment of any found culpable.  In the condition into which public debate had fallen in the American Republic in the years
following the Roosevelt era it appeared possible, at any rate for a long period, to confuse the issues in the public mind by the intensive ‘smearing’, through the press and radio, of any who pressed for full inquiry and exposure.  Nevertheless there was always someone who would not be deterred, and this led, at the end of 1949, to the most remarkable disclosure of all.
 

– 181 –

 
A former American Air Force officer, a Mr. George Racey Jordan, who during the war was Lend-Lease Inspector at Great Falls, Montana, whence Lend-Lease aircraft were flown to Moscow, stated publicly in a radio interview that in 1943 and 1944 substantial quantities of atom-bomb compounds and uranium were sent to the Soviet Communist Government.  He further averred that, becoming suspicious of the large amount of baggage which Soviet officers were carrying in these aeroplanes, he had a search made and discovered a large quantity of highly secret American State Department documents, in carbon-copy or photostat facsimile, from each of which the stamp ‘secret, confidential or restricted’ had been cut away.  In one suitcase, he alleged, was a letter on White House notepaper with the name of Mr. Harry Hopkins (who lived at the White House) printed on it.

This letter, he stated, contained the words, I had a hell of a time getting these away from Groves’.  (‘These’ referred to the secret documents; General Groves, who at that time was in charge of atom-bomb research, was the officer who told the Un-American Activities Committee after the war that he was debarred by Presidential veto from testifying before it about espionage.)

Mr. Jordan further stated, in this broadcast statement, that Mr. Harry Hopkins instructed him to expedite certain freight shipments to Soviet Russia, to say nothing about them, even to his superior officer, and to keep no record of them.  He said:

‘Mr. Hopkins was the button the Russians touched every time they needed emergency help.’

Mr. Jordan’s statements did not receive the full and public investigation which their gravity seemed to demand; they were scouted and he was ‘smeared’.  They lead to two fascinating fields of thought ….

The first is this:  at the time the atom-bomb compounds, uranium and information were being sent to Soviet Russia, at Mr. Harry Hopkins’s prompting (if Mr. Jordan’s statements are correct) the public at large had not even heard of atom bombs.  The thing happened in 1943 and 1944, if it happened.  The public first learned of the atom bomb when it was dropped in September 1945.  The initial research work was done by British scientists and the results of this were transferred to the American Republic by Mr. Churchill under his sovereign empowerment of the war.  Presumably he thought that his own country would benefit by the American development of atomic research, and apparently he was wrong, because in 1949 (when I was in the United States) the British
Government requested access to information and experiments and seems to have been denied this; at any rate, those American columnists who had been clamouring for the Soviet Government to be given all atomic information at once joined in the chorus that ‘the atomic secrets must be nailed down’.  Presumably, also, Mr. Churchill thought that the further development of those atomic mysteries which he entrusted to America would remain secret from the Soviet Government and for that matter from all other countries, for some time after the war’s end he declared that exclusive American possession of the atom bomb was the one solid guarantee of continuing peace.  He seems again to have been wrong, for the secret originally yielded up by Britain to America, was by then no longer in exclusive American possession.

That appears to be a fact, irrespective of the accuracy or inaccuracy of Mr. Jordan’s statements, for no sooner were they made than the American State Department (apparently prompted by them to these charges) announced that in 1943 (two years before the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima) four export licences were granted for shipping uranium compounds to the Soviet Government.  That was in 1943.  From the first public appearance of the atom bomb in 1945 until 1949 leading politicians in America and other countries were telling their peoples that peace was only safe while the atom bomb remained a secret in American keeping, and would become insecure when the Soviet, despite this secrecy, of its own ingenuity solved atomic mysteries.  Late in 1949 President Truman suddenly announced that the Soviet ‘has the atom bomb’.  If readers of From Smoke to Smother were puzzled by a somewhat ironical, or even flippant note in my references to contemporary debate about The Absolute Weapon, they may now see the reason.  All students of the Roosevelt era shrewdly suspected these things, which are now coming to light piece by piece.
 

– 182 –

 
Seldom in the course of human events have the realities been so different from the appearances, or the facts of what was going on from the official statements.

The second field of reflection now opened to public survey by Mr. Jordan’s statements is larger still and even more interesting.  Mr. Harry Hopkins was President Roosevelt’s chief counsellor at the Yalta Conference.  The nature of the advice he gave is available for all to read, in his own handwriting or in his own notes.  The Yalta Conference was the fourth decisive event of this century.  The first two were the establishment of the Communist State and the Balfour Declaration; the Reichstag Fire and the Yalta Conference cleared the way for the expansion of the Communist State and the erection of the Zionist State.  At Yalta the scenes were set for the third act of the melodrama, for the second half of the century, for the continued pursuit of these two ambitions, in peace and war, to the point where they meet in the servile World State.  President Roosevelt was so close to death that he may not have understood all that was done at Yalta; by his own words, he did not understand the Plan for Germany when he initialled it.  Thus the personality of his chief adviser there, who was also so near to death, becomes of great interest to the future historian, and if Mr. Jordan’s statements should not be publicly disproved a wide area of surmise is left open.

These were the things, I found in course of study, that caused my American friends to fear that, despite its outward power and wealth, the American Republic was in decline, its energies were being used to further exterior causes, and the patriots were not strong enough to stop this.

The young republic seems to be caught, like other countries, between the pincers of Soviet Communism and Political Zionism, of the revolutionary power and the money power, of advisers in high places and infiltrators at lower levels.  The method was implicit in Theodor Herzl’s words:

‘When we sink we become a revolutionary proletariat; when we rise there rises also our terrible power of the purse’ (A Jewish State).

It is dangerous for the American Republic, and dangerous for the world, because in the third act the world will not be able to judge for what real aims the power of the Republic is being used.

Early in 1949 Mr. Truman’s first full four-year term as President was officially inaugurated on the steps of the Capitol in Washington.  ‘Capitol’ might be a name of ill-omen; the first Capitol was the Roman Temple of Jupiter, king of the pagan gods, and Rome ‘lost the breed of noble bloods’.  Amid cheers the President, who was wont to rebuke investigators into the Communist infiltration of the Republic, announced a policy aimed at ‘conquering Communism without war’.  In the twentieth century the mass often looks like Bottom the Weaver and wears the ass’s head as it is led towards the dark abyss.  This particular throng needed only to look over its shoulder to see that Communism was conquering China through war, against adversaries denied arms by the American Republic.

Before 1949 ended the Communist grasp on China, achieved in this way, would be nearly complete and the familiar process of disowning the allied government and recognizing the Communist one, was beginning all over again.  When 1950 began the likelihood was growing daily plainer that the process would continue to be extended.  As in China, American support in many forms began to be given, at President Truman’s prompting, to Yugoslavia, the enemy of Greece, under the pretext used in China:  that Yugoslav Communism was of a different kind.  British troops were being withdrawn from Greece, and unless that brave little land unaccountably escapes once more from the toils, I fancy that before very long the question of abandoning its legal government and recognizing a Communist one imported from outside its frontiers will once more arise.  At that point, the last wartime ally east of the iron curtain would have been betrayed, many years after the war’s end.  Behind the smoke screen, ‘Down with Communism’, the reality of the design would become too plain to be ignored by any who wished to see it.

On the steps of the Capitol in Washington, however, the crowd cheered ‘the new policy’ of ‘conquering Communism without war’.  Simultaneously the policy of promoting Political Zionism
 

– 183 –

 
was pursued, ever more openly now and without any sleight-of-hand.  With the deliberate symbolism which is so striking a feature of the process, President Truman in 1949 chose the Day of the Dead, November 11th, to speak to a gathering of ‘The National Conference of Christians and Jews’ (a body regarded by experienced American observers as a ‘Zionist-front-organization’) in Washington.  He announced that he was preparing new laws ‘against bias’, and held up the Declaration of Human Rights and the Genocide Convention as two achievements, of the American Republic and the United Nations, particularly worthy of celebration on the day when the millions of dead fighting-men and civilians of the two wars are commemorated.  Those two documents, in fact, appear to be clearly the denial of all those dead ones may have thought they died for; they declared aggression a human right and resistance to it genocide, and that was proved by the affair which was in perpetration in Palestine when they were drafted and proclaimed.

The shape of the third act seems to loom up fairly clearly behind all these things.  In the Nineteen-Forties and up to the mid-century the American Republic went marching on, but not towards the goal of its native interests.  Its strength had been used, and seemed likely to be further used, for alien causes, and this was the secret of the inner process of decline which alarmed its most enlightened men.  Clearly, that course would not change, at the best and earliest, until a new generation of politicians had grown up and supplanted those of the mid-century.

– 30 –

The Thoughts of MAO and the Ghost of LENIN …

Category:  Historical Reprints.
SourceStraight Talk! The Official Bulletin Of The Edmund Burke Society.
Editor:  F. Paul Fromm
Associate Editor:  Kastus Akula
Writers:  E.B.S. members and friends
Directors:  The Council of the E.B.S.
Volume III Number 7, April 1971

The Edmund Burke Society is a movement dedicated to preserving and promoting the basic virtues of Western Christian Civilization — individual freedom; individual responsibility; a self-sacrificing love of country; and a willing­ness to work and pay one’s own way and not be a burden on others.  These virtues have made our civilization great.  Communism, socialism, and welfare-state liberalism are tearing it apart.  The Edmund Burke Society stands for a regeneration of Western Civilization and firm action against all its enemies.

The E.B.S. is financed mainly through small donations from generous Canadians.  Straight Talk!  is produced by voluntary labour.


 

Foreword

 
This article from 1971 offers an example of the leftist-revolutionary style violence adopted by the supposedly conservative Edmund Burke Society (E.B.S.)  Paul Fromm publicly denounced this kind of activity on the part of others, in particular when it was used to silence his own free speech.  But he himself used it to silence others.  The contradiction was noted more than once in the pages of the Toronto Varsity student newspaper of the era.  However, then as now, F. Paul Fromm was an advocate of his own “free speech,” and the “free speech” of anyone who agrees with him; but not “free speech” as a principle, to which he paid, and still pays, mere lip-service for the sake of appearances.

In 1987, leftist bigot Stanley R. Barrett published a book on the so-called “right wing” in Canada (Is God A Racist?) where at pages 70-71 he had no choice but to admit he had found documentary evidence the EBS had been set up in February of 1967 as a national security and police front by the RCMP and other less well known Canadian federal security agencies.  Sadly, those agencies all report to the Prime Minister, and to the Justice Minister, who in the days of the EBS were Soviet agent Lester Bowles Pearson and Red Mole Pierre Elliott Trudeau.  Thus, the “conservative” right in Canada, with its violent Red tactics, was a Communist front, not a right-wing grassroots movement.

Barrett doesn’t mention Pearson; I myself have situated the event on the timeline using federal Hansard from October of 1977 in a retrospective on the EBS era.

In addition, the EBS was peppered from within by “infiltrated” members of a “red squad” (civilian police agents recruited on campus by a “kingpin” trained in “anti-subversion” by the CIA.  In fact, Paul Fromm himself would be such an agent).

The activities of the Edmund Burke Society therefore cannot be assessed as those of a conservative group.  Nor of a genuine anticommunist group.  They must be viewed as the activities of a police front set up by the Communist left that had penetrated the federal government of Canada.  [Admin.]
 

The Thoughts of MAO
and the Ghost of LENIN …

Notes on the Battle of Convocation Hall

At 1.45 p.m., on Sunday March 28th, I arrived at Convocation Hall … I was immediately surrounded by various characters selling Communist literature, e.g.,

MASS LINE, a Maoist rag (headlined, THE RISING REVOLUTIONARY INITIATIVE 0F THE PEOPLE WILL CERTAINLY SMASH THE BLUSTER OF THE ANGLO-CANADIAN REACTIONARIES);

PEOPLE’S CANADA DAILY NEWS, another Maoist organ, headlined HAIL THE FORMATION OF THE QUEBEC WORKERS’ MOVEMENT!  HAIL PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, THE GREAT RED BASTION OF THE WORLD!;

The WORKER, another red paper screaming in large red type, GET ORGANIZED FOR NATIONAL WAR AGAINST U.S. IMPERIALISM!  DEFEAT THE REACTIONARY CIVIL WAR OF THE CANADIAN COMRADORS TO SUPPRESS THE LIBERATION STRUGGLE OF QUEBEC!  HAIL THE USHERING IN 0F THE SECOND YEAR OF THE GREAT 1970’S!

(One can see that the RCMP are going to be very busy with this lot in the future, especially when the Chinese Communists open their, you should pardon the expression, “embassy”).  It’s all very confusing, so I will let the mounties figure it out.  There must be a number of Maoists who are also confused … A peculiar looking female (I think it was a female) was hawking THE YOUNG SOCIALIST, a Trotskyite enlightenment for the ignorant masses (you and me, stupid) … I must say she was the happiest of the group … O, yes, the headline posed a question:  WHAT MAKES UNCLE SAMMY RUN?  Do you know the answer?  If you do, ‘phone the Young Socialists …  The other “Young Socialist” leaflet warned us of THE COMING CANADIAN REVOLUTION.  I thought that was rather decent of them, to warn us like that.  It will give us a chance at the best choice of the war surplus Lee-Enfields …  I almost forgot the LABOUR CHALLENGE!  This rather less flashy paper is published by a rival Socialist group.  Its sales were slower, but I have confidence … in their sales staff; all they need is a little encouragement.  Their banners lack the flair of the Maoists, but they are working hard:  ENGLISH CANADA WARMS TO QUEBEC CAUSE!  HOW U.S. INVESTMENT ROBS CANADIAN WORKERS!  LAOS WAR FIASCO FOR U.S.!  OTTAWA STALLS ACTION ON WOMENS’ RIGHTS!  Between you and me, I think they are cribbing from the TORONTO DAILY (RED) STAR …

Once inside tho door, they really got me; I was completely swamped with leaflets.  I was told to keep my hands off South-East Asia, withdraw my troops NOW, and end Canada’s complicity, to free all political prisoners, repeal the Public Order Act, donate a buck to the cause, sign up to cut sugarcane in Cuba, join the Just Society, give the draft dodgers my job and best suit, donate a buck, grant amnesty to prisoners being held in Québec, Portugal, Greece, Spain, South Africa, Britain, South Korea, South Viet Nam, Newfoundland and Anticosti Island, donate a buck, and to get my ass out of Laos and Cambodia, and, of course, Viet Nam, and to donate another buck (some advice; bring a lot of change — you will need it!) … They didn’t like it much when I said I would catch them on the way out … You know, this always seems to work, though …

Once inside the Hall, the first thing one must do is to try to sit away from the action … for instance, up high … I chose a row high up in the balcony where one can see the fights without too much trouble …  It’s much like the hockey games at the Gardens — the only thing missing is the Shopsy hotdogs (they smoke grass instead) … The crowd is a pretty mixed kettle of fish:  little old ladies wearing old fox furs over their shoulders (they’re usually good for five bucks at the gate), self-styled revolutionaries, all looking like the master himself, Che Guevara, the young intellectual carefully going over the propaganda papers he paid full price for, nodding in agreement to every golden word (I rarely pay the full price, you pull out a nickel and tell them that’s all you have, they look at you with understanding and say, “That’s all right, Comrade, that lackey Trudeau and his capitalists are robbing me too!” …  I keep telling you, they’re so dedicated!), young girls who wear little red armbands, Maoists, waiting for the action to begin, and the “college professor” types, who always seen to be rummaging around in their briefcases, and continually looking around for the other side (the Mounties) …

I overheard one conversation in which the “pro” demonstrator was advising a rooky:  “Be careful what you say, you may be talking to the Mounties!” … You know, he’s right.  They’re all over the joint, snapping pictures, giving signals … They announced the attendance as being 1000; they should change it to 500, with 500 Mounties.  They are a conspicuous lot.  First of all, they all have short hair, wear blue suits with brown shoes, 1958-style narrow ties, blue-and-beige reversible raincoats, and they all walk around with their hands in their pockets …  The local police are just as clever …  This is what the well-dressed plainclothesman wears (now get this):  desert boots or P.F. runners, corduroy pants, short hair, and club jackets announcing to the world that they won the basketball bantam championship in 1958, or the 1965 Police Games Tug-of-War contest, Lightweight Division (for Protestants only) …  The cops are trying hard.  I grant them that; all they need is guidance …

The next group are the heavies, or the “Marshalls”, as they are called.  They are supposed to bounce anyone who protests during the propaganda speeches.  Some of them weigh only 100 lbs., even after reading the thoughts of MAO and smoking a joint.  Oh, well, there’s safety in numbers.  Some are genuine heavies:  fat, bearded, smelly, with red armbands …

After everyone is seated, the Master of Ceremonies comes to the podium and introduces himself as the presidential co-co-ordinator of the sponsoring central committee of the general presidium of the local Communist Party sponsoring the FLQ meeting here today.  When he has finished glorifying himself with titles, he tells us the meeting will be delayed, because the star performers are delayed.  Some people boo, some cheer, some don’t give a damn one way or another, others simply light up a joint …  Outside, in the corridor, everyone is smoking and giving everyone else advice on the coming revolution …  Some of the more dedicated are buying the papers.  Me?  I’m trying to dodge the Mounties’ cameras …

“KILL THE FLQ!”

The M.C. announces the show is about to begin … The performers come on stage.  The crowd goes wild with excitement:  some shout Red slogans, some faint, some wet their pants, others raise their arms over their heads, fists clenched in the Communist salute.  It’s wild; everyone doing his thing, but no, I’m just sitting there, grinning, waiting for Act II.  After the frenzy has died down, the comrade M.C. introduces the performers:  first, Michel Chartrand, looking splendid in his decidedly un-revolutionary threads.  The mob goes nuts again (a repeat of its previous paroxysm).  Next, Robert Lemieux is called upon.  The crowd of revolutionaries and Mounties goes wild again …  I’m praying they don’t introduce anyone else, but they do, only this time the reaction is not so loud — second raters, I guess …

Chartrand approaches the lectern to speak.  The mob gets its jollies again.  He starts off by criticizing the government, tells us he and his fellow-conspirators are innocent, that Paul Rose is innocent, that Pierre Laporte deserved to be strangled because he was a lackey of the capitalist rulers of Québec.  He is now shouting, loudly, incoherently, stuttering, stammering, spitting on the poor saps in the front rows at the foot of the lectern.  A shout from the crowd interrupts his babbling:  DEATH TO THE FLQ! DEATH TO CHARTRAND!  DEATH TO THE COMMIES!  People strain to see who is shouting, where it is coming from …  Now, it’s coming from various parts of the auditorium …  Chartrand screams that if anyone wants to ask questions, he can do so at the end of the talk.  People shout, “Throw them out!”  Chartrand screams back, “No! Let them stay!  But if they interrupt again, throw them out!”  The heavies are now on the scene, and go into action:  they grab the Burkers, who continue shouting, “Kill the FLQ!  What about Laporte?”  Fights break out all over the auditorium.  People are screaming, some are just gaping, in ignorance or amazement, and the Mounties take pictures and take pictures and take pictures, as do the press photographers.  The Burkers are now overwhelmed.  They struggle for the exits, but before they leave, they bombard the auditorium with stinkbombs.  One hits the stage where Chartrand is standing, another bursts on the main floor of the auditorium.  People start screaming, coughing, trying to escape the pervasive fumes.  You can observe the advance of the gas across the auditorium floor by watching the expanding lines of coughing people …

EBS Routs Reds

The Battle at Convocation Hall 1

E.B.S. members having battled their way out of Convocation Hall, give red Marshall a spray of deodorant — or was it mace? — only the judge can say for sure.


 

Rightwing Youths

The Battle at Convocation Hall 2

In the pitch [sic] battle outside, the reds were roundly thumped.  Badly outnumbered, the battling boys of Edmund Burke
even used belts to help even the odds.

The M.C. calls for order and calm, then realizing the stupidity, calls for a fifteen minute recess.  The gas begins to reach to my area, so I head for the outside.  Downstairs is complete pandemonium; the newspapers are scattered all over the joint.  The money collector took the bread and headed for Party headquarters or elsewhere.  Everyone is coughing like crazy.  One guy yells that he can’t see.  He says he’s blinded.  Outside, the Burkers are bashing down the doors, trying to get back in; a rock comes flying through a window. The Burkers get the door open again, and spray “mace” at anyone trying to come out.  The Marshalls are now trying to get the doors closed, and after some struggling, they succeed.  They send up a rousing cheer of victory, having achieved the impossible.  Arms are raised in the clenched fist salute (they are so dramatic at times, one might swear it was all rehearsed!). The door opens again; someone lobs a chair, and fists fly.  Once more the Reds manage to get the door closed.  I ducked back into the auditorium again.  Half the place was still coughing.  One lady shouts “Why don’t they let us have our meeting?  Why can’t we keep them out?  Why don’t we do something about it?” …  All questions, but no answers from the crowd; they just cheer her pathetic plea …

I run out to the corridor again; the Marshalls have managed to get the door closed again.  “They can’t get in now”, I heard one shout.  By this time, I decided to leave.  Because of the mélée, all attention was focused on the front door, so all I had to do was walk out the side door with no problems.

When I got outside, the Burkers began to retreat from the door.  The Reds inside were thus emboldened to advance out of doors.  Those who got outside were soundly thumped by the Burkers.  More came out; the Burkers were hopelessly outnumbered, but they fought anyway.  Everyone was kicking, swearing, uttering threats — some carried out their threats.  The young girls with the Maoist armbands and the “no bra” look started to pitch in.  One kicked an adversary twice, he looked at her, and then knocked her down with a punch in the chops.  The Burkers dragged a wounded member to a waiting car.  Inside, the leftists were licking their wounds.  The fight came to an end.  The triumphant and cocky Burkers strode off, shouting slogans and waving their tiny Canadian flags.  The Maoists watched them leave, contemptuously shouting back, “Fascist pigs!  Nazi bastards!”, and similar Communist niceties …

Meanwhile, the police arrived upon the scene.  They showed little interest in the battle, but they were interested in the “mace” (you see, it’s illegal in Ontario).  they asked the university police if they had arrested anyone, and were answered, “Are you kidding?  If anyone had tried to arrest anyone, he would have been killed!”  The cop gave him the funniest look …

I decided to go into the show, but I was stopped at the door.  One of the Maoists said I was sitting with the Burkers.  I argued against this vile accusation.  After some debate, I was finally allowed back in, but on condition that I have a guard to keep an eye on me.  They must have thought I was a wheel, since they detailed two red-armbanded heavies near my seat …

Chartrand resumed his tiresome tirade, and was cheered on by his audience.  He strutted and used the audience, which cheered him even when it couldn’t make out what he was saying in his poor English.  He gave them what they wanted, and in return he received the cheers of the ignorant mob of so-called “revolutionaries”.  I decided to leave, but, before I left, I let Chartrand and the audience know how I felt.  I shouted to Chartrand that he was sick.  Naturally, I was booed as I left the Hall with my two heavies following along behind me ….

April 2nd: Repeat Performance

On Friday April 2nd I attended the local Communist rally at the Ontario College of Education.  I must say that it was quite a collection of weird-looking creatures.  The Left in Canada has always had a voice and a cause, but they have failed to make any significant gains at the polls.  They have failed to attract the working masses, simply because the man-on-the-street has other things on his mind, rather than lunatic left-wing causes.

I have been to many of these rallies over the years, but I think this one was the most pathetic of them all.  They seem to be looking for “causes”.  The Viet Nam issue cannot excite the individual citizen as it once might have.  People know the Communists are the aggressors in this conflict.  The latest Communist bag is to support pro-Black causes, like the Angela Davis case.  A sufficient amount of Black Communist literature was handed out but it seemed to be all imported from the US, and its sole purpose was to collect funds for their cause in the US.  Very few blacks were in the audience, even with two leading black speakers.  One only has to ask oneself, “How strong is black power in Canada?”  Well, I’m afraid Rocky Jones is not very strong.  Especially when white faces make up the majority of the audience at a Black Power meeting.

* * * * * *

Trudeau & Vallières: A Socialist Soap-Opera?

Category:  Historical Reprints.
SourceStraight Talk! The Official Bulletin Of The Edmund Burke Society.
Editor:  Joseph A. Genovese
Associate Editors:  F. Paul Fromm, D. Clarke Andrews
Volume II Number 2, November 1969

What is The Edmund Burke Society?  The E.B.S. is a conservative organization unaffiliated with any political party.  We are dedicated to the principles of individual freedom and responsibility, free enterprise, and firm ACTION against all tyrannies, especially Communism and all its manifestations in Canada and abroad.  The E.B.S. is financed mainly through small donations from generous Canadians.  Straight Talk! is produced by voluntary labour.


Trudeau & Vallières:
A Socialist Soap-Opera?

October 1969 proved to be a trying month for Prime Minister Pierre-Elliott Trudeau (“a herd of anes savants to file in when the division bell rang”), largely because of two major embarrassments.  The first was having a subpoena served upon him to appear as a character witness in the hearing of a petition for bail for Pierre Vallières in Montreal, along with his Secretary of State, the suave Gérard Pelletier (“any suspicion of witch-hunting or McCarthyism will be dealt with immediately”).

The second major headache for the Lord Protector of the Realm was the charge leveled by the Chairman of Montreal’s Executive Committee, Lucien Saulnier, that the federal Company of Young Canadians was engaged in “subversive activities” and that “Federal Government funds were supporting a Communist campaign to overthrow Canada” (Cf. TELEGRAM, Oct. 14, 1969).

In this charge, Mr. Saulnier was to be seconded by dozens of municipal administrations in la Belle Province, and it was to receive dramatic amplification from T.R. Anthony Malcolm, Vice-President of the Quebec Section of the Liberal Federation of Canada and Co-Chairman of the anti-secessionist Canada Committee, when he told a flabbergasted meeting of the Town of Mount Royal Women’s Club (Trudeau’s home town) that “training, finance, and assistance of every sort is being given members of the separatist movement in Quebec by sources in Cuba.  In addition, funds and assistance are also funneled into Quebec from Algeria.”

He also charged that El Fatah, the Arab fascist terror organization in the Middle East was coordinating its work with that of Quebec’s national socialists, and had contributed $1,500.00 to help finance “Operation McGill” last March.  The block-buster, as far as Trudeau was concerned, however, was his publication of a list of 27 alleged Maoists who have been or still are on the federal payroll as employees of the Company of Young Canadians.  It was a fine example of courageous McCarthyism, and Mr. Malcolm is to be heartily commended for having had the guts to speak out.

East Wind Over Montreal

To deal with the first of these items, l’affaire Vallières, and Trudeau’s connection with it, a little excursion into recent history is required.  In a sense, one might say that it all began with veteran Stalinist agent, Jean-Louis Gagnon (recently appointed as Co-Chairman of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism & Biculturalism by Trudeau), who had fled to Brazil in 1945* when the historic Gouzenko revelations had exposed the seditious activities of two of his close comrades, Fred Rose (“The Communist Party of Canada carries on despite persecution”) and Professor Raymond Boyer (“I made contributions”), and returned to Canada in 1948.*  With the heat off, he resumed his political work, and two years later become editor of the Quebec Liberal Party’s LA REFORME.

Ten years later (1958), he became editor of the prestigious family newspaper, LA PRESSE, of Montreal, the largest French language daily in the new world.  It was he who originally hired Pierre Vallières to join the staff of LA PRESSE.

A vicious, pugnacious young leftwing nazi and anticleric, Vallières had refused to sit for his examinations for his B.A. because he considered that the religious and philosophic examinations were offensive to his fanatic and unyielding atheist faith.  In 1962, Trudeau’s old buddy, Pelletier, became editor of LA PRESSE, and kept Vallières on staff.

To appreciate the full significance of these years, the early sixties, and of the cast of characters in this sordid chronicle, it is important to remember that from 1960 to 1965, “secret meetings” were convened in Pelletier’s suburban Westmount home, involving, apart from Pelletier himself, such stirling citizens as René Lévesque (“Too many people are playing with violence like sorcerers’ apprentices”), who was then Minister of Natural Resources in the Lesage Cabinet (it was in the course of these meetings that Lévesque decided to socialize Quebec’s power companies), Pierre-Elliott Trudeau, Jean Marchand (“To regard me as a stranger in Quebec is as stupid as it is ridiculous”), and … Jean Louis Gagnon (Cf. DAILY STAR, April 8, 1968; TRUDEAU:  A MAN FOR TOMORROW, by Douglas Stuecing, with John Marshall & Gary Oakes; Clarke, Irwin & Co., Toronto, 1968).

Pelletier, who was collaborating closely with Trudeau in editing the latter’s highbrow little magazine, CITE LIBRE, was probably instrumental in bringing Vallières to Trudeau’s attention and getting him to hire Vallières to work on the magazine in September 1963.  He stayed with it until March of the following year, 1964, when he walked out with eleven (!!!) other writers who disagreed vehemently with Trudeau’s thesis that Trotskyism could only be built in Canada through the instrumentality of the federal government (“a change of attitude to federalism still seems to be required within the ranks of Canadian socialism”).

Vallières and his friends, par contre, were opting for the official leftist line according to which the secessionist movement in Quebec was to be warped into the pattern of those phoney “national liberation” enterprises by means of which the Red warlords hope, in time, to convert Quebec into a continental Cuba, cut off from the federal Canadian state, and which, in the global chessgame of Stalinist geopolitical strategy, would secure them a northern flank in their long term plan to encircle and isolate the United States of America, their ultimate, Number One target.

It was two months later, in May (1964), that Trudeau published his famous essay, SEPARATIST COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARIES (which now forms the final chapter of his book, FEDERALISM AND THE FRENCH CANADIANS), thereby sealing the rift with his former friends who repudiated his federal strategy in favour of the phoney “separatist” line, designed to consign Quebec to the status of a province of the Socialist Camp.

Let us remember, however, that just as Trudeau had not disputed the validity of the pro-Peiping and anti-American purposes of his demon­strator-antagonists at the Seaforth Armouries in Vancouver, similarly he does not and never has reproached these “separatist counter-revolutionaries” for their Trotskyism, out merely for their refusal to submit to his federal strategy (“If the whole of the Canadian electorate could miraculously be converted to socialist ideals in one fell swoop, there would be no reason to discuss strategy”).

Like the quarrel between the Kremlin and Mao, from the point of view of Canadian freedom, this too is basically what someone has called “a quarrel about funeral arrangements.”  A year later, upon invitation of Pearson’s then Secretary of State, Maurice Lamontagne, (“Federal Liberals should drop their opposition to the ‘two nations’ concept and ‘special status’ for Quebec — battles they have already lost — and concentrate on federal planning for the age of abundance”) and accompanied by his buddies Pelletier and Marchand, Trudeau moved into the leadership ranks of the federal Liberal Party, in a strategically Fabian move which was to vault the Trotskyite trio to the pinnacle of political power in this country.

The extraordinary intrusion of these notorious non-Liberals (no French-speaking Riding would accept Trudeau as a “Liberal” candidate; he had to be “parachuted” into MOUNT ROYAL, a carpetbagging manoeuvre bitterly resented by veteran Liberals) into the Pearson administration did raise a few knowledgeable eyebrows:  one political observer charged the Liberals “with forcing Canadians down the road to socialism”, and that “The Government is not leaning to the left, it’s rushing pell-mell to the left.”

The entrance of the “three wise men” into the Liberal ruling junta, he said, was “a clear sign that the Pearson Government had swung hard to the left.”  Referring directly to Messrs. Trudeau, Marchand and Pelletier, he did not mince his words:  “They are all Socialists, and they are all on record as being opposed to the Prime Minister and the present Government.”

Ron Gostick?  Lubor Zink?  Charles Lynch?  Some besotted “McCarthyite”?  Fasten your safety belt:  it was no less a progressive than the National President of the Progressive Conservative Association, Dalton Camp (Cf. TELEGRAM, Oct. 6, 1965).

Of course, in 1965, it was still safe to say such things.  At that time those who were subsequently to abdicate their reason and submit to the irrational cult of Trudeaumanic chauvinism didn’t know Trudeau from a dyspeptic dentist from Trois Rivières; the Machiavellian “Messiah” had not yet been revealed to the gentiles.

Lavender and Old Left

However, back in 1963, Vallières was a very busy young Maoist, having played a leading role in the founding of the Marcusean magazine PARTI PRIS (“Side Taken”), soon to become notorious for its juvenitarian Jacobinism, its aura of “revolutionary” action, and its espousal of “the language of hatred…  which led us to Marxism…”  (Cf. ANDRE MAJOR, essay, WEAPONS IN HAND, in Stalinist symposium, QUEBEC STATES HER CASE, MacMillan of Canada, Toronto, 1964) and which was to eclipse Trudeau’s CITE LIBRE in Quebec’s leftist literary firmament.

(In the course of its colourful career, the latter had featured some picturesque contri­butors; indeed, among whom were to be found Prof. Raymond Boyer, convicted Stalinist spy, Stanley Ryerson (“Marxist interpretation of the History of Canada”), leading theoretician of the Canadian section of the Communist Party and editor of the MARXIST REVIEW, Pierre Gelinas, Quebec director of Agitation and Propaganda for the Party, as well as the TELEGRAM’S Trudeaumaniac-in-Residence, John D. Harbron (“The big corporations knew the CCCL was dominated by men of a basic ideology geared to socialism, some of it of the virulent European variety”), and author of THIS IS TRUDEAU (Longman’s Canada Ltd., Don Mills, 1967).

PARTI PRIS was launched at the University of Montreal which is to Quebec what Simon Fraser is to British Columbia, a seething cesspool of Maoist propaganda and intrigue.  Vallières has revealed that “some members of the FLQ were present”, at its birth, as was Michel Chartrand of the Quebec CCF-NDP, now known as the Parti Socialiste de Quebec.  So closely was Vallières associated with PARTI PRIS and the Maoist Klatsch publishing it, that an article of his was featured in its first issue (February 10, 1963).  Note the date:  February; the following autumn he joined Trudeau and Pelletier at CITE LIBRE.  By 1965, Vallières was editor of yet another Machiavellian mag, REVOLUTION QUEBECOISE.

By 1966, the Maoist FLQ was alive and well, and the nation was shocked and horrified at the wave of bombings and terror it unleashed in Quebec.  The directors of its terror apparatus were Vallières and Charles Gagnon, formerly a Professor of Literature on the Social Science Faculty of the U. of M.  Gagnon was also one of the bosses of the Maoist-controlled UNION GENERALE DES ETUDIANTS DE QUEBEC (UGZQ), which spawned the Student Workers of Quebec, the Quebec counterpart of the Company of Young Canadians.  He was also the official coordinator of the Bureau d’amenagement de I’Est du Quebec, (Eastern Quebec Planning Bureau) (BAEQ) which is affiliated with the federal project, ARDA.

By then, Vallières and Gagnon were running PARTI PRIS, and the U. of M. Campus had become notorious as the principal recruiting ground for FLQ terrorists.  They were also active in the People’s Liberation Movement, apparently formed from a number of Maoist groups, one of which was the Independent Socialist Committee, founded by Mario Bachand, now residing in Havana.  Bachand is a convicted terrorist, a veteran of the Company of Young Canadians, which, according to Anthony Malcolm, is still paying the rent on the headquarters of his Committee at 2100 rue St. Denis in Montreal!

One of the leaders of the PLM is Stanley Gray (“fascists”) who is so popular with the Canada Council, and who is planning mass demonstrations before the Palais de Justice in Montreal in November to demand the release of Messrs. Vallières and Gagnon, and other fascist fifth columnists facing criminal charges.  (No shrinking violet lie.)  PLM is alleged by Mr. Malcolm to be in close contact with Quisling Robert Favreau, now resident in Moscow, and a former leader of the Party’s Komsomols (Young Communists) in Quebec.

Bachand checked out for Soviet-occupied Cuba last spring, following “Operation McGill” last March, which Malcolm alleges was partly financed by El Fatah, (Now, do you understand, Rabbi Feinberg?).  The PLM serves as the visible, above-ground, “legal” front for the FLQ, distinct from its undercover apparat, according to classic Communist formula.

In September of 1966, Vallières and Gagnon were arrested in New York, where they had picketed the United Nations with placards announcing that they were on a hunger strike, which was supposed to have something to do with winning success for the FLQ’s campaign of Red terror in Quebec.

They successfully stalled extradition to Canada on murder charges for many, many months (they probably decided to go to New York to avoid arrest in Montreal), while almost a dozen Red terrorists were arrested and tried in Montreal.  Among them was Serge Demers who described himself as a leader of the FLQ’s “action network” and who testified at his trial that a training camp for red fifth columnists was in operation near Montreal, where they were drilled in the living thoughts of Mao Tse-tung (The Sino-Japanese war gives us, the Chinese Communists, an excellent opportunity for expansion”) and the late and unlamented Che Guevara (If the rockets had remained, we would have used them against the very heart of the USA, including New York”).

In March 1968, Vallières was brought to trial for the murder on May 5, 1968 of 64-year-old Thérèse Morin, a receptionist at the La Grenade Shoe Co., when a bomb was exploded on her desk at the Company’s office by a terror squad commanded by Vallières.

In the course of the trial, he was identified as “the leader of a Quebec guerilla band that trained in a bush camp in the Laurentians in 1966” where police found a cache of arms and explosives (Cf. TELEGRAM, March 4, 1968, page 10).  Gagnon, Vallières’ partner in Communist crime, was also charged in the same murder, as well as with manslaughter in the death of 16-year-old Jean Corbo, an agent of the FLQ who was killed by the premature explosion of a bomb he was detailed to plant on the premises of the Dominion Textile Co. in Montreal’s St. Henri quarter in July of 1966.  Gagnon (“better late than never”) was acquitted of the latter charge last April, and is presumably awaiting trial in the Morin case.

L’AFFAIRE VALLIÈRES:  A Stalinist Skeleton In Trudeau’s Closet?

Readers of this bulletin may recall mention of the Vallières case in our issue for June 1968, when our then columnist, “El Gusano”, pointed out that “Trudeau appeared on a list of proposed witnesses given to Mr. Justice Yves Leduc by Pierre Vallières in the course of his trial for murder last March.

Nothing more was heard of this, of course, for Trudeau was Minister of Justice! …  The Vallières trial is perhaps one of the most important political-criminal events in Canada today, yet our press maintains a virtual silence about it.  Why is that, do you suppose?

The same [illegible] we published our first and now famous Trudeau Fact Sheet, EAST WIND OVER OTTAWA, which referred to Vallières’ attempt to have Trudeau called as a character witness in his defence, and which asked, “did (Trudeau) testify?  Was he ever called?”

Well, the answer would seem to be:  no, he wasn’t, and it is scarcely difficult to understand his reluctance to having his former protege focus a spotlight of public scrutiny on these sinister seditious associations of his recent past.

In March 1968, Vallières was conducting his own defence, a role which permitted him to grandstand histrionically in the grand Marxist manner (maybe that’s where Gary Perly got the idea), and he submitted a list of proposed character witnesses which included, apart from Glorious Pierre, a number of members of the faculty of the U. of M., Gérard Pelletier, who was then Parliamentary Secretary to External Affairs Minister Paul Martin [‘Senior’ (Admin)]  (“I have been caught in the generation gap”), and Marcel Pepin, who runs the Maoist-controlled Congrès des Syndicaux Nationaux (Congress of National Trade Unions).

Vallières was convicted in April of last year, and sentenced to life imprisonment.  The following month, May, a couple of dozen well-known actors and singers staged a benefit at Montreal’s Gesu Theatre under the auspices of secessionist singing star, Pauline Julien and Jacques Larue-Langlois, a producer with the Canadian Broadcasting Cor­poration (Radio-Canada) who was fired last year, and alleged by Anthony Malcolm to be a contact man between Quebec’s national socialists and the American Black Panther Party, which is suspected of providing financial aid and training in arson and sabotage to FLQ terrorists (the Demers trial revealed that Vallières and Gagnon travelled extensively abroad, and often the FLQ held top level strategy meetings in that historic quaint old Quebec town, Rochester, N.Y., where contact with the Black Panthers would have been absurdly convenient).  Called “Poems and Songs of Resistance” (why not “of Liberation”?), the money to be raised by the benefit was to finance Vallières’ appeal for a new trial.

Among the distinguished participants were such luminaries as the actress Ginette Letondal, Hélène Loiselle, and Lionel Villeneuve.  The tone of the circus was set in the opening tableau:  “All the artists stood on stage listening to an actor recite the words of the judge who sentenced Vallières.  And then one by one, each artist spoke the names of all those who, since 1960, have been sent to jail for terrorist activities in support of the separatist movement …  The sentiment ran from simple independence to revolution that would establish a socialist state in Quebec (for which there was mention of Castro and Mao and the rest of today’s revol­utionary heros).”  (Cf. Gordon Sheppard, TELEGRAM, June 1, 1968).

The fascist fervour of the audience knew no bounds when the Quattuor du Nouveau Jazz Libre swung into a groovy jazz rendition of that famous old French-Canadian folk song, L’Internationale.

Lord Elliott Sends His Regrets

Last September 24th (1969), five Justices of the Quebec Court of Appeal ruled that Vallières be granted a new trial (for which no date has yet been set).  Now repre­sented by hotshot lawyer, Robert Lemieux (who last spring defended convicted terror­ist Pierre-Paul Geoffroy, who had pleaded guilty to all charges when arraigned, and who has been granted leave to appeal his sentence of life imprisonment by the Court of Appeal), Vallières had subpoenas served on Messrs. Trudeau and Pelletier to testify on his behalf in a hearing of his petition for bail, and it must have shaken these gentlemen to have this nagging ghost pop up again to place their respectable “Liberal” image in jeopardy once more.

Subsequently, on October 6th, Judge Paul Trepanier entertained a petition from the President of the Quebec Bar, no less, Maître Jean Martineau, acting for the PM [Trudeau], requesting that his illustrious client be dispensed from complying with the subpoena, which dispensation seems to have been granted.  (It is amusing to note, parenthetically, that on Sept. 17th last, the Union Nationale Cabinet in Quebec city named Trudeau a Queen’s Counsel in honour of his “26 years of law practice”.

These venerable old Duplessistes must have had their tongues in their cheeks; in his whole lifetime Trudeau has never opened a law office, and has practiced about as much law, in those 26 years, as the late Robert F. Kennedy did in his lifetime, i.e., hardly any at all!  Quoth Quebec Minister of Justice, Remi Paul:  “It simply means that the Bar of the Province of Quebec is proud to see one of its members in such high office.”

Support Your Local Leninist?

If this dispensation established some kind of legal precedent (which it may very well have done), it could scarcely be more astonishing than the fact that a Prime Minister of Canada should be subpoenaed as a character witness in a bail hearing for a convicted collectivist killer, whose anarcho-statist crimes have been committed in the course of his seditious services in a fascist fifth column pursuing the anti-Western purposes of the Red warlords of the Socialist Camp!

Trudeau’s affidavit requesting dispensation from his legal obligation to appear was interesting, to say the least:  “I am unable to provide any evidence whatsoever which would be pertinent to the petition of the defendant, Pierre Vallières; I do not believe I have seen or spoken with the defendant for five years; The only times I had occasion to speak with him involved the magazine CITE LIBRE, which the defendant managed for some months; I did not know the defendant before having met him in the circumstances mentioned in the preceding paragraph…”

Brave words, bravely uttered, but it is surely stretching credulity to the point of absurdity to expect us to believe that Vallières got the job at CITE LIBRE, Trudeau’s pet project for a number of years, by answering a Help Wanted ad in LA PRESSE!

In his effort to strike the right muted key in his affidavit, Trudeau, as usual, overdoes it, and plunges into bathos with the same grand style he made famous during the election campaign at Motel swimming pools:  “I am a mere citizen, and as such, subject to all the laws of my country,” but my appearance in court for the hearing of the defendant’s application would cause me to waste, uselessly, a part of the time which I must devote to my duties …”

How’s that for humility?  “a mere citizen … subject to all the laws of my country”!  (Vancouver papers, please copy!).

Needless to say, this did not go down too well with Maître Lemieux, who nevertheless demonstrated some surprising naivete (or pretended to):  “How can the Prime Minister ask to be excused from testifying?  He doesn’t know the questions we wish to ask him”, which is precisely why, of course, Trudeau is bending every effort to avoid being dragged to the witness stand.

When he attempted to argue the cogency of his client’s subpoena, Lemieux didn’t get too far with Judge Trepanier.  “At the time of the changeover of authority in the management of CITE LIBRE”, he began, “we are in possession of a speech which Pierre-Elliott Trudeau …”, at which point the judge cut him off, asserting that he would hear all arguments in the course of the hearing, and then decide if the PM’s presence” at the hearing would be required.  (Everyone, but everyone, is trying so hard to be considerate to Mere Citizen Trudeau, to spare him any avoidable embarrassment!)

Can Pierre-Elliott Trudeau Ever Forget Pierre Vallières and Find Happiness?

Annoyed at the Court’s apparent acceptance of Trudeau’s disclaimer, Maître Lemieux did not mince his words when interviewed by the CBC’s network radio news broadcast, THE WORLD AT SIX, in which he pointed out that Trudeau had hired Vallières in 1963 to work on CITE LIBRE, that Vallières was then employed by Pelletier at LA PRESSE, that Trudeau was busy on the faculty of the U. of M. at the time, and that they were a cosy threesome who “did everything together”.

Outside the courtroom, Jacques Larue-Langlois (vide supra), Chairman of the Comité d’aide au groupe Vallières et Gagnon, (Committee for Aid to the Vallières-Gagnon Group) distributed a leaflet with the plaintive lament, “Thus does the Prime Minister coldly turn his back on a former comrade and collaborator.”  The whole episode is reported in MONTREAL MATIN (October 7th) under the by-line of Roger Guil featuring the intriguing headline:  TRUDEAU TRIES TO WEASEL OUT BUT Gérard PELLETIER WILL BE THERE!

With characteristic French-Canadian impishness, the editor has inserted a crosshead in the story which is from the Bible:  the words of St. Peter denying the Saviour in the courtyard of the High Priest, “I do not know the man!”  Without wishing to minimize the gravity of l’affaire Vallières and the serious crimes with which the man is charged, the whole episode does smack of … of what?  Pinkerton abandoning Madame Butterfly?  Father Flanagan turning his back on Mickey Rooney?  So many comic parallels suggest themselves …

However, in the real, sober, no-nonsense world of Stalinist subversion and sedition, in the murky, Machiavellian atmosphere of the fever swamp of Quebec’s militant Left, peopled by morally retarded intellectuals, dilettantes, and hard-headed godless gangsters, there is nothing funny about Pierre Vallières and what makes him run, and in the final analysis, there is nothing funny about Trudeau.  Nor can we be amused at the failure of our English-language press to keep us informed on what must surely be the hottest political story since l’affaire Munsinger.

To our knowledge, not one Toronto paper has had the journalistic wit to get an interview with Vallières counsel, Robert Lemieux, a young man who has something to say, something which all Canadians have a right to know about.
____________
 
* Mitchel Sharp, Trudeau adviser and future member of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission, gave Gagnon safe haven and a job in Brazil at Brazilian Traction, and helped him to flee Canada in the wake of the Gouzenko revelations. [Ed. NSIM]