Category: Historical Reprints.
Source: Straight Talk! Published by The Edmund Burke Society.
Editor: F. Paul Fromm
Associate Editors: Kastuś Akula
Writers: E.B.S. Members and Friends
Directors: The Council of the E.B.S.
Volume III Number 7, April 1971 (Pages 14-20)
The Edmund Burke Society is a movement dedicated to preserving and promoting the basic virtues of Western Christian Civilization — individual freedom; a self-sacrificing love of country; and a willingness to work and pay one’s own way and not be a burden on others. These virtues have made our civilization great Communism, socialism, and welfare-state liberalism are tearing it apart. The Edmund Burke Society stands for a regeneration of Western Civilization and firm action against all its enemies.
The E.B.S. is financed mainly through small donations from generous Canadians. Straight Talk! is produced by voluntary labour.
Gérard Pelletier And The FLQ: New Dimensions In Trudeauvnik Hypocrisy
By Peter DauphinLast March, advance copies of a new book by Secretary of State Gérard Pelletier (“imported terrorism”) were made available to the press in Ottawa, and the fat was in the fire. LA CRISE D’OCTOBRE (The October Crisis), authored by a cabinet Minister, and dealing with matters of high public policy, cannot be considered, as long as its author remains in the government, as an expression of private, personal opinion, and despite the phoney official disclaimers, it must be treated as “semi”, or, at least, as “quasi”-official.
The intriguing thing is that it substantially contradicts the dishonest Trudeau line that he slapped the War Measures Act on the nation because of “apprehended insurrection”, and the Trudeau Cabinet is reported to have been somewhat rocked at being made to look even more foolish by one of its own key members, who also happens to be the Prime Minister’s right hand.
Published by Les Éditions du Jour in Montréal, run by soft-hearted, soft-headed Jacques Hébert (“working in the shadows”), who worships Trudeau with the fervour of a dedicated chauvinist, the book points out
that the Front de libération du Québec has been gestating in that province for eight years, that it is a tool of the Communist Party, that none of the electronic equipment it has stolen since 1965 has ever been recovered, that it has “little concern for Québec nationalism despite its propaganda,” and links it to collateral red front groups such as the Front de libération populaire (People’s Liberation Front), and the Mouvement Syndicale Politique (Trade Union Political Movement).
Pelletier, who was tight-lipped throughout the crisis, now tells us that “The FLQ never tried to seize power in Quebec on the occasion of the October crisis. I doubt they had this intention in the course of the eight years of existence of their movement.” Readers of STRAIGHT TALK!, of course, will not be surprised at these “revelations” from on high. As we reported at the time (October 1970), “invoking the War Measures Act is all out of proportion to the danger it is supposed to deal with. The FLQ, despite the panic in Ottawa and Quebec, is not about to take over Canada or Québec!Any action to curb these ‘few guys throwing bombs’ as recently as a year ago, was frowned upon by the Trudeau dictatorship as ‘McCarthyism’ and ‘witch-hunting’ which the government was prepared to ‘deal with immediately’; but then, of course, Trudeau did not feel his own person to be seriously threatened, and had confidence in the safety provided him by the elaborate security precautions he had taken back in 1968 to protect himself, following the assassination of Robert Kennedy.”
In our December (1970) issue, we wrote that
“Trudeau really does not want to see the forces of Red revolution defeated. Just yesterday he was the political intimate of many of the FLQ leaders.”
The progressive press, of course, has a different explanation, one consistent with its Maoist mythology: Trudeau was eager to “repress” the rising forces of “national liberation and social change” and to persecute “revolutionaries” generally. (Things are so simple when you live in the fantasy world of leftist alienation).
MARX AGAINST VIOLENCE ??!!
While much that is true in the Pelletier book is not new, what is new is not necessarily true, or at least reflects some of the political confusion and inconsistency which overlays much Trudeauvnik rhetoric.
Pelletier now admits, accurately, that
“The backing for the FLQ came, not from the proletariat in whose name (it) presumed to speak, but from intellectuals” (Cf. William Johnson, despatch from Montreal, GLOBE & MAIL, March 25, 1971).
Inaccurately, he refers to the FLQ as “for the most part, relatively indifferent to any Marxist or Maoist ideology.” This was capped by the monumental political illiteracy of Jérome Choquette, Minister of Justice in the cabinet of Robert Bourassa, who, when asked to comment on the Pelletier opus, told the press on March 24th that the FLQ “may resemble Communism” but was “not pure Marxism because Marx was against violence”!
Choquette was to expand on the political illiteracy of the police in general five days later when he addressed the Toronto Board of Trade (March 29th):
“The police are not knowledgeable, and are only partially equipped to deal with organized crime and terrorism. They do not have the proper perspectives and methods,” he said, “to understand the ideological background of terrorism. We require thinkers who will understand the terrorists’ motives.” (Cf. TELEGRAM, page 28, March 30, 1971).
– Page 15 –Predictably, Pelletier‘s book has provided the psychopathic left, now engaged in openly and brazenly defending the FLQ killers (and the social communist CCF-NDP is up to its navel in this counterfeit “civil rights” movement), with excellent ammunition with which to embarrass the Trudeau Compact.
Pelletier having finally forced himself to admit the nihilist nature of felquisme (a rather recent development, to say the least), he now begins to assume, in their eyes, something of the aspect of the late US Senator Joseph McCarthy. To those inexperienced in the devious manoeuvering of this paternalistic poker game, this would be misleading. The record, alas, still stands:
At the time, Pelletier was one of the founders, with Trudeau, of the magazine CITÉ LIBRE, which they both edited, as well as editor-in-chief of the prestigious Montréal family daily, LA PRESSE. In 1962, Pierre Vallières, who was and had been for some time a contributor to the pages of CITÉ LIBRE (along with such literary luminaries as his buddy Charles Gagnon, John Harbron, and Stanley Ryerson), returned from Europe and was promptly hired by Pelletier as a reporter for LA PRESSE.
from 1960 to 1965, Pelletier convened a number of secret, informal meetings in his posh Westmount home, involving such famous personages as Pierre-Elliott Trudeau (“I am against revolution”); René Lévesque (“The giant is awakening”), then a Minister in the Liberal Cabinet of Jean LeSage1 (“opened the door to propose all the constitutional changes Quebec could desire”), and now leader of the national socialist Parti Québécois; Jean Marchand (“Now all members of the FLQ are not terrorists”) another key man in Trudeau’s federal politburo; and Jean-Louis Gagnon, who, in 1938, organized the Soviet front known as the French-Canadian Revolutionary Party, and who today is Trudeau’s choice as Director of Information Canada.
According to Peter Desbarats, “Trudeau … maintained a high opinion of (Vallières’) ability. At a small dinner at Chez Son Père, a journalists’ restaurant only a quick stagger from LA PRESSE, Trudeau and Pelletier, in the summer of 1963, suggested that Vallières and another journalist take charge of CITÉ LIBRE” (Cf. “Quebec’s Imprisoned Revolutionary”, SATURDAY NIGHT, February 1970). Vallières accepted the appointment, only to walk out in the following March (1964), having violently disagreed with the Trudeau strategy of legal*, Fabian infiltration of the federal structure, in favour of the “national liberation” ploy of the Red imperialists.
* (NB: Fabian-style invasion of a political party for unconstitutional objectives is not “legal”. It is criminal subversion of the means of government. Canada cannot be overthrown “legally”. The usurpation of elected or appointed office is not “legal”, but is fraud and treason.)A year later, Messrs. Trudeau, Pelletier and Marchand accepted the invitation of Prime Minister Lester Pearson (“There is nothing in the Middle East which would require Canada to go to war. Why should we?”) to enter the ranks of the federal Liberal Party, where they were immediately ensconced in positions of leadership and influence under Pearson‘s (left?) wing. The Québécois left (largely a coterie of reactionary intellectuals), failing to appreciate the Machiavellian duplicity of the move, complained that the totalitarian trio had deserted them and gone over to the enemy camp.
To reassure them, Pelletier and Trudeau published a piece in LE DEVOIR (Montréal) pointing out that
Just how open was to be made abundantly clear in the next five years. An outcry was heard from Progressive Conservative kingmaker Dalton Camp, who charged that the Pearson administration, in clasping “the three wise men from Quebec” to its bosom, was not merely “leaning to the left”, but “rushing pell-mell to the left” (Cf. TELEGRAM, October 6, 1965). Since then, of course, Mr. Camp has cynically demonstrated his own “politics open to the left”, having joined New Democratic Party leader T. C. Douglas to grace platforms at Yankee-baiting, anti-Viet Nam rallies.
“We are pursuing the same objectives and adhering to the same political ideas we have been espousing for so long in CITÉ LIBRE”, including, it was made clear, “a politics open to the left.”
In 1968, Trudeau was Prime Minister and Pelletier was Secretary of State. Their protégé, Vallières, was on trial for the murder of Thérèse Morin, who died in the FLQ bombing of the La Grenade Shoe Factory in Montréal. The defense listed both Trudeau and Pelletier as witnesses. To our knowledge, neither appeared. In 1969, Quebec’s Court of Appeal granted Vallières a new trial, and he petitioned for bail. To plead his case at the bail hearing, he subpoenaed his former comrades, those famous “civil libertarians” Pelletier and Trudeau, and again they weasled out of this legal obligation. (The law can so often be bent to accommodate Mr. Trudeau; remember how a Justice of the Peace in Vancouver in 1965 refused to charge Trudeau with assault committed against two demonstrators, despite the information duly laid against him?) These old (not really so old) Stalinist skeletons in the political closet of Messrs. Trudeau and Pelletier continue to rattle most eloquently.
When it became clear that the presiding Judge at Vallières’ bail hearing, Paul Trepanier, was going out of his way to spare Trudeau and Pelletier the embarrassment of obeying this legal obligation to appear, Vallières’ lawyer, the notorious Robert
– Page 16 –
Lemieux, mouthed off at the microphones of the CBC news program, THE WORLD AT SIX, that Pelletier, Trudeau, and Vallières had been most intimate associates in the early sixties at CITÉ LIBRE, and that they “did everything together”.
The FLQ front, Committee for Aid to the Vallières-Gagnon group, distributed a leaflet outside the courtroom, lamenting, “Thus does the Prime Minister coldly turn his back on a former comrade and collaborator.”
THE COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS: PELLETIER’S PROGRESSIVE PORK BARREL
Almost from its inception, about the same time that “the three wise men” from the Québécois left had moved into the Pearson inner circle, the CYC has managed to make enough trouble to keep it in the headlines from coast to coast on a pretty regular basis. Established ostensibly to “support, encourage and develop programs for social, economic and community development in Canada and abroad through voluntary service” (Cf. Act to Establish the CYC), such vague terms of reference were ideally suited to accommodate the Trotskyites, Maoists, and assorted leftwing nazis of the Student Union for Peace Action and Canadian Union of Students variety, who flocked to its banners and got on the federal gravy train and milked it for all it was worth.
Since many of them were getting restless in SUPA (where a split on strategy was brewing between the Stalinists and the Fabians), and the CUS was beginning to feel the first stirrings of the student resistance to its phony, pocket-picking racket which ultimately destroyed it, the arrival of CYC upon the scene, the gift of Prime Minister Pearson, was most convenient as a means of employing the anti-social energy of these professional juvenitarians and assorted anarcho-socialists.
In an article entitled “The Student Movement and Canadian Independence”, James Laxer, candidate for the leadership of the national NDP, and reputed to be the real author of its WAFFLE MANIFESTO, revealed that SUPA “was the organization of the Canadian new left. During its brief history it had a major impact on youth organizations in Canada — especially the CYC and CUS.” Laxer describes the above-mentioned split in SUPA as a contest between the “militants”, who “tended to oppose activity in mainstream organizations”, on the one hand, and the “liberals” on the other, who were “attracted to the Company of Young Canadians, where (they) saw an opportunity to continue (their) previous activities in a more affluent setting”; he also makes it clear that they were “attracted by the prospects of using or wrecking the CYC”. This article appeared in the Summer 1969 issue of CANADIAN DIMENSION, a Maoist magazine published in Winnipeg by Cy Gonick, who now sits in the Manitoba Legislature for the NDP government of that province.
Judy La Marsh, Pearson‘s Secretary of State, confessed in 1969 that “its (the CYC’s) problems were never discussed in cabinet … None of the Ministers were able to become involved with the Company … We were never consulted on appointments to CYC’s Board, and never had much of an idea of what the Company was supposed to be doing” (Cf. article by William French, GLOBE & MAIL, November 6, 1969).
Though only constituted, legally and formally, by Parliament in 1966, the CYC structure and administration were set up at least a year before that, and those who took it over had very clear ideas of what they had in mind: “constructive shit-disturbing”, in the words of its Director, Stewart Goodings, speaking to students at Toronto’s St. Michael’s College in November of that year (Cf. VARSITY, November 19, 1965).
The nation had been shocked to learn in the previous August that SUPA had been given a $4,000.00 contract by the CYC (“to buy information”), which was seen as overt subsidization of subversion. “SUPA is the only young people’s group in Canada”, Goodings told the press in Ottawa, “that has done the sort of work we want to do.”
Ironically, in the following year, the Act establishing the CYC as an official entity, was to designate it as a “charitable organization”, thus retroactively legalizing this criminal diversion of public funds. It was now clear that the recipients of its “charity” (siphoned from the public purse) were to be the active agents and freeloaders of the nation’s degenerate communist subculture.
Established from the beginning, subsequent events would only confirm the existence of an organic tie-in with such fascist fronts as SUPA (since 1967, transmuted into a number of new fronts) and the terror apparatus of Quebec’s notorious “Strangulation” front, the FLQ.
In 1967, Mao-worshiping David De Poe (“an atmosphere of intimidation — people were being beaten up”) was arrested for stopping traffic with his hippie disciples in Toronto’s hippie roost, Yorkville (a typical CYC project) and his CYC bosses obligingly hired the expensive Aubrey Golden to defend him (they’re spending our money, remember!) Golden again appeared for De Poe last March when he was tried for “obstructing the police” in the course of the Red anti-American riot at the US Consulate last May 9th. That same summer (1967), the
– Page 17 –
Montreal GAZETTE published a front page denunciation of the CYC’s anti-Canadian activities, charging that “Communists and other radicals” were “trying to take over” the CYC. The paper quoted an article by CYC “field worker” Lynn Curtis (“The company has little meaning to my work here, except for the money”), published in the Communist Party’s youth magazine, SCAN (Scab?) “which recommended the Company as a good place for radical youth to accomplish something” and which bragged of “a shift to the left in the CYC in the past year” (Cf. despatch from Ottawa, GLOBE, August 25, 1967).
Columnist Lubor Zink commented at the time that
“the fact that this attack from within has, in the form of the CYC, acquired Government sponsorship and financing, shows the extent of our befuddlement … we are perilously vulnerable to ideological infiltration and subversion. It is this type of conquest which the nihilistic dupes of the shrewd enemies of democracy are pushing hardest, cashing in on our unpreparedness to meet the attack which we even help finance from public funds (Cf. Zink’s column, August 31, 1967).
Of course, the warning went unheeded in official Ottawa.
In November 1968, after Trudeau had become Prime Minister, Ray Perrault (Liberal, Burnaby-Seymour), in the course of a Commons debate over the CYC’s budget for 1968-69 (nearly two million dollars!) questioned the payment of a fee of $11,000.00 (and “expenses” to the tune of $8,140.82) to Ferry Hunnius, for a fifty-page “Report”, the gist of which was
“that the Western parliamentary system in its various variations (sic), does not meet the demands of the technological age and the simultaneous desire of the individual to participate meaningfully in the social, political, and economic decisions that affect him.”
What Mr. Hunnius would replaced our system of responsible government with may be inferred from his long career in such fascist fronts as the World Peace Council, the Canadian Committee for Nuclear Disarmament (later to become SUPA), the Canadian Peace Research Institute (Pelletier and Trudeau as former Directors), and more recently, the sinister Praxis Corporation (Cf. despatch from Ottawa by John Dafoe, GLOBE, November 16, 1968).
In 1969, we had our first or “little” October Crisis: in a joint statement issued by Mayor Jean Drapeau and Executive Committee Chairman Lucien Saulnier, on behalf of Montreal’s municipal administration, the CYC was denounced for its accommodation of “convicted terrorists and Communist agitators.”
In Ottawa, the CYC’s Public Relations Director, Ian Hamilton (“our volunteers are free to join any party they want”) cautiously admitted that “two or three” of the CYC’s Québec workers were members of the FLP (the above ground, “legal” arm of the FLQ) but insisted that the CYC “would continue to regard it as a political party like any other” (Cf. despatch from Ottawa by John Burns, GLOBE, October 14, 1969).
Later that month, T. Anthony Malcom, Vice-President of the Quebec Section of the Liberal Federation of Canada, told an electrified audience in Mont Royal that the CYC was in complicity with the FLQ terror, and linking the latter to financial and political sponsorship in occupied Cuba, Algeria, and with the Red terrorists of El Fatah in the Holy Land and the Black Panther Party in the USA. He listed, not Hamilton’s grudging “two or three”, but 27 “alleged subversives” on the CYC’s payroll. All this happened after Trudeau, in the previous March, had given Saulnier his solemn assurance that “Pelletier had assured him (Trudeau) that the Company’s new Executive was working to reduce the influence of undesirable elements” in the CYC! (The only elements considered “undesirable” in the CYC, it would seem, were Christians — such as Ruth Watson, turned down in September 1966 because, she was told, “my allegiance to God would make me partial”).
This assurance was part of the famous secret correspondence which provided the House of Commons with another of Trudeau‘s famous lies; at the end of November 1969, when the House was full of the CYC-FLQ scandal, he denied ever having received a complaint from Saulnier the previous March, and then just happened to run across it in his files, which should tell us how seriously he took the news of Soviet infiltration and freeloading within the CYC!Further evidence of this infiltration from the top down was published the next day in Douglas Fisher‘s column (December 2, 1969), where Fisher’s interview with Marc Lalonde, “Pearson‘s braintruster, now PM Trudeau‘s chief of staff”, revealed that “The (Executive) Council (of the CYC) never really had tight control from the start. Remember that there were members on the Provisional Council who believed very strongly in the New Left methods, people like Art Pape of SUPA… By the end of the CYC’s first major training session for volunteers at Antigonish in September 1966, the pattern was set of using New Left methods. Those of us in the Prime Minister’s office … didn’t want to interfere too
– Page 18 –
much.” They didn’t “interfere” in March 1969, either, after Saulnier’s first discreet complaint, despite Trudeau‘s sanctimonious assurances to him that something would be done. Indeed, the situation got worse and worse, and led to the joint statement of Messrs. Saulnier and Drapeau in October, as well as the McCarthyite blast of T. Anthony Malcom.
That autumn, the press was saturated with revelations of the extent of the corruption in the CYC: American draft dodgers living high off the hog (and we do mean “high”) on CYC-furnished incomes; pornographic, blasphemous “underground” papers financed by CYC and mailed postage free; Christian volunteers purged because of their religion; FLQ terrorists in top, strategic jobs; CYC paying rental on premises used by FLQ fronts; expensive equipment supplied to such fronts, e.g., typewriters, office equipment, etc.; long distance telephone calls to New York, Hollywood, etc., etc.. There seemed to be no end of it, and it had been going on from the beginning!
PELLETIER RUNS INTERFERENCE
Despite the widespread public clamour for a Royal Commission to investigate this mess, Pelletier and the Trudeau Compact took decisive steps to ward off such a threat to their children in the street right from the start, and worked to “contain” the scandal by means of an inquiry by a mere Parliamentary Committee (they controlled Parliament, after all, and certainly had learned how to hogtie parliamentary committees!).
Pelletier announced on October 23rd that “a House Committee will look into accusations that the Company has been involved in subversive activities” and admitted that he had known that FLQ terrorist Pierre Renaud, Regional Co-Ordinator of the CYC in Quebec, had been convicted of attempted robbery in an FLQ fund-raising drive (Cf. Peter Ward, despatch from Ottawa, TELEGRAM, October 23, 1969).
The next day, the inquiry was confided to the House Committee on Broadcasting, Film, and Assistance to the Arts, (the unconscious humor went unnoticed) and T. C. Douglas expressed concern that the inquiry could “escalate into a witch-hunt” (familiar?), and said he could not accept an investigation of the CYC’s “subversive activities”, only an “evaluation” of its program.
Pelletier responded dutifully to this prompting from the social communist left: “any suspicion of witch-hunting or McCarthyism will be dealt with immediately”, he said, thus contradicting Peter Ward’s report (Cf. Claude Henault‘s report, Ottawa, TELEGRAM, October 23rd).
Three days later, Citizen Trudeau himself, in an interview with CBC-TV’s ace newsman Ron Collister, nailed down this crucial deflection of the investigation when he said “that the Commons Committee investigating the Company of Young Canadians would not probe charges of subversion such as those made by Montreal Executive Council Chairman Lucien Saulnier“, but would confine itself to looking into “the structure and organization and general activities of the CYC.”
Pelletier had been more categorical: “it was the behaviour of the Company, and not that of any individuals within it which was to be investigated” (a transparently specious distinction!) (Cf. Henault, ibid.). Scarcely a month before, September 29th, Pelletier had told the press that in regard to the CYC in Quebec, “we will draw the line at sedition” (Cf. Canadian Press, September 29, 1969).
Well, they had never drawn the line, neither at the birth of the CYC, nor in March of that year when Saulnier had asked for a Royal Commission, and now the Trudeauvniks were taking steps to see that Parliament be prevented from getting to the root of the problem, and that the publicly-financed Red traitors be protected from the people’s McCarthyism!
It was chillingly clear that the Trudeau-Pelletier clique had all along covered, accommodated, protected and run interference for the CYC’s substantial relations, not only with the FLQ, but other Red fifth column operations as well, permitting public funds and facilities to be made available to these Red fivers and enemies of the people.
Despite the Trudeau-Pelletier strictures and the interference of fanatic Liberal back-benchers doing their bit to shield the CYC traitors (“MP’s from three parties who will be on the committee have told me that it is not going to be a witch hunt for separatists, Trotskyites, etc.”&nbap;– Douglas Fisher, November 4, 1969), the Committee carried on, and finally brought down its Report on December 4th, which admitted that
“Evidence has been adduced of an infiltration into the Company, particularly in one region of the country, by individuals who have used the Company as a base for acts of subversion, violence and illegality, which the administrators of the Company were apparently powerless to control. It would also appear that public funds may have (sic) been surreptitiously diverted to support those purposes … that … various volunteers … participated in overt acts of a political and partisan nature, contrary to the objectives and best interests of the Company,”
all of which was public knowledge before the Committee began its “inquiry”.
– Page 19 –
Nothing was done but to place the CYC under some sort of financial trusteeship, and little has been heard of the CYC since. The scoundrels responsible for this treasonous scandal are still in power, wrapping themselves up in the Canadian flag, escaping the focused scrutiny which their responsibility and complicity merit, shifting the spotlight to anyone, anywhere, anything, if only to avoid having to answer for their guilt, or for having to face the real issue: Red terror.Trudeau has labored mightily to avoid having to identify the enemy: they were always those “separatists … and others” (we knew they were Red agents). During the October crisis, he launched the bogey of an alleged “takeover” plot to form a “provisional government” in Quebec to deal with the FLQ (through the instrumentality of his chief sycophant in the English-language press, Peter C. Newman, then running THE DAILY STAR). This was to implicate René Lévesque and the editor of the Montreal LE DEVOIR, Claude Ryan (“He has laid the blame at everyone’s doorstep except his own”), since these gentlemen had signed a public statement urging a soft, compliant line toward the FLQ demands.
When Peter Reilly of the News Department of CJOH-TV (Ottawa) was about to expose the whole ploy in a T.V. documentary, steps were taken to quash it. Labour Minister Bryce Mackasey (I’ll give you some valuable background information”) summoned Reilly to his plush office; the show was never to see the airwaves. Trudeau then had the consummate effrontery to blame the press for having fabricated the story, the “truth” of which he still refused to deny.
All this was designed, in the Reichstag-fire mentality of the Trudeau Compact, to reinforce its allegation of “apprehended insurrection”, its specious justification for the imposition of a police state.
Now we have Pelletier‘s new book charting new dimensions in Trudeauvnik hypocrisy by telling us that the FLQ “has developed into an international Communist underground with little concern for Quebec nationalism”,
a “development” in which he and the whole “Trudeau Chapel” have played a real and sinister role, abusing their high offices as guardians of the national security and the federal purse.
Even while Pelletier was checking the galley proofs of his book, his fellow cabinet Minister, (Defence!) Donald MacDonald (“on the whole you had a pattern of incidents here, which, given the revolutionary ideology we’re talking about, in other situations and in other countries, had escalated itself up into a state of disorder in which it will be virtually impossible to carry on the normal processes of Government”) was doing his bit to keep public money flowing down to the FLQ!
The February issue of DEUX MAI, (May 2nd) a sheet published by the FLQ front, Movement for the Defence of Political Prisoners in Quebec, featured a half-page ad for the Department of National Defence! How much did the Reds get for this ad? How many Red sheets are thus subsidized? How much of the Department’s pared-to-the-bone budget is thus diverted to the Red fifth column in Canada?
The special March issue of this sheet featured a front page devoted entirely to the killer of Pierre Laporte: a “Che Guevara”-type portrait of the killer, with the quotation: “I shall have my true trial after total independence, after the liberation of the people of Quebec.”While continuing to finance Red terror and treason, the Trudeau Compact and its lackeys now confess their impotence to cope with it: “It can happen anywhere”, Jérome Choquette tells the Toronto Board of Trade, “but particularly in the big cities like Toronto and Vancouver.” His boss and Trudeau stooge Robert Bourassa, Prime Minister [sic] of Quebec, told the press last November 30th that
“We cannot stamp out terrorism entirely — in fact we must get used to new forms of terrorism” (Cf. CP, Montreal, December 1, 1970).
Later in December, Lord Elliott himself, in a letter to the Army, warned that “bombings, kidnappings, and other acts of violence are possibilities we may have to face in the future” (Cf. despatch from Ottawa, TELEGRAM, March 31, 1971). What it means, of course, is that the authorities are determined to tolerate Red terror indefinitely, cost what it may to the Canadian people!
“ALL GUYS FROM OUR FAMILY”Last month we stated that the shadow boxing of the Trudeau Compact in October was “a contest in which both antagonists emerged from the same ideological corner.” This was more or less confirmed by René Lévesque on March 23rd last on the Pierre Berton show, when he referred to the Trudeauvniks as “all guys from our family”. On the same day, he addressed the National Press Club (they’ll take anybody) in Trudeaugrad, venting his spleen at the hypocrisy of the Trudeauvnik federalists: “Guys like Trudeau and Marchand, the great democrats of 15 years ago, forgetting practically everything that I’d read of them, and in some cases, written along with them.”
– Page 20 –
Just what Pelletier‘s book is supposed to accomplish is not clear. It has caused a lot of ruckus in the Trudeau Politburo. Conservative Party whip in the Commons, Tom Bell, has suggested that Trudeau is involved in its production, since his personal staffer, Pierre Billon, “worked long hours” on it prior to publication.
If Trudeau is involved, it is probably in an effort to try to back away as gracefully as he can, with the passage of time and the shortness of human memory to help, from the untenable grounds for his imposition of the War Measures Act last October. Such Machiavellian melodrama, probably inspired more by a fear for his own skin2 than anything concretely tangible in terms of true national emergency, was hardly in proportion to the menace posed by those he had so cavalierly dismissed as “a bunch of guys throwing bombs”.
Now he is to be the first Canadian Prime Minister to officially visit the USSR while in office. This visit to the Red Fatherland will not be his first, though it will be his first under the “Liberal” label. He was to have gone last autumn, but the pilgrimage was postponed, because the USSR had decided to pay a little visit to James Cross and Pierre Laporte.
– 30 –
* Author Peter Dauphin notes that Trudeau, Pelletier and Marchand were “immediately ensconced in positions of leadership and influence” and he asks, “under Pearson‘s (left?) wing”. In fact, in the same April 1971 issue, Jaanus Proos for the Edmund Burke Society (“The John Birch Society Looks at Trudeau: A Review”) emphatically denies that Pearson is Communist; however, Proos is wrong.
Pearson had been outed by defecting Soviet military intelligence (GRU), Elizabeth Bentley, during the U.S. McCarran hearings. A chunk of Pearson’s FBI file is online, with a letter from the FBI advising Canada’s RCMP that Pearson was a Soviet agent. How Pearson became Prime Minister nonetheless is as yet unknown.
1 Ed. NSIM: At page 101 of the Parti Québécois’s 1972 political manifesto entitled Quand nous serons vraiment chez nous, we learn that since 1961, Quebec governments had been trying … to construct a Communist Plan. Jean Lesage was Premier of Quebec in 1961, with Communist René Lévesque in his “Liberal” Cabinet. Further research indicates that “all the constitutional changes Quebec could desire” from the standpoint of Mr. Lesage, could be listed under one heading: REGIONAL UNION, Communist style, based on the one forming overseas in Europe, i.e., the European Economic Community, now fondly dubbed by the Perestroika Deception‘s Mikhail Gorbachev as the “New European Soviet“. In other words, from at least 1961, shortly after the signing in Europe of the twin Treaties of Rome initiating that regional union, the Communists, sometimes under the label of “Liberals”, have been working in Quebec on producing the top half of the North American Soviet Union.
2 Ed. NSIM: In my view, the reason Trudeau seized the whole country with War Measures is because all of Canada is scheduled to be restructured for regional union. Therefore, the whole country had to be implicated, so as to involve it later in “negotiating” the regional union with Quebec as the “political solution” to the crisis presented by the FLQ terrorists.
Which also explains why there were War Measures to begin with. Trudeau was not simply inspired “by a fear for his own skin”. He was a Soviet mole, executing a strategy preparatory to planned negotiations to restructure all of Canada for Soviet convergence and regional North American Union.
As such, occupying the federal level, Trudeau and other Red agents could not be seen “negotiating” in the manner by which the terms of the Anglo-Irish treaty had been concluded in the 1920s, between representatives of the British Government on the one hand, and representatives of what in the strict British eye was an illegal assembly of rebels. The Reds in the federal government could not dispose of the territory of Quebec, which is a legal jurisdiction, by “negotiating” with any band of rebels. There had to be someone credible to negotiate with.
Moreover, the FLQ had no control over territory. Logically, this is why the Parti Québécois was set up. A political party could assume control over territory, and pretend to dispose of it. The Parti Québécois, garbed as a “separatist” party, with a media personality at its head (René Lévesque), would look “mainstream”. In power, it would have control of territory, and be (falsely) presumed to have the right to dispose of it.
The FLQ terrorists were far more often deliberately mislabeled in the general media as “separatists”, or as “ultra-nationalist French Canadians” because the Communist goal of the “negotiations” was to be hidden behind the appearance of an “ethnic war”.
– 30 –
Post Scriptum: I was very interested by the statement in E.B.S. above that Pelletier had admitted the “Front de libération du Québec … is a tool of the Communist Party.”
I got the book at the library (Pelletier’s 1971 La Crise d’Octobre) and scanned it into my laptop. I’ve gone through the whole thing and cannot find a statement that amounts to this. I’m reading the French book as it appeared in 1971, published by Editions du Jour, there’s no ISBN in the book. I can’t find that statement. Admittedly, I was reading quickly, and “scanned” over much of it, but it’s not as long as the 200+ pages makes it seem. The publisher has relied on a lot of white space to fill out the book.
I did find at page 57 a statement that seems quite different from this:
Par ailleurs, je demeure perplexe devant l’hypothèse d’une direction centrale du FLQ, une sorte d’éminence grise tirant les ficelles de loin. J’hésite même à croire à une planification ou simplement à une concertation stratégique des diverses cellules felquistes. Par parenthèse, je suis bien conscient, en émettant cette hypothèse, d’amener de l’eau au moulin de ceux qui condamnent les gouvernements pour avoir, à leur avis, exagéré l’ampleur du danger et l’importance du mouvement subversif.
In addition, I remain perplexed by the theory of central control of the FLQ, a kind of éminence grise pulling the strings from afar. Likewise, I hesitate to believe in planning or simply in strategic cooperation of the various FLQ cells. In parentheses, I am quite conscious, in putting forth this hypothesis, of adding grist to the mill of those who condemn the governments for having, in their view, exaggerated the extent of the danger and the importance of the subversive movement.
Pelletier thus denies that the FLQ is controlled by others from a distance. This would seem to negate the assertion by EBS in 1971 that Pelleter had claimed the FLQ is a “tool” of the Communist Party, i.e., of Moscow, which would necessarily be pulling its strings from a distance.
Pelletier’s particular reference to an “éminence grise”, moreover, seems self-conscious to me, as if Pelletier is attempting to exonerate himself and Trudeau et als from any links to the F.L.Q. violence. These two older men (“éminences grises“) were indeed employers of two younger men, at Cité Libre, who as of 1965 would become leaders of the apparently “youthful” FLQ, Pierre Vallières and Charles Gagnon. I moreover do not accept Pelletier’s self-exoneration, if that’s what it is. In any event, Pelletier’s denial appears opposite a cartoon on the facing page, of some older geezer in glasses and a moustache, directing the F.L.Q. while sitting at home in his slippers. I’m not familiar with all the faces of that era, but this isn’t a cartoon of Pelletier, and it’s unclear whether it’s meant to be a picture of someone specific.
If I come across the statement that “the Front de libération du Québec … is a tool of the Communist Party” at any time in a further reading, I will be gratified. I’m still looking for it. If it exists, I would like to have it. If anyone has read the book, in French or perhaps it exists in English, and knows where the statement is, please let me know. In the meantime, I haven’t yet found it. Ed. NSIM.