Web Site In Development!

ME - Admin ACA


UPDATE 25 August 2017:

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

HTML site for AntiCommunist Archive

HTML site for AntiCommunist Archive


UPDATE 5 August 2017:

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

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


Expecting the final English some time soon.

Subscribe to the new site and check back!

Thanks for reading.

– – –

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


Zone de développement

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



James Shaver Woodsworth:  Untypical Canadian


J A M E S    S H A V E R



An Address delivered at the Dinner
to inaugurate the
Ontario Woodsworth Memorial Foundation
King Edward Hotel, Toronto
Saturday. October 7th, 1944



The photograph of Mr. Woodsworth on the back cover
is copyright by Karsh, Ottawa, and used by permission.

Published by the


Copyright, 1944
Ontario Woodsworth Memorial
First Printing, November, 1944


Typography:  Service Linotyping Co., Toronto
Press Work:  Merchants Press, Toronto



I am proud and grateful that the task was assigned to me in this evening’s proceedings of speaking about Mr. Woodsworth’s life. I am proud to have been a friend of his for some twenty years.  To enjoy his friendship was a moral education in itself.  He was the most completely honest man that I have ever known; and the most completely selfless man, free from merely personal ambition, never indulging in selfish intrigues or struggles for personal power.  It is a great source of strength to the C.C.F. that its first leader was J. S. Woodsworth, and in the movement which he founded it is our duty to keep alive the values which he held dear and to which he devoted his life.

James Shaver Woodsworth (1874 - 1942)

James Shaver Woodsworth
(1874 – 1942)

So I am going to preach a little sermon about his life and work.  If there is a text it will consist of a quotation from John Bunyan which I shall give at the end.  Mr. Woodsworth himself, in a pamphlet which he published in 1926, spoke of his life as a modern pilgrim’s progress, and I can think of no description that is more fitting.  Hence the Bunyan text.  The general theme of my discourse will be that he came from an environment which was most typically Canadian but that he developed qualities of character which are for the most part un-Canadian or which at least are found far too rarely in our Canadian community.

First of all, as to the environment.  James Shaver Woodsworth was born in 1874 near Toronto, the son of parents who both came of loyalist stock.  His forbears were men and women who moved up to British soil in Upper Canada from



New York and Pennsylvania after the American Revolution.  His paternal grandfather, Richard Woodsworth, who was a local Methodist preacher in Toronto, served on the loyalist side in the Rebellion of 1837.  All those who ever visited the Woodsworth home in Winnipeg will have seen hanging on the study wall the sword which was carried by grandfather Woodsworth whem he turned out to help preserve the British connection against the grandfather of the Right Honorable William Lyon Mackenzie King.  The Woodsworths were Methodist; Richard Woodsworth, as I have said, a local preacher here in the Toronto district; his son, James Woodsworth, the father of our James Shaver Woodsworth, a pioneer missionary in the North-West who rose to be the Superintendent of Methodist missions there and played a great part in the building up of our Canadian prairies.

This double inheritance of pioneer loyalism and pioneer Methodism needs to be emphasized.  For there is nothing that is more distinctively and essentially Canadian than that combination.  We are accustomed to think of the loyalists in Upper Canada as having been mainly Anglican.  But the Anglican part of loyalism has left us mainly a tradition of stuffiness and snobbery.  It was the Methodists (with some considerable help from the Scotch Presbyterians) who formed the creative element in early Canada, and who did most to make us what we are today in Ontario.

I remember a few years ago sitting one evening in the chapel of Victoria College when Ned Pratt was giving a recital of his poem Brébeuf and His Brethren.  The audience consisted of the cream of the graduates of that great Methodist college.  Everywhere one could see faces of men who were



prominent in the professional and business life of Toronto.  The chairman was the titled head of one of the most famous Methodist families of Ontario.  And as I listened to those austerely beautiful lines about the struggle of Brébeuf and his companions to convert the Indians to Chris­tianity, and my eye wandered over the members of the audience (with here and there the care­worn face and threadbare garments of some university professor sticking out incongruously in that comfortable gathering), I could not help reflecting that, after all, it was neither the Jesuits nor the Iroquois who eventually won Ontario, and who set the imprint of their character upon the life of this province; it was the Methodists.

The Woodsworth family moved to the West in 1882 and young Woodsworth grew up in that great new prairie community whose settlement and expansion were main factors in the making of our twentieth-century Dominion of Canada.  He received the best education that was available to the young Canadian of his day.  He went through Wesley College in Winnipeg, then came down to Victoria College in Toronto to study theology, and completed his academic training by a year at Oxford.  When he graduated at Wesley in 1896 he was elected Senior Stick by his fellow students.  No one who is familiar with Canadian college life needs to be told that the Senior Stick is the man who is considered by his fellows to be outstanding for his ability and energy, but who is also known by them to fit most perfectly into his environment, who accepts most implicitly the values of his generation, who can be trusted never to think dangerous thoughts.  It is interesting to speculate what some of James Woodsworth’s respectable, right-thinking classmates of the class



of 1896 must have thought of their Senior Stick in later years when he turned out to be the leading non-conformist of his country.  No doubt he must have already shown those strong individual characteristics of his; and his evangelistic background would have made him critical of the society in which he lived.  But most Canadian evangelicals have settled down long before they are middle-aged to a very comfortable acceptance of their environment.  And this was just what James Woodsworth failed to do.

Perhaps Oxford had a good deal to do with this.  He went to England in the fall of 1899.  This was the very moment of the outbreak of the Boer War, and he must have become familiar with all the fierce discussion which went on at that time in England (hut which was not reproduced in Canada, though we also took part in the Boer War) about the moral values of imperialism.  It was in the next year, 1900, that the Labor Party was founded, and he must have heard a good deal of talk on this subject too.  Oxford must have accentuated whatever tendencies he already had to emphasize the social gospel of Christianity as distinct from its theological dogmas.  It was full at that time of the new humanitarian and social-reform ideas which were bringing about far-reaching changes in English politics.  Woodsworth did what many another young Oxonian was doing and spent part of his time living in a settlement in the east end of London.

Whether it was Oxford that did it or not, at any rate he came back to Canada with his mind full of a social philosophy which was hardly yet familiar to most of his fellow Canadians, who were still dominated by the nineteenth century individualistic ideas of a pioneer community.  He



was the first of those radicals whom Oxford has sent back to us, the forerunner of the Frank Scotts and Dave Lewises and Ted Jolliffes of our own day.

Back in Canada he entered upon the career for which he had been preparing, that of a minister in the Methodist Church.  He became assistant minister in Grace Church, Winnipeg.  The city of Winnipeg at the opening of the twentieth century was the most dynamic spot in Canada.  It was the reception centre through which poured the thousands of new immigrants to be distributed across the whole of western Canada, and it was the collecting centre from which were shipped the millions of bushels of wheat that formed the basis of the new Canadian economy.  And it was in dealing with problems of this new civilization that J. S. Woodsworth was to show those distinctive qualities that made him so unusual a Canadian.

What were these qualities which we think of most readily when we look back over Mr. Woodsworth’s life?  We may note four of them which made him different from most of his fellow Canadians who had come from much the same environment.

First and most important of all was moral courage.  We may as well admit that this is not a quality which is very common in Canada.  Physical courage we have in abundance.  But the man who is willing to stand by himself when he disagrees with his society, who insists, whatever the cost, on proclaiming the truth as he sees it, is somewhat rare in our history.  This kind of courage is one of the things that makes English history so inspiring.  But Canadians, both English Canadians and French Canadians, are far too devoted



to group solidarity and far too fond of the material success which comes from unquestioning acceptance of the prevailing standards of their group.  J. S. Woodsworth showed from the beginning to the end of his career a willingness to make sacrifices for his principles.  He never failed when this test was applied to him.  That nation is most fortunate which produces the highest proportion of sturdy individualists of this kind.  Liberty is safe only in a society in which such individuals are fairly common.  This is the secret of English history.  And we shall no doubt have frequent occasion to thank heaven that the founder of our Canadian socialist party was the most stubborn individualist of his generation.

A second outstanding quality was his sympathy with the underdog, with the downtrodden and disinherited.  Such sympathy is part of the tradition of Christianity and of the tradition of democracy, and its existence should not require comment.  Yet again, this is a quality which has been displayed much more in English than in Canadian history.  We do not exactly pass by on the other side in Canada when we see a man who has fallen among thieves.  But we have schooled ourselves to believe that in this land of opportunity there are no people needing help.  James Woodsworth’s life was one long process of identifying himself with the unfortunate and the exploited.

To both of these qualities of moral courage and social sympathy we do, however, pay lip service.  Mr. Woodsworth displayed a third quality in which we hardly even profess to believe.  That was a passion for clarity.  In Canada, in spite of the clearness of our physical atmosphere, we



prefer to live in a mental atmosphere of haze and mist.  We never make issues clear to ourselves.  Our national instinct is against defining differences so that they can he clearly understood or reconciled.  We prefer to leave issues undefined, with an assumption that all right-thinking people would agree about them if ever they were defined and that in the meantime all problems can be solved by indulging in emotions of vague Rotarian good-will.  We prefer not to face the fact that our national society is divided vertically into sections and horizontally into classes.  At its worst this attitude becomes a dangerous hypocrisy.  We need a constant supply of Woodsworths to keep plagu­ing us into the unpleasant duty of facing up clearly to the issues that confront us.

And this leads to consideration of the fourth Woodsworth quality to which I should like to draw attention.  He was an intellectual pioneer in an era in our history when a new understanding of and a new approach to our national problems was becoming necessary.  He began his work in Winnipeg in the period of the great wheat boom.  Canada was growing and prospering as she never had done before.  And all that was needed, so far as most Canadians could see, was to shovel in more immigrants, to grow more wheat, to build new railways and new manufacturing plants, to develop our real estate, to make two subdivisions grow where only one had grown before.  But what was really happening to us was that we were becoming an integral part of the great society of the industrial revolution; and this meant that our phenomenal growth of which we were so proud was reproducing in our midst conditions with which older countries had long been un-



happily familiar.  J. S. Woodsworth was one of the first to draw attention to our new problems such as that of the cultural assimilation of the European immigrants and that of the growth of urban and rural slums.  These are the themes of the two books which he published in those early years — Strangers Within Our Gates (1909) and My Neighbor (1911).  The ideas in them are now familiar enough to everyone and there was nothing original in them, as he would have been the first to declare, at the time.  He was simply applying the more mature wisdom of older civilizations to these newly emerging conditions in Canada.  What was original was that a native Canadian should be doing so.  And the ideas which he propounded then were those at which he was to keep driving all his life.  He would not have called himself a socialist in those days, I supposed; but it is significant that he was already saying that our inherited individual enterprise was not enough to deal with these new social problems but that they called for the intervention of organized community effort.

His fundamental faith from the start was in study and research, and in public education to spread the results of study and research.  He wanted to bring the minds of his fellow Canadians up to date.  He wanted to help them to tackle their twentieth-century problems with twentieth-century ideas.  “I know a lot of my friends,” he once said in a later political speech, “who won’t drive a car that is of a model more than two years old.  A great many of us have machinery in our minds that is of a model a hundred years old.”  Long before the C.C.F. was founded, and with equal persistence after it was founded, it was the


same Woodsworth at work, filled with a passion for the spread of social understanding.  This kind of intellectual pioneering is perhaps what we need most of all in Canada.

Mr. Woodsworth’s career from the time of his return from Oxford falls into two clearly divided periods.  The dividing line is the Winnipeg strike of 1919.  Before that, as minister of the gospel and as social worker, he was to find himself unable to conform to some of the beliefs and practices of his society, and by the end of the summer of 1919 he was an outcast from all the respectable and right-thinking people among whom he had grown up.  After that, from the election of 1921, he was to devote his life to building up a political movement which would give expression to the social and economic ideas in which he believed.

His religious studies had made him a modernist in theology.  And very soon in his ministry in Winnipeg he found himself in intellectual difficulties about the doctrines of his church.  He had already decided to resign as early as 1902 but was dissuaded.  In 1907, he handed in his resignation along with a lengthy and forthright statement of his reasons.  He could not accept the interpretation put by his church upon baptism and the Lord’s Supper; he did not believe in the doctrine of the atonement; he had difficulties about the religious experience of conversion, and about many other things in the Methodist statement of faith.  “Such are the doctrines of Methodism.  Without discussing particular doctrines, let me briefly state my position thus:  Many of the doctrines, of course, I believe, but there are some that rest upon historical evidence which for me is not conclusive.  Some are founded on psy-


chological conceptions and metaphysical theories quite foreign to modern thought, and are for me meaningless.  Some deal with matters upon which, it seems to me, it is impossible to dogmatize.  Upon some I must suspend judgement.  Some I cannot accept in the form in which they are stated.  Some I cannot accept at all.  Yet I am required to ‘sincerely and fully believe the doctrines of Methodism’ and to ‘endeavor fully and faithfully to preach them’! … Some may say that it is necessary only that I believe the essential underlying truths.  But who is to determine what are the essential underlying truths?  Words have well-recognized meanings.  We cannot play fast and loose with them. … In this matter of personal experience lies the root of the difficulty.  My experience has not been what among Methodists is considered normal. … My experience has determined my theology, and my theology my attitude toward the Discipline.  And all three, according to our standards, are un-Methodistical.”

It is of course possible for honest and intelligent men to differ as to how far historical statements of doctrine are to be taken in the literal or how far in the symbolic sense.  At any rate, a committee of the Methodist Conference reported:  “Having had a full and frank conversation with Brother James S. Woodsworth re the cause of his resignation, we find that there is nothing in his doctrinal beliefs and adhesion to our discipline to warrant his separation from the ministry of the Methodist Church, and therefore recommend that his resignation be not accepted and his character be now passed.”

Eleven years later, in June 1918, Mr. Woodsworth again offered his resignation.  In the mean-


time the war had come, he had publicly stated his opposition to conscription, and had lost his position in Winnipeg.  This time he wrote in his letter of resignation:  “As years went by, certain disquieting conclusions gradually took form.  I began to see that the organized Church had become a great institution with institutional aims and ambitions. … Further, the Church, as many other institutions, was becoming increasingly commercialized.  This meant the control of the policies of the Church by men of wealth, and in many cases the temptation for the minister to become a financial agent rather than a moral and spiritual leader.  It meant, also, that anything like a radical programms of social reform became in practice almost impossible … In the meantime another factor makes my position increasingly difficult.  The war has now gone on for four years. … According to my understanding of economics and sociology, the war is the inevitable outcome of the inevitable outcome of the existing social organization, with its undemocratic forms of government and competitive system of industry. … This brings me to the Christian point of view.  For me, the teachings and spirit of Jesus are absolutely irreconcilable with the advocacy of war.  Christianity may be an impossible idealism, but so long as I hold it, ever so unworthily, I must refuse, as far as may be, to participate in war. … The vast majority of the ministers and other church leaders seem to see things in an altogether different way.  The churches have been turned into very effective recruiting agencies. … There is little dependence on spiritual forces.  The so-called Prussian morality that might makes right and that the end justifies the mans is preached in its application


if not in theory. … Apparently the church feels that I do not belong and reluctantly I have been forced to the same conclusion.”

This time the resignation was accepted promptly.  Perhaps the Methodist church, in this contrast between its remarkable flexibility in dealing with the theological heretic and its very stern orthodoxy towards the political heretic during the hysteria of war, does not show up too well.  But these transactions are not recalled here for the purpose of criticising the church.  It will be more fruitful for us to remind ourselves that it is possible for radical political parties as well as for evangelical churches to become over-institutionalized, to accept too whole-heartedly the values of the society in which they live, to become too intent on success according to the standards of that society.  May the C.C.F. continue to produce its Woodsworths in the future as the Methodist church has done in the past!

While Mr. Woodsworth’s resignation from the church was not accepted in 1907, he decided to abandon the regular work of a church pastor; and in that year he became head of All People’s Mission, a settlement of the Methodist church in the north end of Winnipeg.  Here he spent six busy years in social work.  In 1913 a group of friends found the money to set up the Canadian Welfare League and to put him in charge.  And in 1916 the governments of the three prairie provinces joined to establish the Bureau of Social Research with J. S. Woodsworth as director.  During these years he became, as Olive Ziegler puts it very truly in her biography, a “consulting sociologist” not merely for Winnipeg and its neighborhood but for the whole of Canada.  His successive of-


fices became centres to which men of all classes resorted for advice and information.  It was in these years that he published the two books already mentioned for the use of study groups in the church.  He was also constantly on the move, investigating conditions all over the West, and writing memoranda and reports upon them.  He became a national figure as a lecturer, and was heard with approval in all parts of Canada.  And in addition to his many other activities it is noteworthy that he was chosen as the representative of the Winnipeg Ministerial Association upon the Trades and Labor Council of the city.  In these activities he found a field of work in which theological difficulties did not intrude; and everywhere he went his message was the same — the need to study and understand the emerging social problems of the new era in Canada.  He made himself the interpreter of the working classes to the more comfortable and successful groups of our Canadian community.

All this work was brought to a sudden end in the winter of 1916-17 when he felt it his duty to publish his objections to conscription.  His governmental employers at once closed down the Bureau of Social Research.  He found himself out of a job and was bitterly denounced by many who had been his associates in his social work.

He moved out to the Pacific coast and took up a small mission charge at a place called Gibson’s Landing some twenty miles from Vancouver.  Here, cut off from all his former activities, he found temporary rest.  But shortly he became interested in the local cooperative store, an enterprise which met with the stern disapproval of a gentleman who was a leading member of


church, and he had to leave.  He was now one of the unemployed indeed.  He moved into Vancouver and became a casual laborer, a longshoreman.  This was the hardest period of all his life, but there is no need to dwell on what he went through.  After the severe testing of these two or three years, as all who met him later in life can testify, nothing ever daunted him or embittered him.  Here is an extract from an article he wrote at the time.  The article is headed:  “Come on in — the Water’s Fine!”

“My Winnipeg friends who knew me in connection with church work or social service activities would probably hardly recognize a longshoreman in grey flannel shirt, overalls and slicker, who lines up with a gang alongside a ship. … Yet it is the same J.S.W. who, though declared to be down and out, is in reality feeling fairly fit and looking forward to the fight. … Yes, I hesitated to make the plunge.  Where a man has spent all his time up to middle life along one line it is not easy to make a complete break and, as it were, start life all over again.  But circumstances have a curious way of pushing one right up to the brink.  Then, unless a man is a downright coward, it is a case of ‘Here Goes!’ … And the water was cold — no doubt about that!  Longshoring is hard and monotonous and irregular and, taking it the year round, not much better paid than other unskilled labor.  Being a town-bred boy and having gone through school and college into professional life, I had never done manual work.  Piling heavy rice sacks or stowing flour or loading salmon or trucking up a steep slippery gangplank is no child’s play … But, once in, one has to make the best of it.  No one sinks without a struggle, and



in the struggle the blood goes coursing through one’s veins till the whole body is atingle. … There is a certain exhilaration in having broken through artificial distinctions — in meeting men as men irrespective of nationality or creed or opinions — in being one of them. … Perhaps it is in part because ‘he that is down need fear no fall’ — that the workers ‘have nothing to lose but their chains’ — but there is a certain sturdiness and fearlessness about the workers that is not commonly found among the so-called higher classes. … At present the odds seem against us.  But though muscles often ache and the back is tired and much is uncongenial, there is more than compensation in being as yet no man’s slave.  And what if, after all, as we believe, we are right!  So, after the first shock, I have got my breath and shout back my message of good cheer:  ‘Come on in — the water’s fine!'”

This was his apprenticeship for his later work as a labor leader in parliament.  He became a member of the longshoremen’s union.  He helped to organize the Federated Labor Party of British Columbia, wrote for the labor paper, became a regular speaker at labor meetings.  In the summer of 1919 he was sent on a speaking tour of western Canada in the interests of the labor movement, and at Winnipeg he found himself in the middle of the famous Winnipeg strike.

The strike had begun as a dispute about collective bargaining in a few machine shops.  By the time Mr. Woodsworth arrived this dispute had spread into a general sympathetic strike of the Winnipeg labor forces and had been going on for some weeks.  It had become a trial of strength between the workers and the owning classes of



Winnipeg.  The latter persistently charged that the workers had ulterior motives, that they were aiming at a social revolution and the setting up of a Soviet government.  But for a long time there were no outbreaks of violence.  The provincial government failed to take any effective action.  The so-called Citizens Committee, formed to put down the “revolution,” devoted itself to a campaign of hysteria; and eventually trouble did break out between special police and processions of workers and their sympathizers.  The Dominion government intervened to force a crisis, or at least that was how its action looked to the workers.  (The chief representative of federal authority was the Hon. Arthur Meighen, Minister of the Interior.  In 1942 it was to be the cause of special pleasure to many C.C.Fers whose memories went back to the days of the Winnipeg strike that the C.C.F. served as the instrument in the famous South York by-election for retiring Mr. Meighen to private life.)  Leaders of the workers were arrested and charged with seditious conspiracy.  Against most of them the charges were successfully maintained after long trials in Winnipeg; and the strike was broken.  It remains a landmark in our Canadian social and political history.  For the first time we had clearly aligned against each other the two major classes into which modern industrialism has divided our society; and the manner in which the privileged class reacted to the events of that June in Winnipeg left no doubt as to which of the two groups was the more class-conscious or the more determined to fight by fair means or foul for its position.

Mr. Woodsworth immediately on his arrival in Winnipeg became active in addressing the mass



Tory Stronghold, Parliament, Grit Stronghold, Woodsworth, C.C.F.

Tory Stronghold | Parliament | Grit Stronghold | Woodsworth C.C.F.

meetings which the strikers were holding.  It is worth recalling that the first of these meetings at which he spoke had as its opening speaker the well beloved padre of the First Division, Canon Scott of Quebec.  Mr. Woodsworth also helped in the publication of the workers’ strike bulletin which they got out every day to present their side of the case.  His set of the Western Labor News he later presented to the Library of the University of Toronto.  As one reads it today one is struck by the mildness and coolness of its language and the reasonableness of its demands.  Can we really believe that leaders who used such language were aiming at wrecking the comfortable homes of Winnipeg and bolshevizing the whole country?  But the editor, F. J. Dixon, was arrested along with the other strike leaders; and after Mr. Woodsworth had filled in for him for a week, he was arrested too.  The charges against Dixon



failed, and in due course the authorities quietly dropped their case against Woodsworth.

If you want to appreciate the atmosphere of panic in which the authorities in Winnipeg were working, it is worth while to read the items in the indictment by the Crown against J.&nbspS. Woodsworth.  There were six counts, three of which consisted of articles appearing in the labor bulletin from the pen of Mr. Dixon.  The three crimes of composition for which Mr. Woodsworth himself had been responsible were:  (1) An article entitled “Is There a Way Out?”, written shortly after his arrival in Winnipeg, pleading for an understanding of the underlying issues by both sides, suggesting a Royal Commission to investigate the whole situation, and ending “Let us reiterate that there are very reasonable men in both camps.”  (2) Two quotations from Isaiah (10:1-2 and 65:21-22).  (3) An article entitled “The British Way,” with long quotations from a manifesto of the British Labor party demanding a new social order.  Well, it is no longer seditious to write about a new social order in Canada.

The Winnipeg strike will long remain a subject of dispute in our modern Canadian history.  It was the first definite trial of strength between opposed social forces in our new industrial civilization.  It showed how strongly entrenched are the established ruling groups in our society; how bitterly and unscrupulously they will fight for their privileged position; how prone is the government, which supposedly represents all the people, to take the side of the powerful; and how difficult it is for the other side to get its case before public opinion at all.  As for Mr. Woodsworth, it left him a complete outcast from the



respectable part of society.  But, as things were to turn out, his identifying of himself with the labor cause was to give him a seart in parliament for the next twenty years and to make him the natural spokesman of all Canadians who were seeking a more democratic social order after the war which had been fought to make the world safe for democracy.

In the federal election of 1921 J. S. Woodsworth was elected as member for Winnipeg North Centre, and he continued to hold this seat until his death.  This later part of his career is more familiar to all of us, and there is no need to trace its events in any chronological order.  There are several points, however, which are worth emphasizing.

The new phenomenon of the 1921 parliament was the contingent of some 65 “Progressive” members.  In this and the succeeding parliaments of the 1920’s and 1930’s Mr. Woodsworth regularly had one or two labor colleagues from the west, and they formed a little labor party of their own.  (On one occasion Bill Irvine explained about the labor party:  “The member for Winnipeg North Centre is the leader of the party and I am the party.”)  They co-operated throughout these years with this larger and looser body of Progressives.  But the Progressives were never quite able to make up their minds whether they were a new political party, or whether they were an independent left wing of the Liberal party, or just what they were politically.  And after the first upheaval of post-war unrest was over, they gradually disintegrated.  Mr. King carried on a patient courtship which, like most of his statesmanship, was somewhat slow in producing results but very



effective in the long run.  Most of the Progressives, because they didn’t quite know where they stood, because they were well-meaning but unmeaning, disappeared into the Liberal party or were left at home in later elections by their electorates.  Some of them, especially in Manitoba, became known as Liberal-Progressives.  And new we have “Progressive Conservatives” and “Labor Progressives” as well.  That fine word “Progressives,” which seemed to hold such promise in 1921, must be said in our day to have acquired a certain smell.

In 1924 a few of the Progressives, who were determined to remain independent and not to succumb to the embraces of parties run from St. James St. or King St., broke away from the main Progressive body and formed an independent group which the newspapers nicknamed the Ginger Group.  Most of them were U.F.A. members from Alberta who insisted on their function as spokesmen of a distinct occupational group, the farmers, and who, like the labor members, were denounced by right-thinking people for introducing class distinctions into politics.  Mr. Woodsworth worked with them, and so did Agnes Macphail from Ontario.  They were the nucleus from which sprang the C.C.F. in 1932.  Ten years’ experience in parliament had shown them that it was perfectly possible for farmer and labor representatives to agree on every main issue that came up, and had confirmed the beliefs with which they entered public life that what was needed in Canada was not mere tinkering with tariffs or railway rates but a far-reaching change in the whole economic and social system.  By 1932 they were ready to commit themselves to the launching of a



party which was definitely socialist in its program.  Their socialism came not from any abstract philosophizing of their own nor from imported ready-made European philosophies, but from their practical experience in dealing with national Canadian problems in the post-war years.  And the Regina manifesto, in the language and in the substance of its program, was an expression of this fact.

The 1920’s and 1930’s, so far as Mr. Woodsworth’s parliamentary work was concerned, must often have seemed to be years of rather fruitless agitation.  Only this small minority of independent members survived to sit and vote with him.  The resolutions which he presented in the House were always voted down by big majorities and usually were discussed very inadequately by those majorities.  But we can see now that it was he who first advocated most of the social policies which with general consent we are just beginning to adopt today.  And he did in the earlier years achieve one concrete result.  In 1927 Old Age Pensions were adopted because of his pressure upon the leaders of the two old parties.

The first resolution which he drafted after his election in 1921 was one for unemployment insurance, which he was told by the Clerk of the House he could not move because only members of the government can make motions involving the expenditure of money by His Majesty’s government.  Steadily he kept pressing the question of the B.N.A. Act and of the obstacles which it presents to any advanced social-reform policy.  And just as steadily the Liberal government kept making the B.N.A. Act an excuse for doing nothing.  It was only at last in 1935 that Mr. Woodsworth



succeeded in getting a special committee appointed to examine our constitutional difficulties, and the report of that committee is one step in the sequence of events that led to the Rowell-Sirois Commission.  On foreign policy and international relations also it was likely to be Mr. Woodsworth, in any given session, who raised questions and forced some discussion in a very apathetic Commons.  It was he who became the chosen spokesman for working-class groups when they had some grievance which they wished to get before parliament and the public.  It was he who more than any other private member, after the depression came, kept calling the attention of the government to the plight of the poor and the unemployed.  And, in addition, he spent all the months between parliamentary sessions in missionary tours across the country speaking to all kinds of audiences in all kinds of assembly halls.

This work won for J. S. Woodsworth an acknowledges position as the chief private member of parliament.  His influence in the House and in the lobbies was far greater than any recorded votes would indicate.  More important, when the C.C.F. was founded in 1932, he was its inevitable leader.  He was known all across the country.  He and his farmer colleagues had learnt the technique of organized team-work in parliament and had found that they agreed on all major issues.  He was chosen leader of the new movement because of his acknowledged mastery of those issues.  In parliament and in the country at large he had built up a following who had come to accept his analysis of the problems facing Canada and who trusted without reserve his essential honesty of purpose.



The C.C.F. grew slowly but surely.  In the years when it seemed hardly to grow at all Mr. Woodsworth worked tirelessly at his missionary task of bringing social and economic realities before the Canadian people.  He did not go in for emotional rabble-rousing, he did not indulge in personal invective or in party manoeuvering.  Under his leadership his party won the reputation of sticking to the issues that were really important.  And today, now that he has gone, no one needs to be told what that has meant in the growth of popular support for the C.C.F.

In September, 1939, came the second world war.  Mr. Woodsworth refused to compromise with his life-long convictions, though he knew that he could not carry his party with him.  He stood up in parliament by himself and opposed our participation in the war.  Never was his hold on the respect of parliament, of opponents as well as of followers, so clearly shown as in the hearing which was given to this last great speech of his.

Then, shortly after, came the breakdown in his health, his enforced retirement from public activities, and finally, on the 21st of March, 1942, his death.  “After this it was noised abroad that Mr. Valiant-for-truth was taken with a Summons. … When he understood it, he called for his Friends, and told them of it.  Then said he, I am going to my Father’s, and tho with great Difficulty I am got hither, yet now I do not repeat me of all the Trouble I have been at to arrive where I am.  My Sword, I give to him that shall succeed me in my Pilgrimmage, and my Courage and Skill, to him that can get it. … So he passed over, and sall the Trumpets sounded for him on the other side.”

We are trying now to raise an Ontario memorial



to him.  Let us remember that the best way to perpetuate his memory is to cultivate those qualities for which he was distinguished — his moral courage, his wide social sympathies, his passion for truth, his intellectual pioneering.  The C.C.F. will remain his greatest work, and a special responsibility rests upon its leaders and its members to hold firm to the values which he cherished.  Politics by itself is apt to become an accursed profession — as it was once called by one of its most eminent English practitioners — for it involves so much competitive striving for personal and party success; and politicians are under a constant temptation to become so concentrated upon victory over the enemy — or even, alas, at times over their own friends — that the purpose of victory is forgotten.  The C.C.F. is still what Mr. Woodsworth left it, a movement devoted to social and economic change in the interests of the great mass of the plain common people.  Let us resolve to keep it a movement and to save it from sinking into being merely a party intent on collecting votes.  And one of the best ways to do that is to foster through this Woodsworth Foundation a vigorous program of imaginative social study and research, so that Woodsworth House may become a source of the same kind of inspiration as radiated from J. S. Woodsworth’s successive offices of church minister, social worker and member of parliament.



to him.  Let us remember that the best way to perpetuate his memory is to cultivate those qualities for which he was distinguished — his moral courage, his wide social sympathies, his passion for truth, his intellectual pioneering.  The C.C.F. will remain his greatest work, and a special responsibility rests upon its leaders and its members to hold firm to the values which he cherished.  Politics by itself is apt to become an accursed profession — as it was once called by one of its most eminent English practitioners — for it involves so much competitive striving for personal and party success; and politicians are under a constant temptation to become so concentrated upon victory over the enemy — or even, alas, at times over their own friends — that the purpose of victory is forgotten.  The C.C.F. is still what Mr. Woodsworth left it, a movement devoted to social and economic change in the interests of the great mass of the plain common people.  Let us resolve to keep it a movement and to save it from sinking into being merely a party intent on collecting votes.  And one of the best ways to do that is to foster through this Woodsworth Foundation a vigorous program of imaginative social study and research, so that Woodsworth House may become a source of the same kind of inspiration as radiated from J. S. Woodsworth’s successive offices of church minister, social worker and member of parliament.

From the Writings of
J. S. Woodsworth

Our Alien Immigrants

(From the University Magazine, Feb., 1917)

The coming of the immigrant has intensified and complicated the serious problems that would in any case have to be solved in a young and developing country … The transition from the agricultural to the industrial stage has not been easy in any country … and becomes very formidable indeed when the country is being settled by newcomers who have not even a common language … Undoubtedly the immigrant has thus helped to create our problems — as, it should not be forgotten, he has helped to create our wealth.  It is not so clearly realized that the immigrant must help to solve these problems and may indeed take a foremost place in the bringing in of a better day.  The immigrants bring better assets than we sometimes realize … The members of each nationality bring with them a rich and varied culture … Further, the immigrants are imbued with a reverence and a patriotism which we need in this new and commercialized country of ours … The problem after all is possibly not so much the problem of the immigrant as the problem of the Canadian.  We have in practice taken for granted that our standards were the only and final standards … More than missionaries we need interpreters — those who can mediate between the Canadian and the newcomer … “God has many bests,” as a wise teacher once put it.



The Business Man’s Psychology
(From On the Waterfront, written in 1918 or 1919)

A good deal of nonsense is often solemnly uttered by Socialist speakers and other working class advocates with regard to the “capitalist bunch.”  They are classified as bourgeois and petty bourgeois.  They are often depicted as a set of self-conscious hypocrites. … Now, as a matter of fact, most of these descriptions are second-hand, being borrowed from translations of European writers. … Our “middle class” occupies a very different position from what is known in Europe as the “middle class.”

In the background of the majority of the successful business men of Canada there is an old Eastern homestead.  The successful business man may lunch at a high-class club or occupy a box at the theatre or spend his vacations in Europe, but as a boy he “did the chores,” swam in the village millpond, cut his name in the desks of the little red school-house, and generally lived the all-round democratic life of a farmer’s boy. … The labor problem was confined to the hired man and the hired girl. … Flitting recollections of such a life pass before the half-shut eyes of the big business manager as he rests in his comfortable leather chair after a heavy day at the office.  In the nearer background of his consciousness is the life of the small town in which he experienced his early business struggles.  Here he married and set up his first home.  Here his children had measles and croup and he knew what it was to be on friendly terms with all sorts of neighbors.  In his business he called most of his employees by their first names and knew more or less of their personal affairs.  There were few poor in the town, and they were generally shiftless and addicted to



drink.  If a man didn’t make things go, it was more or less his own fault.  Organized labor was unknown and Socialism was unheard of.

Since our successful business man moved to the city and entered upon larger commercial and financial enterprises, the life has been very different.  The greatest change lies in his isolation from the common life about him.  His offices in the fine new warehouses are open only to employees of the highest rank.  He throws the responsibility for details upon managers and foremen. … At noon he lunches at an exclusive club with men of his own group and way of thinking.  He drives or is driven in his own car, so that he does not even rub shoulders with the strap-hangers in the street cars.  His home is in the best residential district. … His isolation is complete, his class-consciousness assured.

He is kind-hearted. … His early childhood and the village life gave him personal sympathy.  But he has had no personal experiences of the desperate struggles of modern industrial life, and no enlightenment with regard to modern methods of social service.  He will send a Christmas basket to a poor family at Christmas but he will fight valiantly against organized labor.  Again the key to his action lies in his own personal experiences with their limitations.  He thinks he knows the problems of labor because he knew his fathers’ hired man. … He fails to realize that just as his mahogany-finished office and beautiful residence differ widely from the old barn in which he forked hay or his little bedroom with the rag carpet, so an absolutely new world has grown up about him.

But is he not a leader in the new commercial and industrial life?  Undoubtedly; but he has seen life not as a series of human relationships, but



merely from the standpoint of dividends.  He thinks himself just.  He would not commit a vulgar theft.  He would not insult his neighbor’s wife.  He does not realize that he is the beneficiary of a system that is degrading womanhood and crushing out manhood.  Can he be made to understand?


The Business Man’s Psychology
At Bay:  On the Shores of the Last West
(From On the Waterfront)

The longshoremen of Vancouver are as varied in type as their previous occupation and place of residence. …

That “bunch” of men rolling the oil barrels — one is an ex-minister.  Years ago in an ancient university, while engaged in historical studies, he broke away from the orthodox evangelical positions.  He threw himself into all sorts of social service activities where, by slow degrees, he learned to trace the causes of social evil.  Then came the war.  Conventional religion and profiteering patriotism were seen in their true light.  He preferred the rough and uncertain road of freedom and followed the great adventure over the mountains to the land’s limit.*

His companion is a young Greek.  When but a child he fared forth to follow his ideal. … The new world beckoned him.  South America did not offer what he sought.  He came to Canada.  By slow stages he has crossed from the Atlantic to the Pacific.  He has engaged in every conceivable occupation and learned, alas, that in no country can he live up to his ideals.  Passionately devoted to his language, lighted by the wisdom of the ancient philosophers, he dreams of an international republic in which the idealized genius of Greece will find realization.

*  Clearly a description of J. S. Woodsworth himself.



Together these two deliver their oil barrel to a big Finn.  He has been through the fight for democracy in his own unhappy country.  Years ago, when he emigrated to New York, he had given his scanty savings to a Finnish professor to help start a Socialist newspaper.  In California he had been induced to join a co-operative colony on Malcolm Island.  The scheme had failed.  He will not travel further.  The shores of the Pacific afford standing ground for one more struggle for democracy.

From the cradle of the race civilization has moved westward.  Ever there has been an outlet to the West.  But now the circle is complete. … Men have fled before the system, but the system has overtaken them — it is crowding them into the sea.  As they awaken to the situation they are preparing with quiet determination not to trek but to stand. … These men represent the great army of Labor.  The war has carried us to the shore of the last West.  We stand at bay!


A Prayer
(Written for the Winnipeg Labor Church, 1920)

We meet together as brothers and sisters of the one big family.

We confess that we have not yet learned to live together in love and unity.  We have thought too much of our own interests and too little of the common welfare.  We have enjoyed and even sought special privileges.  Our own gain has often involved another’s loss.  We are heartily sorry for these, our misdoings; the memory of them is grievous unto us.

We acknowledge that we are still divided into alien groups separated from one another by barriers of language, race and nationality; by barriers of class and creed and custom.  May we



A Prayer
(Written for the Winnipeg Labor Church, 1920)

overcome prejudice.  May we seek to find common ground.  May we recognize the beauty in other types than our own.  As we claim that our own convictions should be respected, so may we respect the convictions of others.  May we grow in moral stature until we can join hands over the separating walls.  May we enter into the joy of a common fellowship.

We have learned how imperfect is our knowledge, how narrow our vision.  May we be willing to welcome truth from whatever source it comes.  May we endeavour to follow the truth at whatever cost.

We should remember that the things that are seen are temporal; that the things that are not seen are eternal.  May we judge things by their spiritual value.  May we estimate success by high standards and, in our own lives, reject the temptation of a low aim and easy attainment.

We would be wise in our sympathies and generous in our living.  If we have more than others, may we accept our heavier responsibilities.  We would extend to others that indulgence which we crave for ourselves.

We are grateful for the lives of all the wise and good who have made this world a better place in which to live.  May we enter into their spirit and carry forward their work.

We pledge ourselves to united effort in establishing on the earth an era of justice and truth and love.

May our faces be toward the future.  May we be children of the brighter and better day which even now is beginning to dawn.  May we not impede but rather co-operate with the great spiritual forces which, we believe, are impelling the world onward and upward.




What it is and what it proposes to do

ONTARIO WOODSWORTH MEMORIAL FOUNDATION was incorporated in October, 1944, under the laws of the Province of Ontario, as a corporation establishing an educational institution to teach and provide courses and research in the social sciences, economics, philosophy and kindred subjects.

The Foundation is empowered to accept gifts and donations for the above purposes, and generally to do all such things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of these purposes.  It is to be carried on without the purpose of gain, and any profits or other accretions are to be used in promoting its objects.

The Foundation embodies an idea which was very dear to Mr. Woodsworth’s heart, and one of which he spoke many times.  He had hoped to see it take shape in his lifetime.  It was considered, therefore, that no more fitting form could be found for a memorial to his life and work.

At an inaugural dinner held in Toronto on October 7th, 1944, a campaign was launched to collect $25,000 for the purchase and equipment of a building in uptown Toronto to form the nucleus of a centre in which could be carried on the activities indicated in the Charter.  It was at this dinner that the address printed herewith was delivered.

The initial response to the appeal for funds was most encouraging, but as the first edition of



this booklet goes to press most of the money needed to reach the above objective is still to be raised.

It is hoped that rentals for the use of space in Woodsworth House by organizations fulfilling its purposes will make it self-sustaining.  It is also planned to collect a small annual sustaining fee from those who wish to become active members of the project.

It is intended, as circumstances and funds permit, to expand facilities by additions to the property, and ultimately to develop a fully staffed Labor College, where study of the social sciences, co-operative living and democratic leadership will be more completely organized.

Contributions in any amount will be welcomed from those who would like to have a part in establishing this memorial to a great Canadian, the keynote of whose life and ideas is so well expressed in the address printed in this booklet.

A subscription form will be found on the adjoining page.

All the proceeds from the sale of this booklet will go to the Foundation.



45 Castle Frank Crescent, Toronto, Ontario.

I desire to contribute to the establishment of an Ontario Memorial to the late James Shaver Woodsworth, to the amount of $_______, payable as follows:_______

Enclosed find Cheque_______ for $_______
Money Order

NAME (Mr. Mrs., Miss) ___________________________________
ADDRESS _________________________________________________


Praxis Exposed!  Your Money, Their Revolution

Category: Historical Reprints.
Source: Straight Talk! The Official Bulletin Of The Edmund Burke Society.
Editor: F. Paul Fromm
Associate Editor: Jeff Goodall
Volume III Number 5, January-February 1971
The Edmund Burke Society is a conservative organization unaffiliated with any political party. We are dedicated to the principles of individual freedom and responsibility, free enterprise and firm ACTION against all tyrannies, especially Communism and all its manifestations in Canada and abroad.

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

[Ed. NSIM:] The graphic title is from the front cover of this edition of Straight Talk!.

Paul Fromm’s Introduction to “Praxis Exposed” (from page 2)


This month STRAIGHT TALK! is proud to publish a work that has taken three months to research.  Jaanus Proos wrote it; but, a dozen E.B.S. members were involved in gathering the information.  Further exposes on related topics will follow.  The article I refer to is PRAXIS EXPOSED (page 9).  This article analyzes the men in the $200.00 suits and how they work.  It discusses pressure from the academic elite and the government at the top and pressure from the bums at the bottom to soak the productive middle and working class.  The name of the game is power.  The method tax-payer subsidized revolution and agitation.  Our name for it — treason!  Treason to the ideals of hard work, individual responsibility, and economic freedom that characterize our Western Civilization.

Yes, I said that this article would cheer you up.  I meant it in a grim and ironic sense.  As we go to press, you will be pleased to know that Health Minister, John Munro, has given away $104,000.00 of YOUR money to the Hamilton Welfare Rights Organization.  This group has occupied a section of the Hamilton Welfare office and set up a “counselling table.”  Seemingly members of this group and affiliated drones have harassed welfare officials; tossed a knife at one woman official; broken doors, windows, and chairs at the welfare office; and fired a bullet through the office window.  An official of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 167, has demanded a city policeman to protect the welfare workers from the militant parasites.  And guess who is spokesperson for the Hamilton Welfare Rights Organization?  William Freaman, “a social worker and McMaster University graduate student, who ran unsuccessfully on the N.D.P. municipal slate last December.”  (TELEGRAM, p. 6, February 4, 1971).  Once again we see it:  pressure from the academic and political people-planners to [incite] the rabble to further despoil the working backbone of this country.  But, smile bravely as you fill out your income tax form.  The people planners, the parasites, and the academics need you:  YOU’RE THEIR MEAL TICKET!

— F. Paul Fromm


Praxis Exposed!  Your Money, Their Revolution

by Jaanus Proos

Praxis Exposed! Your Money, Their Revolution!

This article is presented to enable the reader to effectively comprehend an important aspect of the socialist threat to the values of individual freedom and responsibility, to the very values which have created, in Canada, one of history’s best examples of political freedom combined with general national economic affluence.  The primary prerequisite for any understanding of this threat is the realization that it does not come from the easily identifiable rabble in the streets exclusively, with their sitting-in at the university or manpower office, or throwing paint at the US Consulate.  They would constitute a negligible threat, were it not for their access to public funds and to persons with political power.  Their infantile romanticism blinds them to the fact that the basically conservative Canadian public will not respond to slogans berating American imperialism and capitalist exploitation; the “wise socialist”, on the other hand, knows that the public can be duped, by means of the indirect Fabian approach, into supporting socialist programs under the guise of fighting social injustice.

At this point, let us consider the men in the two hundred dollar suits who bankroll, propagandize, and manipulate the rabble in the streets in the interests of their Utopian socialist pipe-dreams and personal aspirations for power and influence.  They seldom label themselves socialists; they are never found wearing a red armband, throwing themselves against a line of police, inhabiting Rochdale’s l4th floor commune, or even speaking out of order at a public forum.  They are more likely to cluster around the university faculty club, and to find their natural habitat in Rosedale or Forest Hill.  Their first concern is to maintain a low profile of visibility in their behind-the-scenes activity.  They squirm and bleat the loudest when exposed, as we saw in the childish hysteria displayed by some of the executive officers of the Praxis Corporation toward Peter Worthington for his TELEGRAM articles exposing Praxis to non-readers of STRAIGHT TALK! (November 25th and 26th, 1970).

The tactic followed, in short, is the classic one embodying the pincer effect of pressure from the top manipulating pressure from below, to wipe out the productive middle, by means of economic and political strangulation.

This strategy was used most successfully in imposing Communist totalitarian rule in Czecho-Slovakia, and has been graphically described by Communist theoretician Jan Kozak in his book, AND NOT A SHOT IS FIRED.

Why this conspiracy against the middle class?  Why this effort to render it economically and politically impotent?  Primarily because the free man is not amenable to state planning.  The agents of this pressure from the top in the Toronto area are mainly organized in the Praxis Corporation.  Herein follows a systematic examination of the structure, personalities, financing, theories and purposes behind Praxis, complete with an analysis of how only the socialist politicians on the federal level, and to a lesser extent, on the municipal level, stand to gain.  The small independent entrepreneur, the backbone of the economic freedom manifested in a free enterprise economy, without which political freedom becomes extremely problematical, would, on the other hand, be very much on the losing end.

What Is Praxis?

Praxis is a private corporation, founded in 1968 by a like-minded crew of about a dozen leftist academics roosting on the faculties of the Universities of York and Toronto.  Praxis’ books concerning its governing structure are open to the inspection of the public at the Office of the Provincial Secretary.  By means of incorporation, Praxis achieves the status of a non-profit charity, enabling it to receive tax-deductible donations from individuals and organizations, as well as government grants.  Praxis refers to itself rather high-mindedly as a “Research Institute for Social Change”.  A nervous voice on its telephone line stuttered to this reporter that the word Praxis is an Aristotelian term denoting the combination of theory and practice.  Now installed in Room 209 at Rochdale College, Praxis used to be housed in a house at 373 Huron St., about half a block south of Rochdale.  The house used to be owned by the Anglican Church, which turned it over, rent free, to Praxis.  However, when the house was acquired by the U. of T., Praxis claimed to be paying a rent of $100.00 a month, which means that the rent of the building was partly subsidized by the taxpayer (you cannot rent a one-bedroom apartment in downtown Toronto for under $125.00, let alone a whole house).  Until recently, the building was shared by the tear-jerking parasites of the Just Society, which now operates out of 392 St. George St. and 931 College Street.  The building was still being shared, however, by the Women’s Liberation Movement, the SSSOC (Stop Spadina, Save Our City Coordinating Committee — if you can stomach that sanctimonious title) and the Metro Tenants Association, the vast majority of whose members do NOT LIVE IN REGENTS PARK OR MOSS PARK or any other subsidized housing project, but who live in $250.00-a-month swinger apartments which you or I couldn’t afford. 1

On December 18th last, a fire destroyed 575 Huron St., beyond repair.  Not too surprisingly, a group such as Praxis, which was so politically unsophisticated as to keep all their files in one place making them vulnerable to destruction in a single fire, reacted in an unsophisticated manner.  At a press conference, a Praxis spokesman childishly flailed away at the atmosphere of “hate” generated by Peter Worthington’s articles in the TELEGRAM which, he said, might “possibly” have encouraged “some East European rightist group” to start the fire, which is the gutless liberal’s way of saying, “them Burkers done it”, just short of being hauled into court to prove it.  Ironic, is it not, that the fire should so upset these fellows, who spend considerable energy defending the inalienable right of every revolutionary to burn, loot, and steal to his underprivileged, oppressed, and frustrated heart’s content?

Who Is Behind Praxis?

An incomplete, though thoroughly researched list of the original founding members of Praxis includes the illustrious names of Professor Stephen Clarkson, U. of T., Professor Howard Adelman, York University, Prof. Charles Hanly, U. of T., Jane Jacobs, American import and self-styled expert on the Spadina Expressway, Prof. Meyer Brownstone, U. of T., Prof. Peter Russell 1, U. of T., (presently in Uganda), Prof. Ian Burton, U. of T., Prof. F. Griffiths, U. of T., Robert Wright, of the law firm of Lang, Michener, Cranston, Farquharson & Wright, Colin Vaughan, of the architectural firm of Robbie, Vaughan & Williams, and George Montague, an investment banker (i.e., international banker) working out of that “symbol of wealth and power” (Cf. leaflet for the “National Day of Protest”, January 25th last), the Toronto Dominion Centre.

Now, it takes an I.Q. of five to discern a remarkably consistent characteristic among these socially-conscious “beautiful people”, supposedly fighting for worker control, for community control, and for “poor people power”:  not one is a worker; not one resides in a low income neighbourhood; not one sends his children to a slum school; and not one draws anything less than a five-figure salary, and, in most cases (from the number of professors of political economy involved) they are on the receiving end of the taxpayers’ money, brainwashing impressionable students with their leftist bias, while contributing nothing of a productive nature to the economy.

Some of these founding members have since drifted toward the periphery of Praxis, while a more militant hard core has emerged.  Another familiar leftist pattern is evident in the extensive overlapping membership of Praxis, the Woodsworth Foundation, Stop Spadina, the Just Society, the Toronto Women’s Caucus, and the Metro Tenants’ Association.  However, the familiar pattern persists:  that of an exclusively upper-class membership, usually in unproductive tax-subsidized jobs, as Praxis attracts university professors, CBC employees, social workers, sociologists, as well as a very small percentage of businessmen.  An expose of some of the leading lights in Praxis is nevertheless in order:

HOWARD BUCHBINDER:  321 Lonsdale Ave.  This recent import from the US has been employed by Praxis almost from the start, to apply his knowledge of the American experience to the Canadian situation (so much for the clamor for “Canadian content” on the local left!).  He played perhaps the major role in turning the Metro Social Planning Council into the Socialist Planning Council.  This advisory body was emasculated and taken over by Praxis by the simple device of taking out mass memberships just before the elections, and then stacking the election meeting.  As a result, the Social Planning Council’s 35-member Executive has become totally radicalized and infested with a Who’s Who of Praxis.  Buchbinder is now on the payroll as Executive Secretary.  Since the Council is subsidized by the United Appeal, Buchbinder finds himself in the familiar position of leeching off the public dollar.

Shortly after arriving in Canada, Buchbinder was on the receiving end of a $47,000.00 grant from the DAILY STAR to study the poor and oppressed.  Now, if the Star management really wants to study oppression, all it needs to do is to step outside its own front door and talk to the three picketers (limited to three by a nasty, oppressive court injunction) from the International Typographical Union, who were thrown out of work back in 1964, when the STAR reneged on all the points it had previously agreed to in collective bargaining negotiations and brought in US scabs.  Apparently the STAR can afford to throw away $47,000.00 to Buchbinder, as well as the flashy new high-rise at 1 Yonge St., but cannot bring itself to bargain in good faith with its unionized employees.

The STAR can always be counted upon, nevertheless, to champion the cause of labor in its pages, and to give front page prominence to the latest blackmail threat emanating from the mouth of some overpaid sponge on the National Council on Welfare, comfortably installed in its plush, tax-subsidized office in Ottawa’s Brooke Claxton Building, to the effect that the poor will surely revolt if the taxpayer doesn’t cough up more goodies for them.

Only the gullibility and myopia of the public permits the STAR to get away with it.  Buchbinder has found a further tap on the public purse through his employment as an “outside consultant” to John Munro’s Department of National Health and Welfare.  Further, Buchbinder has received $4,000.00 to evaluate the spending of Federal funds on Digger House, a half-way house for Toronto’s hippie parasites on Hazleton Avenue.  By the merest coincidence (?) Buchbinder is listed as an advisor to Digger House.

According to Peter Worthington, Buchbinder receives $7,500.00 from McMaster University in Hamilton as a part-time lecturer.  Since a full-time lecturer rarely lectures over six hours a week, one is left wondering what a part-time lecturer does.  As a consultant to the Federal Government, Buchbinder makes his services available for the modest fee of $200.00 a day.  Nevertheless, we are supposed to believe that Buchbinder has forsaken the US, moved into the heart of the exclusive, upper crust district of Forest Hill out of a feeling for the “powerlessness and frustration experienced by people who attempt to have some control over the content of their lives” (Cf. Praxis letter to the TELEGRAM, December 1970).  Certainly, Buchbinder has come a long way in overcoming his own feeling of powerlessness, largely at the expense of your tax dollar.

FERRY (alias GERRY) HUNNIUS, 27 McMaster Avenue:  According to the Stockholm Estonian-language paper, EESTI PAEVALEHT (December 11, 1970), Ferry Hunnius (born in Tallinn in 1925) is the spoiled son of a rich German-Estonian landowner.  An uncle of his apparently died in a Siberian slave labour camp.  Hunnius first made a name for himself as program director and Soviet Affairs Specialist for the Asian Studies Group at Montreal’s Sir George Williams University, which is linked to the notorious Institute of Pacific Relations.

IPR has been thoroughly unmasked by the US Internal Security Subcommittee as the Red-dominated organization responsible for the sabotaging of US foreign policy against CHIANG Kai-shek and facilitating the Maoist takeover of mainland China.  Subsequently, the IPR, with Owen Lattimore and company migrated, at your expense, to the University of British Columbia.

Hunnius’ activity continued within “pacifist” movements of the “ban the bomb” sort (ours, not the Soviets’, of course) culminating in his attendance in Moscow in 1962, in his capacity as National Secretary of the Canadian Committee for Nuclear Disarmament, at the World Congress for General Disarmament and Peace, sponsored by the Red front, the World Peace Council.  He was concurrently editor of the radical rag, OUR GENERATION, and working with the War Resisters International, operating out of 3934 rue St. Urbain in Montréal, run by veteran Red, Danny Daniels.

In 1963 Hunnius was involved in the Canadian Peace Research Institute (yes, we know Trudeau and Pelletier were on its Executive!).  In 1968, Hunnius helped to organize a world “pacifist” conference in Ljubljana, Yugoslavia, and in the same year was employed as a consultant for the Company of Young Canadians in British Columbia.  In 1969, he was involved with the Rochdale Play School (what else?).

Hunnius‘ ideal of decentralized worker-control of industry is Yugoslavia, from whence he has recently returned, presumably to apply the Yugoslav model to Canada2

(Every year Red dictator Tito turns loose 100,000 people throughout Western Europe to find the employment he cannot provide them at home, with their families carefully kept behind in Yugoslavia as hostages.)  Again we are supposed to believe that Ferry Hunnius’ sole concern is with bettering the lot of the poor people of Toronto.

Stephen Clarkson

Listed as Executive President of Praxis is U. of T. Political Science professor Stephen Clarkson, former Liberal Party candidate for Mayor of Toronto.  Like the innumerable Fabian socialists who have taken over the federal Liberals, Clarkson realizes that he can effect social change, not by honestly joining the New Democratic Party, but by adopting the much more respectable Liberal Party label.  Clarkson has attempted, therefore, to keep his presidency of Praxis out of public view.  His most recent contribution to rational democratic decision-making was the threat that there would be violence if the Spadina Expressway was built.  One finds it hard to conceive of the good professor leaving his Powell Ave. home, tucked away among the $100,000.00 mansions in the bottom of Rosedale, to toss his carcass in front of a bulldozer, though he probably wouldn’t mind being the spokesman, after some suckers like his brainwashed students tried it.  From this power-hungry political incompetent who spent $15,000.00 of his own money in the last mayoralty contest attempting to portray himself as the candidate of the “beautiful people” of young Toronto, there has metamorphosed, apparently, an advocate of “poor people power”.  Now, if Clarkson was really interested in helping the poor, he could have passed out that $15,000.00 in front of the Unemployment Office at Jarvis and Dundas Sts., or he could try serving soup for the Salvation Army or the Scott Mission.  However, the motto of the Scott Mission is “Feed the Poor and Preach the Gospel”, and that just wouldn’t do, not when the cause of poverty is capitalistic.

Listed as the Treasurer of Praxis is U. of T. Political Economy Professor, Abraham Rotstein (102 Admiral Rd.) (1 Highland Ave., Rosedale).  A short word is in order re Mr. Adelman, whose major concern recently has been “student” housing, if one may thus describe Rochdale College, that 18-storey combination pig pen and play pen for “flower children”, drug freaks and assorted revolutionaries.  Rochdale would be nothing more than part of a drug-sodden hippie’s psychotic fantasy, had it not been for men like Adelman, together with the federal politicians behind the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, who, in the midst of an acute housing shortage, saw to the financing of 90% of the cost of Rochdale from the taxpayer’s dollar.

This year’s acting President of Praxis is U. of T. Professor Meyer Brownstone, 57 Poplar Plains Road.  Having been Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs from 1960 to 1964 in the socialist Cooperative Commonwealth Federation [CCF] cabinet of T.C. Douglas in Saskatchewan, Mr. Brownstone should know all about poverty and unemployment and the abject failure of socialism.  In 1960, in the midst of a wheat boom, Saskatchewan had a staggering 30,000 urban workers unemployed.  When free enterprise was restored to Saskatchewan through the defeat of the CCF at the polls in 1964, the exodus of unemployed socialist politicians [and] civil servants hitting the road for Ottawa was on.  Led by Alvin Johnson, now one of the most powerful men in Canada, dozens of these socialists found a new home in top-level positions in the federal bureaucracy, under the auspices of the federal Liberal Party.  Brownstone, however, could do no better than a cushy berth on the public payroll with the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.  Among his other notable achievements is a recent term of service on behalf of the pro-Red régime of Dictator Julius Nyerere of Tanzania.

How Your Tax Dollar Bankrolls Praxis

The backbone of the Praxis budget is a $68,000.00 grant from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in Ottawa.  With this handout, Praxis has been commissioned to do an 18-month study of the organization and structure of lower income groups seeking social change; in other words, $68,000.00 to study the Just Society, “Welfare Rights”, and the other groups which shared the same address with Praxis before the fire of December 18th.  Of this amount, $30,000.00 is to go to two or three researchers, $15,000.00 to a research assistant, and $8,500.00 to a secretary, to concoct a totally predictable doctrinaire socialist manifesto lamenting “the lack of control over our lives”, a manifesto which could just as well be written now.  By thus leeching off the public dollar, and having no one to answer to regarding the quality of their propaganda, the gentlemen of Praxis have a distinct built-in advantage over the productive worker, who must put in a 40-hour week, while they are available at any hour of the day to petition City Hall, lead a protest delegation, write a brief, seek funds, make contacts in the mass media, etc.

It was also a federal initiative, this time engineered through the National Council on Welfare (12 handpicked stooges, led by Reuben Baetz), constituted as an “advisory body” to the federal Department of National Health & Welfare, which set up and financed the farce known as the Poor People’s Conference, held at Toronto’s expensive Lord Simcoe Hotel from January 6th to 8th.  To get 102 groups to send representatives, Praxis was hired as organizer, at a fee of $5,000.00 (that’s $50.00 in postage stamps for each group); $6,000.00 was spent on two organizational meetings, and $51,000.00 on the conference itself.  Again public funds poured in, to the tune of $10,000.00 from the CMHC, $5,000.00 from the Citizenship Branch of the Office of the Secretary of State, and $2,000.00 from the Indian Affairs Branch. Naturally, the so-called “poor people” wanted jobs, not handouts (but they will continue to take the handouts just the same).

Ironically, the conference produced much talk about human dignity; yet, totally devoid of any dignity is the man who will go around proclaiming himself “poor people”, and who will permit himself to be used as a puppet to serve the self-centered ends of his manipulators:  opportunist socialist politicians seeking greater bureaucracy (hence more personal power), welfare bosses seeking a larger welfare empire (hence more personal power), and political science professors, fuzzy-minded, effete intellectual snobs of no redeemable economic value, seeking a guiding role in the vanguard of the rising oppressed masses (hence more personal power).

A certain degree of sincerity in their dedication to underdoggery makes them all the more dangerous.  As for the conference itself, EBS members, associates and allies attended almost all the seminars and general sessions.  Since the conference was transparently staged mainly to serve as a catalyst rallying point for organized nationwide radicalism, in our next issue we shall take a good hard look at the sinister network of groups which has emerged from it, as well as their anti-civic activity.

Space limitations do not permit us, in this present article, to launch upon a serious discussion of a rational, realistic theory of social welfare and the forms it might take.  Suffice it to say that, if this nation is to reverse the drift toward socialist authoritarianism, the basic, guiding principle of a national public assistance program, with regard to those physically and mentally capable of working, should be that of its own abolition, by reason of the need for its existence having been removed.  Today, alas, welfare is becoming nothing more than a political football, for buying votes at election time.

The poorest of our poor still live more expansively than the sable aristocracy of Uganda.  It is still virtually impossible to get a taxicab in Toronto’s Cabbagetown on the day the welfare cheques arrive — they are all lined up outside the liquor stores at Queen and River Sts., and at Gerrard and Ontario Streets.

The theory which Praxis is financed to propagate is that poverty in Canada is the fault of the social structure, not of the individual.  No revolution is possible if the individual is taught that he is responsible for himself.  Only when he has been indoctrinated to believe that government owes him a living, will he be able to shift the blame and strike out at the social structure, when he lacks instant gratification of his desires.  Welfare in turn, compounds the malaise by destroying the initiative of the recipient to seek work, as well as undermining the initiative of the producer who must pay exorbitant taxes to prop up the welfare system.  The day the unproductive outnumber the producers is fast approaching, as a result of the abject failure of the socialist economics practiced by Canada and the United States.

Praxis’ constant message to the public is “give all power to the government, and then we shall have people power and participatory democracy”.

A world littered with the débris of socialist failures seems to make no impression on these idealists. We in the EBS maintain that being on one’s knees before the government is not the posture of a free man. The day when poverty will be unequivocally the fault of a socialist state, and not the individual, is approaching far too rapidly to justify the silence and acquiescence of any of us.

* * * * *

– 30 –

NSIM Editor’s Notes

1  Professor Peter Russell was the first to rubber-stamp — well, the first after Mrs. Windsor, anyway — Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s Marxist constitution which he imposed on Canada in 1982 disguised as “patriation”.*  In a surprisingly candid reflection in his article “Constitutional Reform of the Canadian Judiciary” in the Alberta Law Review of 1969 (7 Alta. L. Rev. 103 (1969), Professor Peter Russell declares the very obvious basis on which that coup was pulled off:

“The opening phrase of the American Constitution, “We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union …” provides the main clue to the basic difference between the status and role of the written constitution in our two countries.  Granted there is an element of political mythology in those initial words of the U.S. Constitution, but still it is a mythology WITH VERY REAL ROOTS in the AMERICAN POLITICAL CULTURE.  For certainly the United States’ Constitution is much more a product and a possession of the POPULAR political conscience of that country than is the B.N.A. Act, with its colonial origins and Imperial trappings, of ours.  In practical terms this means that in Canada THERE IS AN INSUFFICIENT COMMON UNDERSTANDING — at the political level — of the CONTENT and PURPOSE of the important provisions of the Constitution, with the RESULT that ALMOST ANYTHING GOES BECAUSE FEW PEOPLE KNOW.”

— Emphases added by NSIM.

The “few who know” are obviously the Socialists, like Russell himself, who have taken full advantage of our apparently well known ignorance to cuckold us with a Marxist-Leninist overthrow of Confederation.  (See the next footnotes.)

* Russell’s rubber-stamp is here:  The Court and the Constitution, Comments on the Supreme Court Reference on Constitutional Amendment, By Peter Russell, Robert Décary, William Lederman, Noel Lyon, Dan Soberman, Institute of Governmental Relations, Queen’s University, Kingston, 1982, ISBN 0-88911-034-4 (paper); ISBN 0-88911-035-2 (cloth).  Nota Bene, my copy of this document is a PDF provided to me by Queens via email.  As to the Marxist constitution we were given in 1982, my research indicates that the 1982 “Charter” is based on a decree of Stalin and Lenin at the time of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution.

2 Right you are, Jaanus Proos!  Alan Stang, in his April 1971 article in American Opinion entitled “CANADA How The Communists Took Control“, sums up Praxis:

“In other words, Praxis is what the Communists call an “agit-prop” outfit (agitation and propaganda), egging people on to Marxist revolution.”

In the same article, Stang highlights a typical Hunnius-Praxis initiative:

“For instance, in March, 1970, Praxis had run another conference, on “industrial democracy,” at which Gerry Hunnius, who runs Praxis, said workers should “control the means and processes of production.”  What that means, said Hunnius, is this:  “It should be obvious that a fully operational system of workers’ self-management cannot operate within a Capitalist system ….”

No, it cannot.  More importantly:  if you give the factories to the workers, you thus eliminate free enterprise; and if you have given the government to Big Business and their sponsors the international bankers, you have the ultimate cartel, with zero competition.  Therefore, socialism is an elite tool to corner all the markets.

Stang then underscores:

“In October, 1970, Praxis had run still another Conference — this one on “Workers’ Control and Community Control” — at which a demand was made to destroy Capitalism by revolution.  Capitalism would be replaced by “radical Socialism.”  Confrontation is obsolete, the conferees were told.  What they should do now is “infiltrate,” and, like “microbes,” destroy Canada from within.”

The same Professor Russell, still with the University of Toronto in 1999, co-authored an “academic” article advocating that

“If the sovereigntists [they’re Communists] win another referendum in Quebec, the terms of Quebec’s accession to sovereignty should be negotiated and ratified under the existing rules for amending the Canadian Constitution  […].”

— Abstract, Bruce Ryder (Osgoode) and Peter Russell (U. of T.), “Ratifying a Post-Referendum Agreement on Quebec Sovereignty” in The Referendum PapersEssays on Secession and National Unity, David Cameron ed., Toronto:  University of Toronto Press, 1999. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1742100.

That so-called “Canadian Constitution” would be the illegal coup d’état misnamed “patriation” which Russell helped Trudeau to put into place. [For more, see “Patriation and Legitimacy of the Canadian Constitution“, the 1982 Cronkite Lectures, in which one of the chief coup culprits who aided Trudeau, confesses.]

If indeed the “rest of Canada” were to allow the “negotiations” called for with Quebec, as Russell and Ryder both propose, Quebec would become a Communist banana republic on the model of the former Yugoslavia, with self-managed worker factories of the kind espoused by Ferry Hunnius for Praxis, a Marxist agit-prop front which was equally the home of Socialist, Peter Russell.

Are we connecting the dots yet?

A socialist takeover of our academic institutions, of the law journals, of the Province of Quebec, of the Federal “government” (the two latter being both “sides” in the planned “negotiations”), … — and other provinces as well:  the Mike Harris government of Ontario was a complete Red sell-out — the whole to engineer the conversion of all of Canada to a string of banana republics, on a “Yes” in Quebec, using the 1982 “amending formulae” of the Marxist “coup” constitution rubber-stamped by Russell to forcibly restructure Quebec and the whole country to the Yugoslav system favored by Hunnius in the desired “negotiations”.

The fly in the socialist ointment, however, happens to be the temporal (i.e., prospective) character of the Rule of Law.  That which is forbidden by the lawful Constitution of 1867, the BNA Act, cannot be done, including using the front of “constitutional amendment” to seem to authorize what the Constitution forbids.  It forbids, first, replacing itself with any other constitution, as was nonetheless done in 1982; second, it forbids dismantling Canada by “secession”; third, it forbids annexing Canada to the USA (and Mexico) — for example — in a North American Soviet regional union.

That insight links directly to my next footnote:

3  Precisely the Yugoslav self-managed model is at the core of the 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois for a Communist State of Quebec, entitled Quand nous serons vraiment chez nous (translation:  When we will be truly at home).  Which means that French-Canadians in Quebec will never be “truly at home” until they adopt third-world, banana-republic, Tito-style, Yugoslav-style, self-managed factory-worker Communism.  See the Free Downloads tab, top menu, to get your free copy of that Manifesto.  Read the 1972 CBC Radio talk-show translation first, discussing it, in particular where invited guest and Marxist sociologist, Narcisso (Narciso) Pizarro, speaks:

[UN INVITÉ (doit être Narcisso PIZARRO):]

D’un autre côté, une inspiration dans le modèle Yugoslav — c’est-à-dire par­ti­ci­pa­tion, co-gestion, auto-gestion. Euh — […]

[A GUEST (must be Narcisso PIZARRO):]

In another aspect, inspiration in the Yugoslav model:* which is to say participation, co-management, self-management. Uh —


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

Exclusive English!

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

Je reviens de

“I’m Back
from Moscow”



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

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

par Pierre Elliott-Trudeau

by Pierre Elliott-Trudeau

— II —

— II —

Le moi est haïssable” (Pascal)

The ego is hateful” (Pascal)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Je passe !

I’m in !

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

À la Messe !

To Mass!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Je commets un sacrilège

I commit a sacrilege

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Translator’s Notes

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

Stalin's Holodomor against the Kulaks

Stalin's Holodomor against the Kulaks

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

Exclusive English!

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



Red Mole Pierre Elliott Trudeau

Red Mole Pierre Elliott Trudeau

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

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

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

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

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

“Je reviens de Moscou”

“I’m Back from Moscow”

L’auberge de la grande U.R.S.S.

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

par Pierre Elliott-Trudeau

by Pierre Elliott-Trudeau

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Une Rencontre

An International

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problème de conscience

A problem of conscience

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

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

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

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

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

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

Un risque légitime

A legitimate risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

Le citoyen moyen
n’est pas un imbécile

The average citizen
is not an imbecile

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

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

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

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

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

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

LUNDI:  Premières rencontres.

MONDAY:  First encounters.


Translator’s Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ma bohème

Arthur Rimbaud


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

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

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

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

My Wanderlust

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

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

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

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


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


Bourgeois Leftism in the Student Movement

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bourgeois Leftism in the Student Movement

By Edward Goldenberg and Julus Grey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Julius GREY

– 30 –

Magnificent Annual Dinner And Seminar



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

Magnificent Annual Dinner And Seminar


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


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

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

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

Thought-Provoking Messages

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Walsh Pays Tribute
To League Of Rights

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

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

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

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

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

– 30 –

The Decline of the American Republic

The Decline Of The American Republic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 172 –


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 173 –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 174 –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 175 –

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 176 –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 177 –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 178 –

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

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

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

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

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

– 179 –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 180 –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 181 –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 182 –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 183 –

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

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

– 30 –