Canadian Background of Current Polish Communist Spy Ring in U.K.

Source:  Arcand Papers at Concordia University
Date:  Ottawa, January 16, 1961
Author:  Pat Walsh, (“Former RCMP Special Branch Agent”)
Archive:  1096-1103 Pat Walsh (Ottawa) date 16-01-1961, Text on spy ring, Adrien Arcand Collection, Special Collections, Concordia University, Adrien Arcand Collection.

Canadian Background of Current Polish
Communist Spy Ring in U.K.

By Pat Walsh


[Handwriting: “Not for translation P.W.]

Canadian Anti-Communist Secretariat
P.O. Box 551 – Station B – Ottawa – Ont.

Pat Walsh,
General Secretary, CAS.
Ottawa, Jan. 16, 1961.

– Canadian Background of Current Polish
Communist Spy Ring in U.K. –

At various times in 1947-48 a group of Polish-Canadians from Toronto, Welland, Hamilton, Regina, Winnipeg & Vancouver set out for Poland.  All of these persons were known Communists, most of them had been active in Commie controlled trade-unions like the United Electrical Workers Union (US), the Mine-Mill & Smelter Workers Union, the Canadian Seamens’ Union (CSU) and in various other unions under Red domination.  This group of 16 repatriates told the press at the time of their departure that they were going back to Poland “to spend their old age there and to help the new Polish government build up a Communist Poland”.  Not much attention was paid to this departure at the time and the “case of the 16 Polish repatriates” was soon forgotten.  Another Communist who had been born in Lublin, Poland of Jewish-Russian parentage, Fred Rosenberg, and who was now known as “Fred Rose”, was not forgotten, however.  This Fred Rose turned out to be the famous “Dabouz” of the Gouzenko “papers” and after his trial in 1947 was convicted as a Soviet espionage agent and condemned to the penitentiary.

Fred Rose, Soviet spy (code named Dabouz)

Fred Rose, Soviet spy (code named Dabouz)

“repatriate” by the name of Leopold Infold, a former Professor at the University of Toronto, and a trusted “researcher” at the National Research Centre in Ottawa during the 1943-45 war-time years, suddenly “disappeared” in 1947 and then turned up in Communist Poland.  This Leopold Infold was on the editorial board of a Communist magazine called TO-DAY and had as a co-editor a certain Jean-Louis Gagnon, another old-time Communist and intimate friend of Fred Rose.


– 2 –

– Polish Espionage Ring Unmasked in France –

IN NOVEMBER 1960, an extensive Communist Polish spy organization working for Warsaw & Moscow was unmasked in France.  The final clue to the discovery was provided in connection with French police investigations that had been concerned with the murder of a Pole.  It was found that this man had been killed by his accomplices upon instructions from the directing center of the espionage activities because he did no longer want to comply with its orders.

This Polish Communist spy-ring also included as one of its members the so far highly respected mayor of a larger French town who is of Polish descent, too.

Ties also were being maintained with Red Spanish elements engaged in pro-Soviet espionage activities against the country by which they had been granted political asylum.  The ramifications of this Polish spy ring [were] so far-flung that all counter-espionage authorities in the Free World were alerted.  This ring extended from Communist China to Havana, Cuba and comprised about sixty well-trained international Communists from all countries, most of whom had seen action in the INTERNATIONAL BRIGADE in the Spanish Civil war of 1936-39.  Strangely enough INTERPOL (international police) had some of these names in their files as suspects in a new efficient narcotics ring extending from Red China to Havana, Cuba.  Stranger still, most of those persons seemed to be in possession of Canadian passports.


“Smith of Special Branch” is the dreaded name given by Communists to Detective-Superintendent George Gordon Smith of the Scotland Yard Special Branch.  The real head of Special Branch is now believed to be in Canada, working closely with the RCMP Special Branch into the Canadian aspects of this Polish Communist spy-ring.  For some time, newspapers in Great Britain have known that this high official “was abroad” on something “big”.  However,


– 3 –

it was “Smith of Special Branch” that astounded the British public during the week-end of January 8th, 1961, by arresting two women and three men, including two British Admiralty civil servants, on charges under the Official Secrets Act.  The five people include a Canadian couple, PETER JOHN KROGER, 50, a bookseller, and his wife HELEN JOYCE KROGER, another person who had once lived in Vancouver in 1955, GORDON ARNOLD LONSDALE, 37, who gave his profession as “company director”.  The two others were MISS STEEL ELIZABETH GEE, 46, a civil servant, and HENRY FREDERICK HOUGHTON, 55, also a civil servant.  Both these civil servants were employed at the top-secret British Admiralty’s underwater warfare establishment in Portland, Dorset, where HMS Osprey is situated.


SOVIET AND POLISH NAVAL INTELLIGENCE have been trying for some time to get information on a Canadian device known as the VARIABLE DEPTH ASDJC, said to increase by many times the possibility of detecting submerged submarines.  Some reports said that in conditions favorable for underwater “listening” it worked at a range of 50 miles.  In June, 1959, the British Navy, in “streamlining” its activities, decided to concentrate underwater research and development at HMS Osprey and merged a number of establishments at Portland.

Among them were the Torpedo Experimental Establishment at Greenock; the RN Torpedo Dept. at Weymouth; the Underwater Counter Measures & Weapons Establishment at Havant; and the Underwater Launching Establishment at Bournsmouth.  There are 3,000 civilians, including scientific workers, at Portland.  The Soviets also “streamlined” their naval espionage ring accordingly.  They “concentrated” their Polish spy ring at the merged establishments.


– 4 –


Our Intelligence contacts in the U.K. report this week that Peter Kroger was in close contact with the “Davis bookstore in Montreal”.  This bookstore in Montreal is owned by one Raymond Arthur Davis, alias Roy Davis, whose real name is Shogan.  This is the same Davis who was arrested by the RCMP a few years ago on a passport fraud charge, was convicted & sentenced to jail.  He is an old-time “apparatchik” of the Soviets.  In 1934-35 he was active in the YOUNG COMMUNIST LEAGUE across Canada.  In August, 1936, he was one of the delegates of the Communist-dominated CANADIAN YOUTH CONGRESS to the First World Youth Congress held in Geneva, Switzerland.  The chairman of this delegation was none other than PAUL MARTIN, M.P., later to become a Federal cabinet minister.  Others in this delegation were WILLIAM KASHTON (now the Communist Trade-Union Commission Director), KENNETH WOODSWORTH, an old-time Commie fellow-traveller who infiltrated Canadian Intelligence during World War II, T.C. DOUGLAS, M.P., the present CCF Premier of Saskatchewam, NORMAN LEVY, Chairman of the CANADIAN YOUTH CONGRESS and other assorted “united front” socialists of the CCF who collaborated with the Commies in the Thirties.

Roy Davis became known as Raymond Arthur Davis during World War II when he was a full-time employee of the CBC and a frequent visitor to the Soviet Union.  These frequent trips to the USSR roused RCMP suspicions and after close surveillance Davis was caught red-handed in fraudulent passport practices.  After his release from prison he “disappeared” for a while, then surfaced in Montreal as owner or the DAVIS BOOK STORE.  This bookstore is, of course, only a “front” for Soviet espionage activities.  The “defection” on January 14, 1961 of Dr. Rysard Zialinski, former commercial consul at the Polish consulate-general in Sydney, Australia, has given rise to speculation whether Zielinski might be able to give information to help track down the Warsaw-based Soviet spy ring uncovered in the U.K.


– 5 –


SEVERAL CANADIAN NEWSPAPERS have raised the question recently about the top-secret “transfer” of the famed “Polish treasures” which were moved secretly from the Provincial museum to a Polish ship across the Canadian-USA border.  It is significant that only “LA PRESSE” of Montreal was able to have a newspaperman present during the whole secret “transfer”.  Here again we come across the sinister JEAN-LOUIS GAGNON, the personal friend of Fred Rose and Leopold Infold.  This Jean-Louis Gagnon is now the “boss” of “LA PRESSE” in the capacity of managing editor.  His wife, Helena (nee Jobidon) is also an old-time fellow traveller of the Communist Party.  She makes frequent trips to Iron Curtain countries, speaks at international Communist conferences in Bucharest, Prague, Warsaw and Peking.  She spent four months recently in Red China as the guest of the Chinese Communists.

It was Helena Gagnon who arranged the Canadian tour of the so-called PEKING OPERA COMPANY.  The fact that Jean-Louis Gagnon and Raymond Arthur Davis were both CBC employees together, were both involved in Soviet espionage (Jean-Louis Gagnon’s name came out in early references to the “papers” in 1946 but this was hushed up subsequently and Gagnon had to leave Canada for a few years until the adverse publicity was over) and the fact that both Gagnon & Infold were on the editorial board of TO-DAY in 1946 adds up to too many facts to be just co-incidences.

Another friend of Davis, one PAUL ALTERSON, 58, of 2330 Oxford Avenue in Montreal has also been involved in the illegal shipment of strategic materials to Communist countries.  The material was borax, a vital ingredient of missile fuel, which was confiscated from a ship bound for Gdynia, POLAND!  This deal was made in a round-about way, being shipped from Argentina.  Once again we see the Latin-American network of the Communists linked to Red Poland.


– 6 –


Approximately 100,000 Chinese live in Latin-America, 30,000 of them in Cuba.  This is one of the reasons the Red Chinese regime has been wooing them.  Peking has been sending “technicians” to Cuba, purchasing Cuban goods and providing “aid”.  What is not so well known, however, except to INTERPOL, is the fact that Red China has been trying to enrich itself and poison its Latin-American markets by the production and export of narcotic drugs.  Already last week one Cuban smuggler was arrested in the USA in possession of drugs which he had brought from Mexico in a cleverly-hidden secret place in his car.


The Chinese Red government is seeking recognition and the status of a civilized country, as a member of the United Nations, yet at the same time the Red Chinese have established a well-knit smuggling organization all over Latin-America that has three purposes: –

  • (1) to obtain foreign exchange (especially USA & Canadian dollars);

  • (2) to finance subversive activities in various Latin-American countries;

  • (3) to sabotage opponents and prospective victims by creating drug addicts among their population.

These are not just off-hand statements.  They were made by Mr. Harry J. Anslinger, the USA Federal Narcotics Commissioner.  For many years now the Red Chinese “Operation Poison” has been spreading its foul tentacles wider and wider over Latin-America after having poisoned the Pacific area.  The sum total of misery and human destruction caused by this operation is enormous.


– 7 –


Now that the Polish ship BATORY (of Gerhardt Sisler fame) has inaugurated a run that will link Montreal & Quebec ports to Leningrad, we see a concentration of Soviet-Red Chinese espionage activities being centered on the vital port of Vancouver.  Here are some disturbing facts: –


Effective January 1961, the pro-Soviet Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR) has moved from New York to Vancouver.  This is the same IPR that supplied personnel to the US State Department that practically gave China to the Communists via such officials as Owen Lattimore and Alger Hiss.


The NORTH PACIFIC SHIPPING COMPANY, agents for SINOFRACHT, Red China’s chartering and shipbroking corporation in Peking, announced last month that three Danish vessels, under charter to SINOFRACHT, arrived at Vancouver for “trading purposes”.  A spokesman for the ALUMINUM COMPANY OF CANADA said, “our Company wants Chinese business, and we will be willing to sell any quantity of aluminum at market price”.


The Communists have a stranglehold on all B.C. trade-unions and the CLC unions are infiltrated from top to bottom by old-time Communist hard-core elements.  Harry Bridges’ union controls the Vancouver & Victoria waterfronts, the shipyards, smelters, forestry & fishing industries are hog-tied with Communist-controlled unions.  These Reds can paralyze Vancouver in the event of war with the Soviet Union.


– 8 –


If all this information should give cause for alarm, there are positive counter-measures which are being taken by the RCMP which will certainly spike Soviet-Red Chinese-Castro Cuban espionage attempts in Canada.  The announcememt by CUBANA AIRLINES of two “special” plane flights between Montreal-Havana and Havana-Prague caused growing concern, especially since the arrival in Cuba of Comrade SERGEI KOUDRIAVTZEV, who once masterminded a Soviet spy ring in Canada and who was exposed by Gouzenko in 1946.

The RCMP moved in fast at Dorval Montreal airport recently and took charge of the Department of Transport police detachment.  The RCMP will assume full police duties at all Canadian airports as soon as possible.  This move will prevent the Cubans from utilizing CUBANA AIRLINES as a “courier” transmission belt from its agents in Montreal to the Soviet “bosses” in Prague, Warsaw and Moscow.  This will also put a stop to the possible circulation of counterfeit money now believed to be printed by experts of the Soviet Embassy in Ottawa & Havana.  Both KOUDRIAVTZEV and VICTOR MININ worked together in East Germany & Moscow in 1955-56 in a counterfeit ring of USA ten and twenty-dollar bills which flooded West Germany for a while.

This RCMP move will also close a serious gap through which Red China could easily have smuggled in narcotics.

In conclusion, I would strongly recommend the reading of the TESTIMONY OF CAPTAIN NIKOLAI PEDOROVICH ARTANONOV (a former Soviet Naval officer) before the COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES on Sept. 14, 1960.  This confirms articles written by the undersigned in THE VOICE OF FREEDOM in July & August 1955 on Soviet espionage activities off the Newfoundland Grand Banks.  Perhaps, for the know-it-alls, it might serve a purpose of taking these articles more seriously in the future.

– 30 –

Pat Walsh. [Typed under Signature]


Simon Reisman (FTA negotiator) Suspected Communist Subversive: RCMP

Exclusive to
“No Snow in Moscow”

I have obtained an authentic copy of an old draft article by noted journalist Peter Worthington (born February 16, 1927) which contains names of suspected Communists in the federal government of Canada, as revealed in the RCMP’s now-quashed “Featherbed File”.

Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau squelched the Featherbed file with an Order-in-Council before he left office.  Trudeau himself was named in it as a suspected Communist subversive.

Many headlines could be drawn from this article. However, the one that comes to my mind first is that Sol Simon Reisman, who negotiated the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA), was a suspected Communist subversive. RCMP Featherbed investigators objected in vain to the renewal of Reisman’s high-level security clearance with the federal government of Canada.

In 1982, Trudeau ordered a royal commission convened:  the Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada, known as the Macdonald Commission, and chaired by Trudeau’s friend and co-Bilderberger, Liberal Minister of Finance, Donald Stovel Macdonald.

The Macdonald Commission reported to Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in 1985.  It recommended free trade with the USA, and the conversion of Canada to a socialist welfare state.

Sol Simon Reisman, Free Trade negotiator

Sol Simon Reisman, Free Trade negotiator, and RCMP suspected communist subversive

In May of 1986, Canadian and American negotiators began to work out a so-called trade deal, known as the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA).  The Canadian team was led by former deputy Minister of Finance Simon Reisman and the American side by Peter O. Murphy, former deputy United States trade representative in Geneva.

The FTA was deepened by the coming into force on January 1, 1994 of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement involving Canada, the USA and Mexico, and spanning the continent.

A number of informed and well placed observers have identified the NAFTA and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) which followed it on the pretext of so-called terrorist attacks of September 2001, as the building blocks of a North American Union modeled on the European Union.  Today, The European Union is called both Marxist and “post-democratic” by some members of the press and intellectuals such as Professor John Fonte.

American Charlotte Iserbyt has warned of an impending North American Soviet Union, citing Mikhail Gorbachev who in 2002 called the European Union the “New European Soviet”.

American-Lithuanian Vilius Bražėnas viewed the series of trade deals on this continent in a similar light.  Bražėnas, a survivor of Communism, died on October 3, 2010 at the age of 97.  In his final passionate articles, he warned against the FTA, NAFTA, the FTAA and related trade-zone accords as tantamount to a multiple coup-d’état which in the end would impose a Communist regional union in North America.

Former Soviet dissident, Vladimir Bukovsky, who survived over a decade as a prisoner of Soviet mental hospitals, has warned on video and in print that the European Union is “the old Soviet model in western guise.”

Is anyone listening? I know I am.

U.S. Congressman Lawrence Patton McDonald

U.S. Congressman Lawrence Patton McDonald, April 1 1935 to September 1, 1983

In particular because U.S. Congressman Lawrence Patton McDonald in 1983 publicly warned America that the Marxist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Marxist Trilateral Commission and other related non-governmental entities were pushing for a Communist regional union through a series of apparently harmless trade deals.

In the words of Congressman McDonald himself on Crossfire, speaking of the CFR and related circles of elites:

“[T]heir objective is to try to bring about a gradual transition in our society -– a dissolving of sovereignty -– and a moving steadily to the left on the political spectrum.”

Canada’s FTA under Reisman certainly shifts Canada to the left while initiating the North American merger process.

Speaking specifically of the CFR during an interview with Larry McDonald on the television program Crossfire, McDonald said:
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)[Y]ou are looking at a group (the CFR et als) that has worked to bring about a dissolution of national sovereignties on the road to world government.”

McDonald then quotes Arthur Schlesinger in the May-June 1947 issue of the Partisan Review:

”He [Schlesinger] said that the objective -– the secret policy of which we can’t tell the American public because they’re not sophisticated enough to see the value — is that through a steady result of erosion of NEW DEALS, we bring the American society steadily to the left, and through a signed concept of benign containment, we merge into the vital center of the socialist left.  Those were his words, not mine.”

Congressman McDonald continues further on replying to Crossfire host Pat Buchanan’s question whether the concept of the UN as the basis of a world government is not passé:

”Well, I think there are those who realize that moving straight from a prototype of the United Nations into world government perhaps is tactically impossible.  But phasing out increasingly national sovereignty into REGIONAL GOVERNMENT and phasing out sovereignties into international treaties ….” is the order of the day.

Today, with these warnings in mind, I invite you to read Peter Worthington’s old draft article exposing the chief negotiator of the FTA — which forms the initial basis of a clearly incoming REGIONAL UNION in North America — as someone the RCMP had warned the federal government not to trust because he likely was a Communist subversive.

However, the warnings fell on deaf ears, no doubt because the very Prime Minister’s Office the RCMP attempted to alert was itself already infested with one-world government types and suspected Communist subversives such as Soviet agent Lester B. Pearson, and Soviet mole Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

As a consequence, the very basis of Communist regional union in North America was negotiated by someone Canada’s national police and security apparatus long believed to be a Communist subversive.

Following is an exclusive typed transcript made by me from Worthington’s own typed, draft article, which he hand-edited.

For ease of reading, i am retyping the draft clean, without indicating Mr. Worthington’s deletions and insertions.  Images and captions have been added by me.

by Peter Worthington (circa 1979)

(Scan of actual draft article is embedded below)

Operation Featherbed, a 14-year RCMP investigation into suspected subversives in high places, tried to warn the federal government it was being systematically infiltrated.

Trudeau, Pearson, Diefenbaker ignore RCMP warnings of high-level communist penetration of Canada

Trudeau, Pearson, Diefenbaker ignore RCMP warnings of high-level communist penetration of Canada

But the governments of John Diefenbaker, Lester Pearson, and Pierre Trudeau dismissed the Featherbed warnings as unsubstantiated Communist witch-hunting.

Besides, it would have been too embarrassing to repudiate people their governments had promoted to positions of influence.

Featherbed suspected that Communist infiltration of the federal bureaucracy had been set in train in 1923 with the co-option of O.D. Skelton, renowned as the “father of the civil service”.

The Featherbed analysts concluded that over the years, any promising “agents of influence” were talent-spotted at Communist study clubs in universities and brought into the civil service.

Inside, a shadowy network promoted “birds of a feather,” which gave the operation its code-name.

Robert Bryce (1984)

Robert Bryce (1984)

Among the more prominent (civil servant) subjects of Featherbed investigation were Robert Bryce, who rose from the Finance Ministry to the top post as cabinet secretary; his successor as deputy minister of finance, Sol Simon Reisman; and the husband-and-wife team of Bernard and Sylvia Ostry.1

Bernard Ostry, suspected by RCMP as being a Communist subversive

Bernard Ostry, suspected by RCMP as being a Communist subversive

Bernard Ostry became deputy minister of communications despite RCMP objections.  He was recently appoint(ed) at $65,000 a year as government special adviser on culture and communications based in Paris.

Sylvia Ostry, suspected by the RCMP as being a Communist subversive

Sylvia Ostry, suspected by the RCMP as being a Communist subversive

Sylvia Ostry, former chief of Statistics Canada, the Economic Council of Canada, and deputy minister of consumer and corporate affairs, was appointed last fall to head the economics and statistics branch of the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris.

Soviet mole Pierre Trudeau and Soviet espionage agent Lester Pearson

Soviet mole Pierre Trudeau and Soviet espionage agent Lester Pearson

Operation Featherbed also plumbed the pasts of prime ministers Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau — Trudeau for his travels to Warsaw, Moscow, Peking and Havana, Pearson for allegedly having supplied information while a diplomat, that was transmitted to Moscow by a U.S. spy ring.

(Trudeau once called for his Featherbed file, “chuckled” as he read the report about his travels, associations and indiscretions, and sent it back to RCMP files).

Featherbed began as a search for suspected Communist subversives in the hierarchy of the civil service, branched out delving into university professors, lawyers, the media and trade unions.

It involved extensive surveillance, wiretapping and bugging under the code-name Operation Mercury (Featherbed was the analytical side).  The winnowed-down conclusions were summarized in a thick, black-edged book that held the names of 245 “professional” people as members of the Communist Party secret underground in Canada.

Not all the subjects of initial investigation found their way into the wrap-up black book.

Featherbed opened files on 87 CBC staffers as suspected subversives but there was no evidence of any operating network and only a handful were named in the final summation.

Tim Buck, head of the Communist Party in Canada

Tim Buck, head of the Communist Party in Canada

And Featherbed never learned the identity of “our agent in Canadian Press” that Communist Party of Canada chief Tim Buck frequently boasted about to his mistress, Bess Nascolo.  A bug in Nascolo’s house on Jones Ave., Toronto, picked up the drunken boasts after a shipment of Russian embassy vodka.

Featherbed believed that Lewis Rasminsky, former governor of the Bank of Canada, was only flirting with Communism when he attended party cell meetings in the Depression, as many disillusioned people did, and that he had rejected the ideology.

After a Featherbed investigation, the RCMP Security Service blocked the intended 1969 appointment of Grace Hartman to the government’s national commission on the status of women.  She became head of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

Featherbed also conducted an investigation of Shirley Carr, vice-president of the Canadian Labor Congress.

What prompted Featherbed’s start in 1958 was an accusation by the U.S. Senate Internal Sub-Committee that Robert Bryce had been a member of a Communist closed party cell at Harvard university in 1935-37.

Herbert Norman, a known Communist, killed himself rather than expose 70 or more other Soviet agents

Herbert Norman, a known Communist, killed himself rather than expose 70 or more other Soviet agents

The subcommittee the previous year had cited Herbert Norman, then ambassador to Cairo, as a Communist.

Norman leaped to his death in Cairo a day after he told his doctor that if he were called to testify in a royal commission, he would to identify 60 to 70 Canadians as Communists.

Norman was a good friend of Lester Pearson and Robert Bryce and Pearson’s denunciation of U.S. interference in Canadian affairs caused the jittery RCMP brass to sever relations with the FBI.

When they were resumed, the FBI handed the information about the Silvermaster spy ring to the RCMP.  The ring’s courier, Elizabeth Bentley, told the FBI that Norman was a source of information sent to Moscow.

John Grierson, suspected but not charged with Soviet espionage (his secretary, Freida Linton, was charged)

John Grierson, suspected but not charged with Soviet espionage (his secretary, Freida Linton, was charged)

She also said that she had reported to her Soviet at spy handlers that Pearson also had been a source of information, along with John Grierson, head of the National Film Board, and his secretary, Freda Linton.

Featherbed was launched with the concept that the Silvermaster ring — which led to the indictments of Alger Hiss, assistant to the U.S. Secretary of State, and Harry Dexter White, a senior official in the U.S. Treasury Department — had its counterpart in Ottawa.

The initial investigation turned up 12 suspected equivalents in the Ottawa civil service hierarchy.  The files on the dozen were taken away by W. H. Kelly, director of RCMP Security and Intelligence, and never returned to Featherbed investigators.

After the U.S. subcommittees naming Bryce, he voluntarily went to RCMP headquarters to explain.

He admitted having attended Communist party study cells at Harvard and contended to his RCMP questioners that “you’re making too much of it.  I was only flirting with the Communists.”

Featherbed with the help of the FBI investigated his claim but concluded that Bryce had played a greater role in the study cells than he owned up to.

Harold "Kim" Philby, British Secret Service (MI6), in a 1955 file photo

Harold “Kim” Philby, British Secret Service (MI6), in a 1955 file photo

The delving also turned up a class parade photo taken at Trinity College, Cambridge, in the early 1930s. [Sitting] in the front row were Bryce, Lester Pearson, Herbert Norman and Kim Philby.

Philby went on to penetrate and sell out British Intelligence as a Soviet KGB master agent and now lives in Moscow.  The picture raised questions but answered none.

RCMP of Operation Mercury put Bryce under surveillance for many months but found nothing incriminating.

The Mercury Mounties wiretapped Simon Reisman for a long time and intercepted phone calls from a Russian embassy military attache identified as “A. Lobatchev.”

The RCMP Watching Service glued on to Reisman but never found him meeting with Lobatchev.  However, Featherbed found that Reisman’s wife had attended a Communist party training school in Port Hope, Ont., in 1954.

When Reisman’s top security clearance came up for renewal, the RCMP put in a report that it shouldn’t be renewed.  But the government’s security screening panel disagreed.

Bernard Ostry was the subject of RCMP surveillance under the code-name “Apache.”  That came after British Intelligence reported in 1962 that Ostry had attended a meeting of the Communist Party of Britain.

The Watching Service reported that Ostry had met Russian Intelligence Service agent Rem Krassilnikov at the Green Gables restaurant in Ottawa.

The RCMP took Bernard Ostry’s file to Trudeau but he dismissed their objections to his promotion to deputy minister of communications, the department that includes intercepting Soviet communications and bugging of embassies.

“I don’t want to hear any more about the Ostrys,” Trudeau said. “I would work with the devil if necessary.  Don’t bother me any more about the Ostrys.”

The RCMP had filed objections to Sylvia Ostry’s promotions on the basis of her Communist associations.  Trudeau dismissed that, too.

The RCMP could never reveal, even to Trudeau, the source for their objections to the Ostrys.

With Trudeau’s disinterest, Featherbed ground to a listless effort in 1972 and died completely by 1975.

A stroke of luck had uncovered secret Communist party memberships of several higher-ups in the trade union movement and in the civil service.

An RCMP “garbage patrol” picked up the membership list of secret section number seven of the United Jewish People’s Order in Montreal.  Section seven was the UJPO’s underground party apparatus for professional people.

Tom Kent, Queen's University: suspected by RCMP as being a Communist subversive

Tom Kent, Queen’s University: suspected by RCMP as being a Communist subversive *

The subject of one Featherbed file, Tom Kent, complained to Pearson that it was unfair.  Kent was a policy advisor to the prime minister and assistant deputy minister of immigration.*

Featherbed’s file on Kent outlined his connections with Communist front groups while he was managing editor of the Winnipeg Free Press.

Professor C. B. Macpherson: suspected by the RCMP of being a Communist subversive

Professor C. B. Macpherson: suspected by the RCMP of being a Communist subversive

Of the many university professors in Featherbed’s files, the most important was deemed to be Prof. C. B. MacPherson of University of Toronto.

The RCMP bugged MacPherson’s island cottage near Gananoque for the regular visits by two Russian Intelligence Service officers from the Ottawa embassy.

Kay MacPherson:: suspected by the RCMP of being a Communist subversive

Kay MacPherson:: suspected by the RCMP of being a Communist subversive

MacPherson’s wife, Kay, was leader of the Voice of Women movement that paraded for rejection of nuclear weapons by Canada.

Twenty years after Igor Gouzenko defected, Featherbed analysts got around to poring through the neglected kit-bags full of papers seized in the spy-ring roundup.

In the yellowing notebooks and memo pads, they found names and phone numbers of calls made in wartime.  Tracing the numbers back to wartime government phone books, they traced calls made to civil servants who by then (1965) had risen high in the bureaucracy.

They also found evidence implicating a wartime RCAF wing commander and an army colonel in the Soviet spy rings.  But by then, the trail had gotten too cold.  Ironically, the colonel was by then dealing with Soviet trade missions for the government.

Another trail too late to pick up was a curious coincidence that went unexplained.

That was the belated discovery that Col. Nicolai Zabotin’s spy ring had used an electronics shop in Rideau St., Ottawa, as a “live letter drop.”

A card was put in the shop window to signal that a letter was waiting to be picked up.  The card’s appearance usually coincided with the visit to the manager’s office at the rear by two middle-rank civil servants.

The pair rose high in the bureaucracy and retired with honors and indexed pensions.

Operation Featherbed folded for lack of government interest.

– 30 –

1 Trudeau himself was feared by the RCMP to be a Communist agent.  (Trudeau undoubtedly was one.  At Moscow in 1952, Trudeau led a Communist delegation organized by the Canadian Communist Party.  The Moscow meeting was an “economic summit” organized by Soviet intelligence.  See my exclusive English translations of a 7-part series on the summit, “I’m Back From Moscow,” penned by Trudeau for the leftist daily, Le Devoir.  Lester Pearson absolutely was a Soviet agent, denounced by defecting Soviet military intelligence, Elizabeth Bentley to the FBI.  However, Worthington soft-pedals the grave accusations of Elizabeth Bentley against Pearson in the McCarran hearings.  (In 2012, Worthington, still kicking and alive, soft-pedaled his own accusations against Communist Trudeau of the 1970s and 80s, thus bleaching Pierre’s reputation when Red offspring Justin was running for the “Liberal” leadership.  Police suspected Bernard and Sylvia Ostry, as well.  Now, grasp this, if you can.  According to Don Newman, in his autobiography, xxxxxx, Trudeau routinely held his federal Cabinet meetings at the private palatial home of none other than suspected Communists, Bernard and Sylvia Ostry, straddling the border between Hull, Quebec and Ontario.  Also at those meetings was private citizen and Canadian RIIA member, Paul Desmarais Senior of Power Corporation.  On the downtown Montreal business premises of Power Corporation in the 1960s, 1967 to be precise in this case, a “Secret Committee” of Reds posing as Liberals in the federal cabinet of Soviet Agent Lester Pearson, came up with a plan to create a “separatist” party.  Communist René Lévesque was instructed by them to organize and lead it.

The party;s name?  The Parti Québécois.  Its 1972 manifesto in French only, written to appease the extreme left members who swelled its ranks in 1968, flowing in from the Communist RIN party that had been disbanded, calls for a Communist independent state of Quebec.  (See Free download page for my exclusive English translation of the 1972 manifesto.)

We thus find a major multinational corporation embracing, hosting and harboring obvious Communist infiltrators of the Liberal Party of Canada, setting up plans for a Communist party and a Communist State of Quebec on Power Corporation premises.  Power Corporation is also a major presence at the Canadian branch of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (the RIIA in London, an international banker front for a secret society whose object still is the infiltration of national governments to subvert national sovereignty on the road to world government).

Scan of Worthington’s draft article from which
the above transcript was prepared:

* I have come up with a good piece of evidence that Tom Kent was/is indeed a Communist subversive. In March 2007, the Caledon Institute published in pdf format a booklet authored by Kent entitled Federalism Renewed.  The section of it entitled “City Limits” declares the Provinces of Canada (Provincial Legislatures) as defunct institutions of the previous Century.  Kent recommends replacing our Provincial Legislatures with a new form of “federalism” which bears a strong resemblance to the Communist expanded administrative municipal regions documented in Moscow in 1975 by Maurice (Morris) Zeitlin writing in Communist Workers’ World.  I can tell from the same article that Kent also knows why Stephen Harper declared Quebec “a nation” in 2006:  precisely to disintegrate Canada to use Quebec to “negotiate” Kent’s “new federalism”.

For an Independent Quebec (René Lévesque)


July 1976

CFR logo in Foreign Affairs

For an Independent Québec
René Lévesque



Volume 54 . Number 4

The contents of Foreign Affairs are copyrighted.
(c) 1976 Council on Foreign Relations, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.




By René Lévesque


René Lévesque (Foreign Affairs) 1976, For An Independent QuebecWHAT does Québec want?  The question is an old cliché in Canadian political folklore.  Again and again, during the more than 30 years since the end of World War II, it’s been raised whenever Québec’s attitudes made it the odd man out in the permanent pull and tug of our federal-provincial relations.  In fact, it’s a question which could go back to the British conquest of an obscure French colony some 15 years before American Independence, and then run right through the stubborn survival of those 70,000 settlers and their descendants during the following two centuries.

By now, there are some six million of them in Canada, not counting the progeny of the many thousands who were forced by poverty, especially around the turn of the century, to migrate to the United States, and now constitute substantial “Franco” communities in practically all the New England states.

But Québec remains the homeland.  All along the valley of the St. Lawrence, from the Ottawa River down to the Gaspé peninsula and the great Gulf, in the ancient settlements which grew into the big cities of Montréal and Québec, in hundreds of smaller towns and villages from the American border to the mining centers and power projects in the north, there are now some 4.8 million “Québécois.”  That’s 81 percent of the population of the largest and second most populous of Canada’s ten provinces.

What does this French Québec want?  Sometime during the next few years, the question may be answered.  And there are growing possibilities that the answer could very well be — independence.

Launched in 1967-68, the Parti Québécois, whose platform is based on political sovereignty, now fills the role of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition in the National Assembly — as we nostalgically designate our provincial legislature.  In its first electoral test in 1970, it already had had 24 percent of the votes.  Then in 1973, a second general election saw it jump to 30 percent, and, although getting only six out of 110 seats, become what our British-type parliamentary system calls the Official Opposition, i.e., the government’s main interlocutor and challenger.

René Lévesque is the co-founder of the Mouvement Souveraineté-Association, and of the Parti Québécois in 1967-68 of which he is now President.  He is the author of Option Québec.




The next election might come any time now; this year in the fall, just after the Montreal Olympics, or at the latest in the fall of 1977.  Whenever it does, all available indicators, including an impressive series of public opinion polls, tell us that for the first time the outcome is totally uncertain.  The present provincial government, a branch of that same Liberal Party which also holds power at the federal level under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, is obviously on the way out.  It has been in power for six years, and ever since its second and Pyrrhic victory in 1973 (102 seats) it has been going steadily downhill.  Apart from a host of social and economic troubles, some imported but many more of its own making, there is around it a pervasive smell of incompetence and corruption.  The scandal-ridden atmosphere surrounding the Olympic construction sites, and the incredible billion-dollar deficit which is now forecast, are just the most visible aspects of a rather complete political and administrative disaster.

Looking for an alternative, the French voter is now leaning quite clearly toward the Parti Québécois.  In that “national” majority, we are at least evenly matched with Premier Robert Bourassa’s Liberals, and probably ahead.  As for the Anglophone minority of over a million people, whose natural attachment to the status quo normally makes them the staunchest supporters of the reigning federalist party, they are confused as never before.  Composed of a dwindling proportion of Anglo-Saxon descendants of eighteenth-century conquerors or American Loyalists, along with those of nineteenth-century Irish immigrants, and a steadily growing “ethnic” mosaic (Jewish, Italian, Greek, etc.), in the crunch most of this minority will probably end up, as usual, supporting the Liberals.  But not with the traditional unanimity.  Caught between the Charybdis of dissatisfaction and the Scylla of secessionism, many are looking for some kind of “third force.”  Others, especially among younger people, are ready to go along with the Parti Québécois, whose minority vote should be a little less marginal next time than last.

So, all in all, there is quite a serious possibility that an “independentist” government will soon be elected in Québec.  At first sight, this looks like a dramatically rapid development, this burgeoning and flowering over a very few years of a political emancipation movement in a population which, until recently, was commonly referred to as quiet old Québec.  But in fact, its success would mean, very simply, the normal healthy end result of a long and laborious national evolution.


There was the definite outline of a nation in that small French




colony which was taken over, in 1763, by the British Empire at its apogee.  For over a century and a half, beginning just before the Pilgrim Fathers landed in the Boston area, that curious mixture of peasants and adventurers had been writing a proud history all over the continent.  From Hudson Bay to the Gulf of Mexico, and from Labrador to the Rockies, they had been the discoverers, the fur-traders, the fort-builders.  Out of this far-ranging saga, historically brief though it was, and the tenacious roots which at the same time were being sunk into the St. Lawrence lowlands, there slowly developed an identity quite different from the original stock as well as from France of the ancien régime; just as different, in its way, as the American identity had become from its own British seeds.  Thus, when the traumatic shock of the conquest happened, it had enough staying power to survive, tightly knit around its Catholic clergy and its country landowners.

Throughout the next hundred years, while English Canada was being built, slowly but surely, out of the leftovers of the American Revolution and as a rampart against America’s recurrent attacks of Manifest Destiny, French Québec managed to hang on — mostly because of its “revenge of the cradles.”  It was desperately poor, cut off from the decision-making centers both at home and in Great Britain, and deprived of any cultural nourishment from its former mother country.  But its rural, frugal society remained incredibly prolific.  So it grew impressively, at least in numbers.  And it held on obstinately, according to its lights and as much as its humble means made it possible, to those two major ingredients of national identity — land and language.  The hold on land was at best tenuous and, as in any colonial context, confined to the multitude of small farm holdings.  Everything else — from the growth of major cities to the setting-up of manufacturing industries and then the rush of resource development — was the exclusive and undisputed field of action of “les Anglais,” the growing minority of Anglo-Saxon and then assimilated immigrant groups who ran most of Québec under the compact leadership of Montreal-based entrepreneurs, financiers and merchant kings.

As for the French elite, it remained mostly made up of doctors, lawyers, and priests — “essential services” for the bodies and souls of cheap labor, whose miraculous birthrate kept the supply continuously overabundant.  And naturally, there were politicians, practically all of that typical colonial breed which is tolerated as long as it keeps natives happily excited about accessories and divided on essentials.

Needless to say, the educational system was made both to reflect this type of society and to keep it going nicely and quietly.  There was



a modest collection of church-run seminaries, where the main accent was on recruiting for the priesthood, and which, for over a century, led to just one underdeveloped university.  For nine-tenths of the children, there was nothing but grammar school, if that.  Read and write barely enough to sign your name, and then, without any time for “getting ideas,” graduate to obedient respectful employment by any boss generous enough to offer a steady modest job.

Such was the culturally starved and economically inferior, but well-insulated and thus highly resistant, French Québec which, 109 years ago, was led into the final mutation of British North America and its supreme defense against American expansionism:  Confederation, of four eastern colonies as a beginning, but soon to run north of the border “from sea to sea.”  Into that impressive Dominion, originally as one of four and eventually one of ten provinces, Québec was incorporated without trouble and generally without enthusiasm.  From now on, it was to be a minority forever, and, with the help of a dynamic federal immigration policy, a steadily diminishing one.  In due time, it would probably merge and disappear into the mainstream, or at the most remain as a relatively insignificant and yet convenient ghetto:  la difference.

As the building of Canada accelerated during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a tradition was established that Québec was to get its measured share of the work, anytime there was enough to go around — and the same for rewards.  And so, in a nutshell, it went until fairly recently.  All told, it hasn’t been such a bad deal, this status of “inner colony” in a country owned and managed by another national entity.  Undoubtedly, French Québec was (as it remains to this day) the least ill-treated of all colonies in the world.  Under a highly centralized federal system, which is much closer to a unitary régime than American federalism, it was allowed its full panoply of provincial institutions:  cabinet, legislature, courts, along with the quasi-permanent fun of great squabbles, usually leading to exciting election campaigns, about the defense or extension of its “state rights”!  On three occasions during the last 80 years, one of “its own” has even been called upon — at times when there was felt a particular need to keep the natives quiet to fill the most flattering of all offices, that of federal Prime Minister.  Last but not least of the three, Mr. Trudeau, of whose “Canadian nationalism” it is naturally part and parcel, did as splendidly as was humanly possible for most of the last ten years in this big-chief-of-Québec dimension of the job.  But the law of diminishing returns, along with the inevitable way of all (including political) flesh, has been catching up with his so-called French Power in



Ottawa.  And no replacement seems to be in sight.


But this is getting ahead of our story.  To understand the rise of Québec’s own new nationalism and its unprecedented drive toward self-government, we must go back at least as far as World War II.  Not that the dream had completely vanished during the two long centuries of survival which have just been described — from an admittedly partisan, but, I honestly believe, not unfair viewpoint.  In the 1830s, for instance, there even was an ill-advised and disastrous armed rebellion by a few hundred “Patriots,” leading to bloody repression and lasting memories about what not to do.  And it is rather significant, by the way, that it took until just now before the poor heroic victims of that abortive rebellion became truly rehabilitated in popular opinion.

Small and impotent though it was, and in spite of feeling that this condition would possibly last forever, French Québec never quite forgot the potential nation it had once been, never quite gave up dreaming about some miracle which might bring back its chance in the future.  In some distant, indescribable future.  Now and then, there were stirrings:  a writer here, a small political coterie there; a great upsurge of nationalist emotions, in the 188os, around the Riel affair — the hanging by “les Anglais” of the French-speaking leader of the Prairie Métis; then in 1917, on the conscription issue, a bitter and frequently violent confrontation between the Empire-minded English and the “isolationist” French; faint stirrings again in the Twenties; stronger ones in the Thirties.

Then World War II, with a repeat, in 1944, of the total disagreement on conscription.  But mostly, here as elsewhere, this most terrible of all wars was also a midwife for revolutionary change.  Thankfully in less disruptive a manner than in other parts of the world, it did start a revolution in Québec.  Wartime service, both overseas and on the industrial home-front, dealt a mortal blow to the old order, gave an irresistible impetus to urbanization and started the breakup of the traditional rural-parish ideal, yanked women by the thousands into war-plant industry and as many men into battle-dress discovery of the great wide world.  For a small cooped-up society, this was a more traumatic experience than for most others.  And then when the post war years brought the Roaring Fifties, unprecedented mobility, and television along with a consumer society, the revolution had to become permanent.

The beginning of the 1960s saw it baptized officially:  the Quiet



Revolution, with the adjective implying that “quaint old Québec” couldn’t have changed all that much.  But it had.  Its old set of values literally shattered, it was feeling collectively naked, like a lobster during its shedding season, looking frantically about for a new armor with which to face the modern world.  The first and most obvious move was toward education. After so prolonged and scandalous a neglect of this most basic instrument of development, it was quickly realized that here was the first urgent bootstrap operation that had to be launched.  It was done with a vengeance:  from one of the lowest in the Western world, Québec per capita investment in education rapidly became, and remains, one of the very highest.  Not always well spent (but who is to throw the first stone?), with many mistakes along the way, and the job still far from complete, which it will never be anyway; but the essential results are there, and multiplying:  human resources that are, at long last, getting required development, along with a somewhat equal chance for all and a normal furious rise in general expectations.  The same, naturally, is happening also in other fields, quite particularly in that of economics, the very first where such rising expectations were bound to strike against the wall of an entrenched colonial setup, with its now intolerable second-class status for the French majority, and the stifling remote control of nearly all major decisions either in Ottawa or in alien corporate offices.

Inevitably, there had to be a spillover into politics.  More than half of our public revenue and most of the decisions that count were and are in outside hands, in a federal establishment which was basically instituted not by or for us, but by others and, always first and foremost, for their own purposes.  With the highly centralized financial system that this establishment constitutionally lords over, this means, for example, that about 80 percent of Québec savings and potential investment capital ends up in banks and insurance companies whose operations are none of our business.  It also means, just for example once again, that immigration is also practically none of our business; and this could have, and is having, murderous effects on a minority people with a birthrate, changed like everything else in less than a generation, down from its former prodigious level to close to zero population growth.

Throughout the 1960s, these and other problems were interminably argued about and batted back and forth between federal politicians and bureaucrats (“What we have we hold, until we get more”) and a succession of insistent but orthodox, no more than rock-the-boat, nationalists in Québec.  But while this dialogue of the deaf was going on and on, the idea of political independence reappeared as it had to.



Not as a dream this time, but as a project, and very quickly as a serious one.  This developed by leaps and bounds from easily ridiculed marginal groups to small semi-organized political factions, and finally to a full-fledged national party in 1967-68.  These were the same two years during which, by pure coincidence, Mr. Trudeau was just as rapidly being elevated to the heights as a new federalist champion from Québec.

But in spite of his best efforts and those of his party’s branch-plant in provincial government, and through an unceasing barrage of money, vilification and rather repugnant fear-inducing propaganda, the voters have democratically brought the Parti Québécois ever closer to power.  Which brings us right back to our starting-point. . . .


Let us suppose it does happen, and Québec peacefully elects such a government.  What then?

The way we see it, it would have to go somewhat like this.  There is a new Québec government which is totally dedicated to political independence.  But this same Québec, for the time being, is still very much a component of federal Canada, with its quite legitimate body of elected representatives in Ottawa.  This calls, first of all, for at least a try at negotiation.  But fruitful talk between two equally legitimate and diametrically opposed levels of government, without any further pressure from the population — that would be a real first in Canadian political history!  Obviously, there would have to be the referendum which the Parti Québécois proposes in order to get the decisive yes-or-no answer to the tired question:  What does Québec want?  (This was precisely the procedure by which the only new province to join Confederation during our recent democratic past, Newfoundland, was consulted in 1948-49 about whether or not to opt in. So why not about opting out?)  If the answer should be no, then there’s nothing to do but wait for the momentum of change to keep on working until we all find out whether or not there is finally to be a nation here.  If the answer is yes, out, then the pressure is on Ottawa, along with a rather dramatic surge of outside attention, and we all get a privileged opportunity to study the recently inked Helsinki Declaration and other noble documents about self-determination for all peoples.

Fully confident of the basic integrity of Canadian democracy, and just as conscious that any silliness would be very costly for both sides, we firmly believe that the matter would then be brought to a negotiated settlement.  Especially since the Parti Québécois, far from aiming at any kind of mutual hostility or absurd Berlin Wall, will then




repeat its standing offer of a new kind of association, as soon as it is agreed to get rid of our illusion of deep unshakeable national unity, when in fact here are two quite real and distinct entities in an obsolete and increasingly morbid majority/minority relationship. Our aim is simply full equality by the only means through which a smaller nation can reasonably expect to achieve it with a larger one:  self-government.  But we are definitely not unaware of the shock waves that such a break, after so long an illusion of eternity, is bound to send through the Canadian political fabric.

We do not accept the simplistic domino theory, where Québec’s departure is presented as the beginning of fatal dislocation, with “separatism” spreading in all directions like a galloping disease until the balkanized bits and pieces are swallowed up by the huge maw next door.  In spite of the somewhat unsure character of its national identity and its excessive satellization by the American economic and cultural empire, Canada-without-Québec has enough “difference” left, sufficient traditions and institutional originality, to withstand the extraction of its “foreign body” and find a way to go on from there.  It might even turn out to be a heaven-sent opportunity to revamp the overcentralized and ridiculously bureaucratized federal system, that century-old sacred cow which, for the moment, nobody dares to touch seriously for fear of encouraging Québec’s subversive leanings!

Be that as it may, we know there would be a traumatic moment and a delicate transition during which things might go wrong between us for quite a while, or else, one would hope, start going right as never before.  With this strange new-colored Québec on the map between Ontario and the Maritime provinces, Canada must be kept from feeling incurably “Pakistanized,” so we must address ourselves without delay to the problem of keeping a land bridge open with as much free flow of people and goods as is humanly possible; as much and more as there is, I would imagine, between Alaska and the main body of the United States over the western land bridge.

Such a scenario would call, as a decisive first step, for a customs union, as full-fledged as both countries consider to be mutually advantageous.  We have, in fact, been proposing that ever since the Parti Québécois was founded, and naturally meeting with the most resonant silence in all orthodox federalist circles.  But in the midst of that silence, not a single responsible politician, nor for that matter a single important businessman, has been heard to declare that it wouldn’t happen if and when the time comes.  For indisputably such a partnership, carefully negotiated on the basis of equality, is bound to be in the cards.  Nothing prevents one envisaging it, for instance, going imme-





diately, or at least very quickly, as far as the kind of monetary union which the European Common Market, with its original six and now nine members, has been fitfully aiming at for so many years.  And building on this foundation, it would lead this new “northern tier” to a future immeasurably richer and more stimulating than the 109-year-old bind in which two nations more often than not feel and act like Churchill’s two scorpions in the same bottle.


What of Québec’s own national future, both internal and international, in this context of sovereignty-cum-interdependence?

The answers here, for reasons that are evident, have to be brief, even sketchy and essentially tentative.  The perspective of nationhood, for people who haven’t been there yet, is bound to be an uncertain horizon.  The more so in a period of history like ours, when so much is changing so fast you get the feeling that maybe change itself is becoming the only law to be counted on.  Who can pretend to know exactly what or where his country will be 25 or even just ten years from now?

One thing sure, is that Québec will not end up, either soon or in any foreseeable future, as the anarchic caricature of a revolutionary banana republic which adverse propaganda has been having great sinister fun depicting in advance.  Either-Ottawa-or is very simply inspired by prejudice, the origin of this nonsense mostly to be found in the tragic month of October 1970 and the great “crisis” which our political establishments, under the astutely calculating Mr. Trudeau, managed to make out of a couple of dozen young terrorists, whose ideology was a hopeless hodgepodge of anarcho-nationalism and kindergarten Marxism, which had no chance of having any kind of serious impact.  What they did accomplish was two kidnappings and, most cynically welcome of all, one murder — highly unfortunate but then also particularly par for the course in the international climate at the time.  What was not par at all, however, was the incredible abuse of power for which those events, relatively minor per se, were used as a pretext:  the careful buildup of public hysteria, army trucks rolling in during the night, and then, for months on end, the application in Québec, and solely in Québec, of a federal War Measures Act for which no peacetime precedent exists in any democratic country.  A great spectacle produced in order to terrorize the Québécois forever back into unquestioning submissiveness, and, outside, to feed the mill of scary propaganda about how dangerous this tame animal could nevertheless be!




In actual fact, French Québec, with its normal share of troubles, disquiet and, now, the same kind of social turmoil and search for new values that are rampant all over the Western world, remains at bottom a very solid, well-knit and nonviolent society.  Even its new and demanding nationalism has about itself something less strident and essentially more self-confident than its current pan-Canadian counterpart.  For Québec has an assurance of identity, along with a relative lack of aggressiveness, which are the result of that one major factor of national durability lacking in the rest of Canada:  a different language and the cultural fabric that goes with it.

Now how does the Parti Québécois see this society begin to find its way as an independent nation?  What is the general outline of the political, social and economic structure we hope to bring forth?  Serious observers have been calling our program basically social-democratic, rather comparable to the Scandinavian models although certainly not a carbon copy since all people, through their own experiences, have to invent their own “mix.”

The way we have been trying to rough it out democratically through half a dozen national party conventions, ours would call for a presidential regime, as much of an equal-opportunity social system as we could afford, and a decent measure, as quickly as possible but as carefully as indicated, of economic “repatriation.”  This last would begin to happen immediately, and normally without any great perturbation, through the very fact of sovereignty:  with the gathering in of all of our public revenues and the full legislative control which any self-respecting national state has to implement over its main financial institutions, banks, insurance companies and the like.  In the latter case, this would allow us to break the stranglehold in which the old British-inspired banking system of just a handful of “majors” has always kept the people’s money and financial initiative.  The dominant position in our repatriated financial circuit would be handed over to Québec’s cooperative institutions, which happen to be particularly well developed in that very field, and, being strongly organized on a regional basis, would afford our population a decent chance for better-balanced, responsible, democratic development.  And that, by the way, is just one fundamental aspect of the kind of evolution toward a new economic democracy, from the lowest rung in the marketplace up to board-room levels, which all advanced societies that are not already doing so had better start thinking about in the very near future.

As to non-resident enterprise, apart from the universal minimums concerning incorporations and due respect for Québec taxes, language and other classic national requirements, what we have been fashioning





over the last few years is an outline of a policy which we think is both logical and promising.  It would take the form of an “investment code,” giving a clean-cut picture, by sectors, of what parts of our economic life (e.g., culturally oriented activities, basic steel and forest resources) we would insist on keeping under home ownership, what other parts we would like to see under mixed control (a very few selected but strategic cases) and, finally, the multitude of fields (tied to markets, and to technological and/or capital necessities) where foreign interests would be allowed to stay or to enter provided they do not tend to own us along with their businesses.

In brief, Québec’s most privileged links, aside from its most essential relationship with the Canadian partner, would be first with the United States — where there is no imaginable reason to frown on such a tardy but natural and healthy development (especially during a Bicentennial year).  Then Québec would look to other Francophone or “Latin” countries as cultural respondents, and to France herself — who would certainly not be indifferent to the fact that this new nation would constitute the second most important French-speaking country in the world.  In brief, such is the peaceful and, we confidently hope, fruitfully progressive state which may very well appear on the map of North America before the end of the decade.


– 30 –



When we are truly at homeAdmin:  With all the experts in communism that we imagine the Americans must have, not one managed to figure out that Lévesque’s “independent Quebec” was to be communist.  Yours truly has done the research, and unearthed a copy of the 1972 manifesto of Lévesque’s Parti Québécois (PQ), published in French only.  It was on a university book shelf.  It was written to appease the far-left wing of the PQ, and it admits the real reason for the “independence of Quebec”:  all the legislative powers are needed, including those to be stolen from the Parliament in Ottawa, to construct a (communist) plan to run Quebec’s economy.  It has nothing at all to do with the supposedly poor, oppressed French Canadians, who are merely the patsies being used to dismantle ALL of Canada for the communist system to be “negotiated” among the provinces after a “Yes” in Quebec.  Free download of my exclusive English translation of the 1972 manifesto, never before in English:

Go straight to pages 101-103 to find this admission:

What is revealed by this experiment of the Sixties, is that without the necessary instruments, a Plan will never be anything but a more or less inadequate study, presented more or less well, but rigorously platonic. The missing instruments are precisely those which result from sovereignty. As long as Quebec is not independent, as long as it does not possess all the fiscal, legislative and mobilizing powers of a Sovereign state, to wave the banner of planning is at best the expression of a great lack of guile, or at worst, a fairly cheap way to neutralize a growing desire for participation.

By “participation,” the manifesto means Yugoslav-style worker control, “industrial democracy,” the type of communism developed under Marshall Tito.  The very same thing has always been promoted by Canada’s New Democratic Party (NDP), which is really a communist party.  For a little bit of truth about Canada’s NDP, read here: “Look for: The Radical Roots of the NDP

Tom Kent, City Limits (in Federalism Renewed)

Source:  Federalism Renewed by Tom Kent for the Caledon Institute of Social Policy, March 2007, ISBN 1-55382-221-8

City Limits
from Federalism Renewed
by Tom Kent

[Emphases added.]

It is easy to identify other purposes for which financing of people might be better than the subsidisation of provinces that distinguished the second half of the 20th century, and for which reformers most often continue to call. A present example is the campaign for funding for cities.

The case is strong. It is made here in order to say that it should be heeded by provincial governments. It is not a case for federal action.

Politically, big cities carry less than their due weight in provincial legislatures. They are chronically underfunded. Neglect of their burgeoning infrastructure and service needs has become an obvious hindrance to economic change and growth — so much so that there is now plenty of steam behind the efforts of city mayors to summon Ottawa to their rescue. The responses have been, inevitably, inefficient improvisations failing to use public money where it could do most good.

Nothing in the Canadian constitution is clearer than provincial jurisdiction over municipal business. There is nevertheless some evasion. Relatively small federal cheques get to Winnipeg or wherever, on the excuse that they are for special, experimental, short-term projects. For regular funding of any size, the law has to be respected. Federal dollars can penetrate to the third order of government only through the intermediary of a provincial treasury.

They therefore have to be spread widely among municipalities. Provincial politics rule in that respect. But federal politics rule the amount to be spread. It is rarely a lot or assured for the long term. The combined consequence is that, while over the years there have been many federal interventions in municipal activities, they have not added up to great improvements in urban living. And they have been at the cost of confused accountability in a stream of postures and arguments.

Caledon Institute of Social Policy   37

Nevertheless, eliminating them will not be easy. Too many MPs are too set on being local heroes. A substitute might help. Instead of meddling in a great variety of local affairs, Ottawa could concentrate on one definite purpose. Affordable housing is often suggested. Its shortage is not only central to the deprivations of families in severe poverty. So many people are now concentrated in the great urban agglomerations that people with around average and better incomes cannot find housing within their financial reach that is at all near their work. Their commuting is at great cost in personal time, energy and impaired family life, as well as in the pollution and congestion that disfigure city living and help to impoverish municipal government. And the economy is made less flexible. People short of work in more remote areas often have better housing at much less cost than city dwellers. Their reasonable reluctance to move, or to stay moved, is not the least of the market economy’s imperfections requiring offset by the public economy.

The need is for a variety of accommodations in a variety of inner-city locations at a range of low to moderate rents. The efficient role for government is not to subsidise the building or renovation of such housing. It should be let at market rents covering capital and maintenance costs. The efficient and equitable role for government is to make the accommodation affordable for a variety of tenants by reimbursing them for some of the rent, on a scale related to family income. Such action would better serve the public interest in a manner with more public appeal than another confusion of responsibilities.

Again, the case is strong. But it is not a case for federal action now. The time might come. If the provinces do not do more, in particular do not give their major cities a better deal, the time will come. But it should not. Federalism will not be well modernised, will not be made stable for the early part of this century, if Ottawa rushes to take on functions that are, in the language of the BN A Act. “local” in the sense that the need for them is heavily concentrated in particular communities.

The national government’s responsibility is for the nation-wide needs of Canadians everywhere. The contemporary world makes it a bigger agenda. The priorities that have been identified in this paper are fully enough for action now. Great good as more affordable housing would be. Wisdom requires it to be seen as a leading example of a good for provincial governments to do.

On to the rails

Affordable housing is one example of many. Across Canada, it is easy to point to deficiencies in infrastructure that handicap the economy and limit the well-being of citizens. Water, sewage, roads, power supply, parks, public buildings and all: in older communities they are crumbling; in others they limit growth. The big cities have both problems at once. The demands for federal subventions are endless. The ingenuity of the calls for national programs is impressive. The incentive for politicians to respond is intense.

The fact is still that each such project is local, whether to Montreal or to Moose Jaw, whether for Torontonians escaping to cottages or Calgarians to ski runs. The multitude of the needs does not mean that they add up, in a federation, to a national cause. They are, in Canada, provincial business.

Caledon Institute of Social Policy   38

Provinces have the authority for it. With equalisation supplementing national programs for the economy and for people, provinces also have the necessary finance. A case can be made for reducing their capital costs by enabling them to borrow, as the smaller ones might wish, through Ottawa rather than going directly to the bond market themselves. For federal subventions there is no reason. There is only the inherent tendency, in public even more than in private organisations, to shuffle responsibility and confuse accountability.

The political pleasure of sharing in ribbon-cutting ceremonies for local projects has a price. It takes money from genuinely national purposes. Research, now of first importance among infrastructures, has been chronically underfunded. Responsive policy, providing money for projects submitted, is not in itself adequate. Its success depends on the range and quality of the submissions. A creative policy requires the federal government to play also its necessary role as the primary source of core funding for research and development institutes.

There are other examples. No country is more in need of a coast-guarding service. Climate change will make the consequences of its neglect increasingly severe. Again, Ottawa has been slow to build the infrastructure for alternative energy sources and efficiencies, slow to take advantage of the information and communications technologies that can help to protect against epidemics and other disasters, natural or man-made.

Perhaps most striking of all, given the role of the railroads in the building of Canada, is their latter-day neglect by the federal government. It has persisted in a tax and expenditure structure that has massively encouraged freight to shift to long-distance trucking, passengers to cars and planes. Again, pollution intensifies the need for a new industrial policy. A greenly progressive government would see equity investment in the railroads, in their equipment and tracking, among its priorities.

The general point is clear. Both orders of government have heavy responsibilities for the modernising of economic and social infrastructures. Ottawa would be well occupied in doing its share well. It does not need the political aggrandisement of involving itself in the provincial share.

The choice: change or retreat

Canada is in one of the periods, as much of the world was 60 years ago, when individual policy decisions are made in the context, whether at the time recognised or not, of a central choice of national direction.

Few people are happy with the way Canadian federalism is now operating. Prime Minister Harper and others talk of tidying it up by scaling down Ottawa’s responsibilities to those of Victorian times. If it were feasible in the contemporary world, that would be a retreat from nationhood to a sovereignty-association of regions. It won’t happen. The neo-con time is over. The only appeal of retreat is that at its beginning its course is clear. The only alternative as yet in political prospect is to continue to muddle through with the mechanisms for economic and social policy that have given us

Caledon Institute of Social Policy   39

such confused conflicts between federal and provincial politicians, such absence of democratic accountability, such debilitating slowness of decision and action on the issues that will determine our future.

Retreat into the past will not do but nor will our governmental system as it is. Canadian federalism must be urgently refashioned to its third shape, to a people’s federalism.


Trudeau is a Bilderberger

Category: Historical Reprints.
Source: Straight Talk! Published By The Edmund Burke Society.
Editor: F. Paul Fromm
Associate Editors: Kastuś Akula
Writers: E.B.S. members and friends
Directors: The Council of the E.B.S.
Volume IV Number 2, October 1971
[Ed. NSIM] The scans are so faint that I am guessing at the volume and date for this one.

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.

Trudeau is a Bilderberger

Fuddle Duddle! (PET)

Fuddle Duddle! (PET)

Fuddle Duddle!

We have previously acquainted our readers with the Executive of the international conspiracy known as the “Bilderberg Group”.  With huge finances at their disposal, the conspirators are endeavouring to usher us into an age of global totalitarian socialism.

Should one be surprised that Pierre-Elliott Trudeau, our first man in Ottawa, is also a member of this group?  According to William Hoffman, author of DAVID:  REPORT ON A ROCKEFELLER (Lyle Stuart, $7.99),

“David’s interest in international affairs became even more evident in 1954 when he became a charter member of the multi-nation conclave that named itself the Bilderberg.  Once each year, cloaked in such secrecy that even the press is excluded, the Bilderberg meets for a long weekend so members can discuss their views on the state of the world.  Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands is the chairman of the Bilderberg, and members have included such prestigious people as Hugh Gaitskell, Jean Monnet, Harold Wilson, Dean Acheson, Dean Rusk, Christian Herter, J. William Fulbright, Robert McNamara, George Ball, Henry Heinz II, Henry Ford III, William Moyers, Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau, Pierre Mendes-France, Jacob Javitz, and Stavros Niarchos.”

The next time the fuddle-duddle boy comes to your town soliciting your vote, ask him what he heard at the last session of the Bilderberg conspirators.  And don’t take a shrug for an answer!

– 30 –

“The Architects of the New World Order”


“The New World Order”
and the destruction of Australian Industry

By Jeremy Lee

Little understood by many, the unfolding programme for a single, centralised World Order has been remorselessly edged into place, piece by piece, both in the Western world and in the Communist bloc.  It is only since the research work of Dr. Anthony Sutton, of the Hoover Institution for War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University, California, has gained attention that the close financial and trade links between East and West since 1917 have been revealed, offering a more truthful picture than the one usually accepted.

Some background to key developments in the world government movement both in the West and behind what was once the Iron Curtain is important.

The 1917 Revolution

From the October 1917 revolution in Russia onwards, the USSR devoted enormous energy and resources to suborning the West’s colonial structure in the heavily populated areas of Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America (The Third World).  The First International, in March 1919, drew attention to the colonial question in “The Platform of the Communist International”, drafted by Bukharin.  By the Second Congress of the Comintern, in July 1920, Lenin had himself drafted the “Theses on the National and Colonial Questions”, which included these words:  ” …. The Com­munist International has the duty of supporting the revolu­tionary movement in the colonies and backward countries only with the object of rallying the constituent elements of

– 49 –

the future proletarian parties — which will be truly commu­nist …”  This was summed up by Stalin, in a speech at Sverdlov University in April 1924, thus:

“Leninism … recognised the existence of revolutionary capacities in the national liberation movement of the oppressed countries, and the possibility of using these for overthrowing the common enemy, for overthrowing imperialism …”


Nikolai Lenin,

Nikolai Lenin, who first advocated a plan for global direction in a New World Order, as confirmed by Soviet economist Ernest Obminsky in 1978.

Building the Campaign

The First and Second Internationals, following so soon after the Revolution, were followed by the BAKU Conference in 1920, also entitled “The First Congress of the Peoples of the East”, and was in turn a forerunner of the Soviet sponsored Afro-Asian Solidarity Conferences.  A university was also established at Baku in 1921 for the indoctrination of student revolutionaries from the East.

The Third Comintern Congress, in May 1921, established

– 50 –

an “Eastern Commission” to formulate policy on the Negro Question.  David Jones, founder of the Communist Party of South Africa (CPSA), focussed the Comintern’s attention on the role South African Communists could play for the strat­egic penetration of sub-Saharan Africa.  Specific instructions were given to the French Communist Party (CPF) to ap­proach black troops in the French forces, rallying them “to the struggle against the colonial regime, and through them getting into touch with the people of the French colonies …”  (The Communist International  1919-1943, J. Degras, Ox­ford University Press).

The Fourth Comintern Congress (Nov-Dec 1922) took the matter even further:

“Every Communist Party of the countries possessing colo­nies must take over the task of organising systematic moral and material assistance for the proletarian and revolutionary move­ment in the colonies. …”  It placed special emphasis on Africa … “The Fourth Congress declares it the special duty of Communists to apply the “Theses on the Colonial Question” to the Negro problem also and to support “every form of the Negro movement which undermines or weakens capitalism, or hampers its further penetration …”

The establishment of a “Peasant Intematonal” (Ho Chih Minh was a member of the Secretariat) was discussed.  Three Special Committees — a National, Eastern and Col­onial — were formed, and a “Negro Propaganda Commis­sion”, which had representatives from the Communist Parties of France, Belgium, Great Britain and the Execu­tive Committee of the Communist International, received ten million gold francs from the Kremlin to support revo­lution in Africa (Russia and Black Africa Before World War II, Edward T. Wilson, Holmes and Meier, N.Y. 1974).

And Expanding …

The Fifth Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International (ECCI) in March-April 1925, the Sixth Plenum in March 1926, the formation of “The League Against Colonial Oppression” by Willy Munzenberg, head of

– 51 –

the German Communist Party in 1926, all led to a “World Anti-Colonial Conference” in Brussels in February 1927.  Those attending included Pundit Nehru, Madame Sun Yat Sen, Ho Chih Minh and Lamine Senghor.  Out of this in turn “The League Against Imperialism and For Colonial Indepen­dence”, with headquarters in Berlin, and branches in Latin America, India and North Africa was established.

The Sixth Comintern Congress (July-Sept. 1928) showed the link between the anti-colonial campaign and moves to establish a world economic system.  One section of its pro­gramme, under the heading “The Struggle for the World Proletarian Dictatorship and Colonial Revolutions” stated:

“Colonial revolutions and national liberation movements play an extremely important part in the struggle against imperial­ism and the conquest of power by the working class.  In the trans­ition period colonies and semi-colonies are also important because they represent the village on a world scale vis-à-vis the industrial countries, which represent the town in the context of the world economy.  Hence the problem of organising a socialist world economy. …”

This led to the “Hamburg Conference of Negro Workers” in July 1930, with representatives from America, the West Indies and British and French colonial Africa, which set up the International Trade Union Committee of Negro Workers, whose Secretary, George Padmore, was given an office in the Kremlin.

One year later, on September 24, 1931, the Communist Party of Australia’s newspaper, The Workers’ Weekly, pub­lished an article headed “Communist Party’s Fight for Abo­rigines:  Draft Programme of Struggle Against Slavery”.  It listed 14 points for revolutionary action, concluding with the 14th:

“… The handing over to the Aborigines of large tracts of watered and fertile country, with towns, seaports, railways, roads etc., to become one or more independent Aboriginal states or republics.  The handing back to the Aborigines of all Central, Northern and North-West Australia … These Aboriginal repub­lics to be independent of Australian or other foreign powers.  To have the right to make treaties with foreign powers, including


– 52 –

Australia, establish their own army, governments, industries and in every way to be independent of imperialism…”

(For further essential reading on this aspect, Geoff McDonald’s highly important books Red Over Black and The Evidence, Veritas Publishing Co., Western Australia are recommended.)

Thus before the war enormous spadework had been done by the Comintern to meet Lenin’s demands.  The Lenin School of Political Warfare had been established in Moscow in 1926.

World War II

The Second World War did not reduce Communist revolutionary activity.  The Comintern itself was dissolved by Stalin on May 15, 1943 to help the cultivation of his “Uncle Joe” image.  But its functions were simply transferred to the Foreign Affairs Department of the CPSU.  The Communist Information Bureau was established in 1947, with Bureaus for Africa and Asia.  This in turn was dissolved in 1956, and replaced by three separate agencies run by the CPSU Central Committee, while a core “International Department” was run by a former Comintern Executive, Boris Ponomarev.

As the war ended, the Communists made strenuous efforts to establish sympathetic movements in the West, to strengthen their strategy on the Third World and Colonial questions.  The result was a number of organisations such as The Movement for Colonial Freedom, first sponsored by a former Communist at the London School of Economics, Professor Harold Laski, in 1946; the Southern African Freedom group, formed in 1962, whose sponsors included Fenner Brockway, John Stonehouse, Jeremy Thorpe and Anthony Wedgewood Benn, who was also a founder-member of the Movement for Colonial Freedom, and the Anti-Apartheid Movement, formed in 1960.

As the era of the fifties opened, Communism was ready to shift its attention to a programme for some type of inter­national order, built on socialism.  The scramble out of Africa by the colonial powers was in its infancy.  The first “national liberation” wars were in progress.  Both the Malay-

– 53 –

an campaign against Communist guerilla leader Chin Peng, and the Kenyan Mau-Mau Emergency were in motion, to be followed in the next fifteen years by the Congo, Biafra, Ethiopia, Zanzibar, Cuba, Chile and Vietnam, as well as a growing struggle in the Middle East, to become the most dangerous of them all.

Moscow Summit

The “international order” concept was first developed at a special Moscow Economic Conference, April 3—11, 1952.  Lenin himself had foreshadowed this development to follow the anti-colonial programme in these words:

Pierre Elliott Trudeau, former Canadian P.M.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau, former Canadian P.M. — led a Communist delegation to the Moscow Economic Conference in 1952.

“The more backward the country … the more difficult it is for her to pass from the old capitalist relations to socialist relations.  To the tasks of des­truction are added new, in­credibly difficult tasks, vis. organisation tasks … the or­ganisation of accounting, of the control of large enter­prises, the transformation of the whole of the state economic mechanism, into a single huge machine, into an economic organisation that will work in such a way as to enable hun­dreds of millions of people to be guided by a single plan. …”

—  (N. Lenin, Selected Works vol.7 pp. 285-287.)

In 1936 the Comintern formally presented a three stage plan for achieving world government:

(1)  Socialise the economies of all nations.
(2)  Bring about regional unions of various groupings of these socialised nations.
(3)  Amalgamate all of these regional groupings into a final world-wide union of socialist states.

– 54 –

It was described in these words, taken directly from the official 1936 Comintern programme:

“Dictatorship can be established only by a victory of socia­lism in different countries or groups of countries, after which the proletariat republics would unite on federal lines with those already in existence, and this system of federal unions would expand … at length forming the World Union of Socialist Soviet Republics …”

As a result of this Conference [the 1952 Moscow Summit] the Soviet delegate to the UN Social and Economic Council on July 15, 1953 declared that the USSR would assist developing countries by despatching technicians and contributing funds to UN development agencies.  It was also the start of Kruschev’s tactical “peaceful co-existence”.  At the 20th Party Congress of the CPSU (1956) Kruschev emphasized the fact that, under “peaceful co-existence” the ideological struggle continued and it was understood as encompassing international class warfare, propaganda and subversion and “wars of national liberation”.  This was, in turn, confirmed 12 years later at the huge “Tricontinental Conference” in Havana, Cuba, where the Soviet’s national liberation programme was stepped up, with the ready compliance of China, in S.E. Asia, Africa and Latin America.  The changing of the term “peaceful coexistence” to “detente” by Henry Kissinger in the ‘seventies altered nothing.

Communist Support For NIEO

But the USSR was also devoting more attention to the New International Economic Order, and, amongst a host of Soviet booklets, two in particular — Soviet economist Prof. Ernest Obminsky’s Co-Operation and M.M. Maksimova’s USSR and International Co-operation, printed in Moscow by Novosti in 1978 and ’79 respectively, confirmed that NIEO was the materialisation of Lenin’s concept.  Indeed Obminsky, one of hundreds of Soviet officials working in the UN spelt it out clearly:

“… The approach to the question of the NIEO should be a strictly historical one … It is necessary to take into account


– 55 –

every aspect of the dialectical interconnection between the underlying tendencies of world development and individual links … The upsurge of demands for the elimination of the “old” economic order came on the crest of the steady change in the correlation of forces in the world in favour of socialism … The very nature of the present confrontation, when it all too frequently develops into a struggle against relations of exploitation, against the capitalist order, attests to its qualitatively different content. … . the New International Economic Order cannot be anything but a mechanism possessing the ways and means of curbing the negative consequences of the capitalist method of production which is still continuing to function on part of our planet … . Equally obvious is the transitional nature of such a mechanism which can, nonetheless, in Lenin’s words, make up an “entire epoch” in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism.  Even during the preparations for the Genoa Conference in 1922, Lenin insisted on the maximum democratisation of the international economic order so as to achieve the maximum possible in conditions of the peaceful co-existence of the two world systems … the question of restructuring international economic relations on a just and equitable basis was originally put on the agenda of international affairs by the first socialist state in the world … .” (Co-operation, Ernest Obminski, Novosti Publishing House, Moscow, 1978).

Giving a paper at a Political Economy Conference on August 13, 1977, the Australian Communist leader Laurie Carmichael gave four “cornerstones” as part of a transitional programme to Socialism.  In his own words:

“The fourth foundation stone is the concept of a new world economic order.  Based on ‘independence’ and ‘non alignment’ … demanding relations between countries based on equality and so on.  This is also an inseparable part of the concept. …”


High-ranking Soviet Defectors

On April 6, 1978, Arkady Shevchenko, a senior Soviet official working for the United Nations, sprinted across 64th Street in New York jumped into a CIA car, and became yet one more defector fleeing from Communism.

Shevchenko held one of the most powerful positions in


– 56 –

the U.N., that of Under Secretary-General for Political and Security Council Affairs, a position which has been staffed, through agreement, by a Soviet citizen ever since the foun­ding of that organisation.

Arkady Shevchenko

Arkady Shevchenko — Defector from
top UN post …

The office Shevchenko held was responsible for three main areas of activity.  They are:

  • Control of all military and police functions of the U.N. peace-keeping forces.

  • Supervision of all disarma­ment moves on the part of member nations.

  • Control of all atomic energy ultimately entrusted to the United Nations for peaceful and “other” purposes.

Arkady Shevchenko’s subsequent evidence was sensational.  He pointed out that at the New York head­quarters of the U.N. about 700 Soviet officials were employed, ployed, 200 of whom were members of either the K.G.B. or the G.R.U. which was concerned with military intelli­gence.  In the Paris division of the United Nations, which houses UNESCO, there were 21 Soviets as permanent offi­cials, and a further 69 who worked for UNESCO as inter­national civil servants, 30 percent of whom were agents.  In Vienna, where the International Atomic Energy Agency and the International Development Organisation are based, there were 110 Russians, of whom about 40 were either full members of the K.G.B. or officials co-opted to help the spies.  Shevchenko was adamant that the United Nations was Communism’s highest spy-tower in the world.

Even more profound information came from a man who had defected earlier than Shevchenko — Anatoly Golitsyn, a major in the K.G.B. who had escaped to the West in 1961.  While in the K.G.B., Golitsyn was an expert in counter-


– 57 –

intelligence, working primarily against the United States and NATO.  From 1956 -1959 he was assigned to a Soviet think tank, the K.G.B. Institute, where he was privy to the inner workings of the K.G.B. and intelligence operations related to overall Soviet strategy.  Prom 1959 to 1960 he was senior analyst in the NATO section of the KGB’s Information Department.


Strategic Disinformation


In 1984 — long before ‘glasnost’ and ‘perestroika’ were ever heard of — Golitsyn published his book “New Lies for Old“.  He made the incredible prediction that the following steps would be taken by Brezhnev’s successor, who ultima­tely turned out to be Gorbachev:

  1. The condemnation of the invasion of Afghanistan and Brezhnev’s harsh treatment of dissidents.

  2. Economic reforms to bring Soviet practice more into line with Yogoslav or even, seemingly, with Western socialist models.

  3. Decentralization of economic control.

  4. Creation of individual self-managing firms.

  5. Increase of material incentives.

  6. Apparent diminishment of the party’s control over the economy.

  7. Spectacular and impressive “liberalization” and “democratisation”, including formal pronouncements about a reduc­tion in the Communist party’s role; an ostensible separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judiciary; separation of the posts of president of the Soviet Union and first secretary of the party; “reform” of the K.G.B.

  8. Amnesty of dissidents.

  9. Inclusion of Andrei Sakharov in the government in some capacity.

  10. More independence given to writers, artists and scientists.

  11. Alternative political parties formed by leading dissidents.


    – 58 –
  13. Relaxation of censorship, publication of controversial books.

  14. Greater freedom of travel given to Soviet citizens.

Golitsyn went on to say that “liberalisation” in Eastern Europe would probably involve the return to power in Czechoslovakia of Dubcek and his associates.  If it should be extended to East Germany, demolition of the Berlin Wall might even be contemplated.

Gorbachev wins Nobel Peace Prize

“Perestroika” and “Glasnost” wins Gorbachev the Nobel Peace Prize

Anatoly Golitsyn warned that this “liberalisation” had been planned for tactical reasons, and would represent one of the most comprehensive disinformation progammes possible to conceive.  The concept had been regularly discussed just prior to his defection.  The chief purpose was to lull the West into a false sense of security.  He wrote in his 1984 publi-

– 59 –


“…. Certainly, the next five years will be a period of intensive struggle.  It will be marked by a major coordinated communist offensive intended to exploit the success of the strategic disinformation program over the past 20 years and to take advantage of the crisis and mistakes it has engendered in Western policies toward the communist bloc.  The overall aim will be to bring about a major and irreversible shift in the balance of world power in favour of the bloc as a preliminary to the final ideological objective of establishing a world-wide federation of communist states…”

— “New Lies for Old”, New York, Dodd, Meade & Co. 19S4, p.337.


… The Clenched Fist

Such dialectical deceit, if it is true, would not be new to communist thinking.  One of Lenin’s colleagues, Dmitri Manuilsky, lecturing at the Lenin School of Political Warfare in 1931, said:

“War to the hilt between Communism and capitalism is in­evitable.  Today, of course, we are not strong enough to attack.  Our time will come in 20 or 30 years.  To win we shall need the element of surprise.  The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep, so we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace move­ment on record.  There will be electrifying overtures and unheard-of concessions.  The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice in their own destruction.  They will leap at another chance to be friends.  As soon as their guard is down, we shall smash them with our clenched fist … .”

Much of what Golitsyn predicted has occurred.  It is vitally important to compare Golitsyn’s predictions with the material quoted earlier in the booklet “Co-Operation” by Obminsky, concerning the Soviet position on the New Inter­national Economic Order.

Gorbachev “man of the year”

Almost as soon as he arrived on the scene, Gorbachev became the centre of enormous publicity.  After his visit to


– 60 –

America during Reagan’s last year of office, opinion polls showed he was more popular than the President.  TIME magazine dubbed him “man of the year”, and he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

On October 6, 1989, The Financial Review reported:

“The Soviet Union has outlined a set of proposals that are intended to give the United Nations a greater role in preventing greater conflicts, including the creation of a chain of “War-risk-reduction-centres” around the world …  The Soviet proposals were sent to the UN Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, and presented at a news conference by the Deputy Foreign Minister, Mr. Vladmimr F. Petrovsky …  Mr. Petrovsky, making his proposals as the debate in the General Assembly continued for the eighth day, said the proposals were based on the ideas for strengthening the UN put forward last year by the Soviet President, Mr. Gorbachev …  He also called for a revival of the long-dormant Military Staff Committee, which was set up to command the peace-enforcing army provided for by the U.N. Charter.  The army was never created.”


“The Gulf War”

Eight months later Iraq invaded Kuwait, resulting in the Middle East war.  The Allied war effort was conducted under the UN flag.  Despite its call, the Soviet Union — the world’s biggest military power — did not provide one soldier.  Nor did it contribute financially to the war effort.

This is somewhat strange when one considers that, since Gorbachev came to power in 1985, Soviet military spending has increased by an average 7 percent every year.  By contrast, U.S. defence spending has fallen by approximately 12 percent over the same period.

Despite the reported economic breakdown in the USSR, the huge military machine remains intact.  Troop withdrawals from the NATO arena has not meant troop reductions, but simply re-deployment.


Soviet Economic Reform

Gorbachev has made it clear, time after time, that he is

– 61 –

still a committed marxist-leninist.  It seems clear that the apparent relaxation of the cold war and the Iron Curtain were necessary steps towards integrating the USSR into the New World Order.

It is probably true that the breakdown in the USSR, and the resulting demand by the satellites for autonomy has gone further than Gorbachev intended.  The demand for financial independence, and the news that one satellite was creating its own money has obviously thrown a scare into the World Order Movement.

The Financial Review, November 1, 1990, reported:

“The International Monetary Fund is considering a plan to reorganise Soviet financial controls which, if approved in Washington, is likely to provoke hostile reaction inside the Soviet Government.  The IMF proposals aim to dismantle the fiscal controls exercised by the State Planning Committee (GOSPLAN) and reestablish them in the hands of an expanded, all-powerful Ministry of Finance.  If implemented in its present form, the plan would block attempts by leaders of the republics and economic advisers to the President, Mr. Gorbachev, to decentralise economic decision-making.  An IMF taskforce has been analysing the Soviet economy since mid-Summer, following the Houston summit at which U.S., Japanese and European leaders ordered the study as a condition of aid to Moscow.  Many Soviet officials have been reluctant to agree to an I.M.F. role in economic reform.  But the importance that Mr. Gorbachev and his economic advisers Mr. Stanislas Shatahn and Mr. Nikolai Petrakov place on securing the aid has brought them into line …”

A later report said that the World Bank was hot on the heels of the International Monetary Fund in dealing with Moscow.


Source:  “The New World Order” and the destruction of Australian Industry By Jeremy Lee, 1991, ISBN 0 646 052462.  Published by Veritas Publishing Company Pty Ltd., Cranbrook, Western Australia.  The OCR above was made from a pdf’d scan of the book found online at the web site of the Australian League of Rights (ALOR).


Termites in the Communications Media

Category: Historical Reprints.
Source: Straight Talk! Published by The Edmund Burke Society.
Editor: F. Paul Fromm
Associate Editors: Kastuś Akula
Writers: E.B.S. Members and Friends
Directors: The Council of the E.B.S.

Volume III Number 7, April 1971 (Pages 14-20)

The Edmund Burke Society is a movement dedicated to preserving and promoting the basic virtues of Western Christian Civilization — individual freedom; 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.

Termites in the Communications Media

By J. M. Harris

Some time ago, this writer drew attention to the emergence in our society of a large and growing number of people who, being either indifferent or actively hostile to our society and its institutions, are prepared to aid and support the enemies of our country.  Just as termites can destroy a building by gradually eating its timbers, some of these people are eating at the moral fabric of our nation by their perversion of television.  On March 24th, the CBS documentary, THE SELLING OF THE PENTAGON, was shown locally on Channels 3 (Barrie) and 6 (CBC-Toronto), pre-empting the SOMERSET MAUGHAM THEATRE at 8 p.m.  The programme was a vicious smear of America’s Army, encouraging the “pacifist” horde who prefer to have their country defenceless.  This is not just an American problem, for anything that impairs American fighting strength leaves Canada just a little more vulnerable to pressure from Russia and/or Red China.

Not that we do not have problems of our making in our own backyard.  We have Pierre Berton, for example, among those “bleeding hearts” who wanted to free the FLQ detainees in Quebec.  Mr. Berton is an outspoken supporter of the World Federalists, a small group who are working for one World Government, and whose philosophy could be expressed in cruder terms as one of “sell-out”.  History has shown on more than one occasion what attempts at one World Government can mean:  the League of Nations failed to prevent the Second World War; the United Nations failed to prevent the Korean War, the Israeli-Egyptian conflicts, and to protect the heroic Hungarian people, and the Czecho-Slovak peoples, from Soviet invasion.

Berton in Mexico

It is not so surprising that Mr. Berton’s views are of concern to others besides patriotic Canadians.  On March 22nd, it was announced that six programmes he had gone to tape in Mexico had been scrapped because Berton refused to comply with a request by the Mexican Government to edit his tapes before they left the country.  Berton had planned to interview anti-social misfits such as left-wing revolutionary Favid Alfaro Siqueiros, unorthodox educator and renegade Roman Catholic priest Dr. Ivan Illich,  and expatriate US novelist Patrick Dennis.

Another T.V. commentator noted for his radicalism is CTV’s Ken Lefoli, star of the controversial programme, W5.  On March 7th, Lefoli was shown interviewing pro-communist members of the Pan-African Congress in Tanzania.  The questioning implied that Canada should be asked to provide military aid to Tanzania to bring about an armed insurrection in South Africa.  Lefoli’s conclusion at the end of the programme came in the question, “How long can we pretend that our membership in NATO serves freedom, when NATO gives arms to Portugal which supports Naziism in South Africa?”  The stupidity of this loaded question becomes obvious when one thinks of the main reason for the creation of NATO — to act as a bulwark against Communism.  On the other hand, there cannot be much doubt about Lefoli’s political leanings.

Sell Out Your Country …
For Money

We have seen how T.V. personalities use that medium to attack their country’s military establishment, their country’s defences against foreign aggression, and their country’s allies as well as the basic values of their own civilisation.  Why?  For money, of course.  These hacks will go on television and attack almost anything, and say almost anything for mammon.  The name of the game is:  sell out your church, sell out your government, sell out your allies, sell out your basic values, sell out your country, for money.  It is high time that patriotic Canadians everywhere took a hard look at these people, and what they are doing by consistently attacking the basic fabric of our society for money.  It is time to attack these radicals for the good of this nation, before they sell all of us out for a long, long time to time!

*   *    *


The editor of this web site believes that the League of Nations and then the UN were not created to stop wars.  Rather, the wars were generated in order to found these globalist institutions.  The allegation that these international vehicles were formed to stop wars, was merely the cover story for steps toward centralizing world power by diminishing the status and powers of the nations.

Also, I doubt that Soviet agent Lester Bowles Pearson voluntarily would have aided the founding of NATO as a “bulwark against communism”.  More credibly, I think, NATO was founded as an embryonic global armed forces, just as the UN was founded to be an embryonic Communist world government.