The Unknown Communist Career of Patrick “Pat” Walsh


Pat Walsh (1953)

Pat Walsh 1953

FOREWORD

Above are portraits of friends and colleagues of Pat Walsh during his communist career.  Of course, Pat defected on February 27th, 1953, on the front pages of the French-Canadian newspaper, L’Action Catholique, revealing that he had long been an undercover agent for the RCMP.  You’ll find some of Pat’w work at the present web site.  See the top menu, or search for his name.

Five years earlier, in 1947, the Catholic anti-communists of Le Goglu in Quebec, Pat’s home province, were none too pleased with Walsh.  In the 18th January 1947 issue of Le Goglu, Joseph Menard published extracts from a letter of Walsh commenting on Le Goglu in another review, “Le Canada”.  Menard added his own “appropriate” comments.

A month later, in the article below, Menard for Le Goglu, gave Pat the “Full Monty”, exposing him as a Communist organizer.

Below is my exclusive English translation of Joe Menard’s February 11th, 1947 editorial:  “PAT WALSH EST UN SALE COMMUNISTE”, “PAT WALSH IS A DIRTY COMMUNIST”.  The text of the French original is parallel.

Le Goglu was a political humour magazine with a sharp cutting edge.  It had two incarnations.  In the second, the one that produced this French “unauthorized” bio on Walsh, Joseph Menard was manager, editor, chief cook, bottle washer and editorial writer.  If the first incarnation of Le Goglu is of interest, visit Adrien Arcand Books for lots of cartoons, Goglu stories, free ebooks and other materials by and about Roman Catholic Fascist, Adrien Arcand, his life and times.  Adrien Arcand Books is a Quebec Heritage site.


PAT WALSH IS A DIRTY COMMUNIST

PAT WALSH EST UN SALE COMMUNISTE

JOSEPH MENARD”S NEW GOGLU, 22 FEBRUARY 1947

For the First Time, in English


A communist organizer, he incited workers to riot. ― He was part of the Irish Republican Army, a communist group condemned by the clergy of Ireland. ― He was editor of “Fleur de Lys”, a newspaper where there were communist rantings. ― While in the army, he was an instructor at the Osterly Park School and was thrown out for his communist teachings.
Organisateur communiste, il incita les ouvriers à l’émeute. ― Il a fait partie de l’Armée Républicaine Irlandaise, groupement communiste condamné par le clergé d’Irlande. ― Il fut rédacteur de “Fleur de Lys”, journal ou l’on trouvait des élucubrations communistes. ― Pendant qu’il était dans l’armée, il fut instructeur au Osterly Park School et en fut sorti pour ses enseignements communistes.

HE WAS ONE OF THOSE WHO WENT TO SPAIN TO FIGHT
FOR COMMUNISM

IL FUT L’UN DE CEUX QUI ALLERENT EN ESPAGNE COMBATTRE
POUR LE COMMUNISME


Notre journal a publié, il y a quelques semaines, une lettre signée d’un nommé Pat Walsh, lettre qui avait paru dans le “Canada”.  Nous avons publié en même temps des commentaires appropriés.

A few weeks ago, our newspaper published a letter signed by a man named Pat Walsh, a letter which had appeared in “Canada”.  At the same time, we published appropriate comments.

Certains se sont demandé(s) ce qu’était au juste ce Pat Walsh.  Nos lecteurs trouveront ci-après des renseignements qu’ils apprécieront sûrement.

Some have wondered just who this Pat Walsh is.  Our readers will find information below that they will surely appreciate.

* * *

* * *

Pat Walsh est un organisateur communiste.  À Rouyn, où il a exercé son triste métier, il a causé de lourds ravages dans la classe ouvrière en incitant les ouvriers à l’émeute.  Pour montrer qu’il était bien un organisateur communiste, on n’a qu’à rappeler que tout le temps qu’il fit sont travail, il obtint l’appui constant du journal “La Victoire”, l’organe communiste de Montréal.  Pendant son séjour en Abitibi, Pat Walsh a eu pour compagne de travail Jeanne Corbin, une communiste notoire.

Pat Walsh is a communist organizer.  In Rouyn, where he practiced his sad profession, he caused heavy ravages among the working class by inciting the workers to riot.  To show that he was a communist organizer, one need only recall that throughout his work, he had the unflagging support of the newspaper “La Victoire”, the communist organ of Montreal.  During his stay in Abitibi, Pat Walsh’s work companion was Jeanne Corbin, a notorious communist.

À Cadillac, il était l’animateur d’un groupe d’anarchistes irlandais.  Plusieurs de ces anarchistes sont partis un jour pour aller combattre en Espagne dans les rangs communistes.

At Cadillac, he was the animator of a group of Irish anarchists.  Several of these anarchists left one day to go and fight in Spain in the Communist ranks.

* * *

* * *

Pat Walsh a fait partie de l’Armée républicaine Irlandaise, un groupement communiste qui a été condamné par le clergé irlandais.  Il est clair comme de l’eau de roche qu’il fit toujours partie de ce groupement communiste, puisque tout au long de ses activités communistes en Abitibi, il n’a cessé de parler de la fondation d’une république communiste irlandaise.  Il a écrit un grand nombre d’articles pour propager l’idée d’une république communiste en Irlande.

Pat Walsh was part of the Irish Republican Army, a communist group condemned by the Irish clergy.  It is crystal clear that he was still a part of this communist group, since throughout his communist activities in Abitibi, he talked continually about the founding of an Irish communist republic.  He wrote a large number of articles to propagate the idea of a communist republic in Ireland.

Pat Walsh est l’ami de Hanratty, le chef des “squatters” d’Ottawa, de même qu’il est l’ami d’Henri Gagnon, le chef des “squatters” de Montréal.  Il est aussi l’ami de Michael Quill, un communiste notoire et le chef de l’Armée Républicaine Irlandaise.

Pat Walsh is a friend of Hanratty, leader of the “squatters” of Ottawa, and also a friend of Henri Gagnon, leader of the “squatters” of Montreal.  He is also the friend of Michael Quill, a well known communist and leader of the Irish Republican Army.

Pat Walsh s’est enrôlé dans l’armée, lors de la dernière guerre.  Il s’y est même enrôlé deux fois. La première fois, il y fit un séjour plutot court, en on ne saurait affirmer pour quelle raison il sortit de l’armée.  La seconde fois, il y demeura jusqu’à la fin de la guerre.  Bien entendu, ce fut après que la Russie ait entré dans la guerre que Pat Walsh s’enrôla.

Pat Walsh joined the army during the last war.  He even enrolled twice.  The first time, his stay was rather short; the reason why he left the army is unknown.  The second time, he stayed until the end of the war.  Of course, it was after Russia entered the war that Pat Walsh enlisted.

Pendant qu’il était dans l’armée, Pat Walsh consacra tout son temps à des acitivités communistes.  Pendant un temps, il fut instructeur au Osterley Park School.  Cette école était sous la direction de Tom Wintringham, le même qui commanda la brigade communiste anglaise lors de la guerre civile en Espagne.  L’un des collaborateurs de Pat Walsh était Yank Levy, un communiste canadien notoire.

While in the military, Pat Walsh devoted all his time to communist activities.  For a while, he was an instructor at Osterley Park School.  This school was under the direction of Tom Wintringham, the same who commanded the English Communist Brigade during the Spanish Civil War.  One of Pat Walsh’s collaborators was Yank Levy, a notorious Canadian Communist.

Ce Yank Levy a pris part à la révolution au Mexique, révolution communiste qui a causé d’horribels ravages et au cours de laquelle on a assassiné des prêtres et des religieuses.  Il est revenu de là pour prendre part à la fameuse marche sur Ottawa, tentative communiste de s’emparer du gouvernement par la violence.

This Yank Levy took part in the revolution in Mexico, a communist revolution which caused terrible devastation and during which priests and nuns were murdered.  He returned from there to take part in the famous march on Ottawa, a communist attempt to seize the government by violence.

Durant son séjour dans l’armée, Pat Walsh fut rédacteur du journal “Fleur de Lys”.  Dans ce journal, on trouve des tas d’élucubrations communistes et l’un des collaborateurs qui s’y fit remarquer fut le major Michel Gauvin.  Ses écrits puaient le communisme à plein nez.  Ce même Michel Gauvin est maintenant le secrétaire français de Mackenzie King à Ottawa.  Pat Walsh, pour sa part, poussait activement la propagande communiste.

During his stay in the army, Pat Walsh was editor of the newspaper “Fleur de Lys”.  In this newspaper, are heaps of communist rantings and one of the noteworthy contributors was Major Michel Gauvin. His writings reeked of Communism.  This same Michel Gauvin is now the French secretary to Mackenzie King in Ottawa.  Pat Walsh, for his part, actively promoted communist propaganda.

* * *

* * *

Pat Walsh est allé en Espagne pour aider les hordes rouges de Moscou à détruire le christianisme.  Il partit du pays dans les rangs des “Macs-Paps”.  Il combattit pendant quelque temps sous le drapeau de ce régiment communiste, puis il passa à la brigade des communistes irlandais sous le commandement du chef communiste irlandais Frank Ryan.  Cette brigade ne le cédait en rien aux autres pour la cruauté et le banditisme.

Pat Walsh went to Spain to help the red hordes of Moscow destroy Christianity.  He left the country in the ranks of the “Macs-Paps” and fought for some time under the flag of this Communist regiment.  He then moved to the Irish Communist Brigade under the command of Irish Communist leader Frank Ryan.  This brigade was unequalled for its cruelty and banditry.

Rappelons, juste en passant, que les hordes communistes canadiennes se rendirent en Espagne après avoir acquis des passeports du gouvernement King.

Let us recall, just in passing, that the Canadian Communist hordes went to Spain after having acquired passports from the King government.

* * *

* * *

Pat Walsh a repris ses activités en notre pays depuis 1943.  On le voit mêlé à tous les mouvements communistes.  Par exemple, le même soir, on l’a entendu adresser la parole à deux endroits, le premier à une assemblée de “squatters” pour demander au procureur général que les plaintes portées contre Henri Gagnon soient retirées, le second à l’assemblée du Monument National convoquée par la Ligue des libertés civiles, à laquelle assemblée Pat Walsh a parlé aux côtés de Chubby Power et d’autres libertaires de même acabit pour prendre la défense de Témoins de Jéhovah.

Pat Walsh resumed his activities in our country as of 1943.  We see him mixed up with all the communist movements.  For example, the same evening, we heard him speak in two places, first at an assembly of “squatters” to demand that the Attorney General withdraw complaints against Henri Gagnon, second at an assembly at the Monument National convened by the Civil Liberties League, at which assembly Pat Walsh spoke alongside Chubby Power and other libertarians of the same ilk to defend the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

À Quebec, où il est présentement en service commandé pour le compte du parti communiste et sous la direction de Moscou, Pat Walsh ne cesse de répandre le plus vif poison communiste dans les milieux ouvriers.

In Quebec, where he is currently on duty on behalf of the Communist Party and under the direction of Moscow, Pat Walsh continues to spread the keenest Communist poison in working class circles.

* * *

* * *

Il y aurait bien d’autres détails à ajouter sur la carrière communiste de Pat Walsh, mais nous croyons que le dossier est suffisamment complet comme ça pour qu’il ne reste aucun doute dans l’esprit de nos lecteurs sur le rôle néfaste joué par ce triste personnage dans les milieux ouvriers de notre pays.

Many more details could be added on the communist career of Pat Walsh, but we believe that the file is sufficiently complete like that so that no doubt remains in the minds of our readers about the harmful role played by this sad character in the working class circles of our country.

Aussi, quand le Pat Walsh viendra débuter ses phrases empoisonnées, chacun saura à qui il a affaire.

Also, when Pat Walsh starts to utter his poisoned sentences, everyone will know with whom he is dealing.

Ce sera bien assez pour que chacun s’empresse d’organiser un mouvement de méfiance envers lui, ce qui aura pour effet d’anéantir ses efforts communistes.

That should be quite enough for everyone to hurry and organize a campaign of distrust against him, which will have the effect of destroying his communist efforts.

Elizabeth Bentley: A Short Overview

FOREWORD

I put this bio together in July 2015, and just discovered it still unpublished in my xammp version of wordpress.

As the title says, it’s a short overview of Elizabeth Bentley’s life and activities.  Much more needs to be added to give teeth to her credibility as a defecting agent of Soviet military intelligence and a member of the Communist Party who turned herself in to the FBI in 1945.

I know the materials to do that are out there, because I read them long ago. I need to do research to find them again. So, in the meantime, here’s a good intro to Bentley, with my sources listed at the bottom.

Whenever I update this bio, I will do it right in the present text and leave an “UPDATED” notice at the top.


Elizabeth Terrill Bentley
(January 1, 1908 – December 3, 1963)

Elizabeth Terrill Bentley, January 1, 1908 – December 3, 1963

Elizabeth Terrill Bentley, January 1, 1908 – December 3, 1963

In the late 1940s, Elizabeth Bentley, then aged 30, appeared in cross-country headlines while she testified before the House Committee on Un-American Activities during numerous investigations of alleged communists.

Disregarded by some at the time as an attention-seeking and relatively insignificant figure, “something about her,” claims her biographer Kathryn Olmstead, “touched the fears and fantasies of postwar Americans.  Her media image revealed Americans’ concerns about gender relationship after the upheaval of the war.  Her story became interwoven with the cultural, as well as the political, history of the Cold War at home.”

I don’t understand what Olmstead means by “gender relationship” here; Bentley was intimate with her superior in Soviet Intelligence; Bentley was a female in a power role, perhaps at a time when women weren’t expected to be.  But, anyway, let’s move on.

Indications are that this image persisted.  At the time of her death in 1963, The New York Times claimed:

“the disclosures and accusations by Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers helped to set the tone of American political life for nearly a decade,”

and in 2002, The Wall Street Journal declared that Bentley’s testimonies:

“started a chain reaction that would transform American politics and culture.”

Similarly, as a pivotal news-maker, Bentley represented a public face of Vassar College at a tense and crucial national historic moment.

Bentley was born in 1908 in New Milford, CT, to Charles Prentiss and Mary Charlotte Turrill Bentley.  In 1926, she won a scholarship to Vassar, where she majored in English and minored in Italian, graduating in 1930.  Of Bentley’s time at Vassar, Kathryn Olmstead observes:

“At Vassar, Elizabeth seemed uncomfortable among her rich, prestige-conscious classmates. She made few friends and took solitary bird walks at 5:00 A.M.”

Elizabeth Bentley at Vassar

Refraining from much of campus life, with the exception of a short period of time when she joined the Vassar chapter of the League for Industrial Democracy, a student organization that supported the ideals of socialism, Bentley nonetheless later blamed Vassar for inspiring her to turn to the Communist party.

After graduating from Vassar, Bentley continued her study of Italian on a fellowship to the University of Florence, where she briefly joined a fascist group.  She subsequently earned a masters degree in languages from Columbia University in 1933.  She later said it was her exposure to the negative effects of fascism in Florence, which “revolted” her and caused her to join a Communist party cell at Columbia in 1935.

At Columbia, Bentley contended:

“for three and a half years I was indoctrinated with all the Communist beliefs” and those “indoctrinations put blinders on me and I couldn’t see anything else.  They made a fanatic of me.”

In 1938, Bentley met and fell in love with Jacob Golos, a Russian-born American who conducted Soviet espionage through a Soviet-backed travel agency.  Eager to share her disillusionment with Italian Fascism in Italy so as to promote communism, she joined the American League Against War and Fascism, and in 1941 she became a courier for the Communist party.  Using the alias Helen Johnson she made weekly or bi-weekly trips between New York City and Washington, D.C., obtaining confidential documents and transporting them between the two cities.

She collected stolen government documents from 37 employees of government agencies and wartime boards.  She passed these on to Golos and Earl Browder, the general secretary of the Communist party in the United States, and they sent them on to Moscow.

Bentley later testified that she passed “a fabulous amount of confidential material” to the Russian communists.

According to Bentley’s New York Times obituary:

“she told the Congressional investigators that she had received information on the production of aircraft and armaments, on a project to make synthetic rubber out of garbage and on the projected date for the invasion of Europe, among much else.”

Bentley also carried information regarding the date of D-Day and plans for the B-29, along with other information regarding wartime strategies and post-war plans.

After Golos’s death in 1943, Bentley’s interest in the party waned.  She took issue with its leader, Earl Browder, and she later insisted that when she left the party it was dominated by “gangster types” and that she was driven by “a good old New England conscience” to turn to the FBI.

“It was then,” she said, “that I realized where I stood.  Instead of serving the cause of humanity I was a tool for the enslavement of the people.  I decided this was my country and that it was a good country.  I felt I had been on borrowed time.”

In July of 1945, Bentley stopped paying her party dues, and in August she went to FBI headquarters in New Haven to admit her involvement with the party and offer her services as a spy.

Thereafter, she served as a double agent, continuing her work for the party while reporting back to the FBI.  When the Communist party gave her a commendation and $2,000, she immediately passed both on to the FBI.

Bentley’s counter-espionage was eventually responsible for the conviction of 11 Communist party leaders.  She testified publicly before House and Senate committees in the summer of 1948.  In an op-ed in The New York Times, historian Timothy Naftali asserted, “From the moment Elisabeth Bentley testified before the House Committee on Un-American Activities in July 1948, the hunt for Communists became a national obsession.”

Testifying before the House Committee

Olmstead concurs, noting that:

“The Alger Hiss case, the Smith Act prosecutions of Communist Party leaders, and Senator Joe McCarthy’s denunciations of State Department Reds all stemmed from Bentley’s decision to walk into that forbidding FBI office.”

Bentley also testified as a Government witness at the Rosenberg trials.  As one of the last major testifiers in that case, she has been blamed for being the ultimate cause of the Rosenberg’s conviction.

After leaving the Communist party and the FBI, Bentley converted to Catholicism.  She characterized her embracing of the faith as a resolution of her lost faith in the Communist party.  Bentley spoke about her involvement with communism and later her devotion to Catholicism as someone with an intense need to be a part of a cause to believe in and to which she could devote herself.  Bentley told the house Un-American Activities Committee:

“It never occurred to me that I was betraying my own government … The mistake you make when you look at communism is that you take it as an intellectual process.  It is not.  It is almost a religion, and it gets you so strongly that you take orders blindly.  You believe it blindly.  That accounts for the fact that no real communist is religious or has any religion.”

But Bentley also blamed her turn to communism on a deficiency of religious as well as political education, for which she held Vassar accountable.  Vassar, she said:

“had gotten me to the point where I was a pushover for communism.”

Speaking to some 1,400 Newman club students from six different universities in New York, she claimed, according to Kathryn Olmstead:

“she previously had adopted communism because of the materialism and widespread atheism encountered in her college years.”

Thus, she concluded:

“In 1934, when I met my first Communist, I was an agnostic and a pushover for any kind of a political philosophy.”

Although she didn’t take any courses in religion at Vassar, Bentley identified “this tendency in most American institutions of higher learning, toward dullness and stiffness in an all-important matter of the teaching of religion.”  She added that halfway through her freshman year, the college abolished compulsory chapel.

Bentley also said the educational institutions she attended had failed to provide her with sufficient education about American government.

“I think the fault runs straight through the educational system,” she said, “because there are so many people like myself who have not the slightest comprehension of what America is really like or what it means to live in a democratic country under a democratic system.”

Bentley’s disparagement of Vassar placed an evident strain on her relationship with the college.  When a reporter asked if she would be willing to speak at the college to defend her case, Bentley replied, “You bet your life I would.”  The Vassar College Newman club toyed briefly with the idea of inviting her to speak about her Catholicism, but according to the president of the club, Patricia Bloomfield-Brown ’50, “the college authorities would not permit” them to invite Miss Bentley to speak at Vassar.  In response to a question about her statements, a college spokesman stated simply that Vassar “declined to ‘enter into a controversy’” with Elizabeth Bentley.

In 1951, Elizabeth Bentley published Out of Bondage, an account about her involvement and disenchantment with the Communist party.  She subsequently toured the country, speaking on the same subject.  She eventually moved to a Catholic residence club for women in Connecticut and spent the rest of her life teaching high school languages for five years at the Long Lane School for Girls, a state correctional institution in the Middlefield, CT. until her death in 1963.


Sources: — Kathryn S. Olmsted, Red Spy Queen: A Biography of Elizabeth Bentley, University of North Carolina Press, 2002.

— “Miss Bentley Cites College Atheism” The New York Times, Feb 14, 1949.

— “Elizabeth Bentley is Dead at 55; Soviet Spy Later Aided U.S.:  Wartime Agent Went to F.B.I. in 1945” The New York Times, Dec 4, 1963.

— Alumna File, Elizabeth Bentley.  Alumnae and Alumni of Vassar College (AAVC).

— Biographical File, Elizabeth Bentley.  Vassar College Special Collections (VCSC).  VE, 2012

— Vassar Encyclopedia, by the Vassar Historian, 124 Raymond Ave., Box 74, Poughkeepsie, NY 12604–0074, Office:  Judith Loeb Chiara ’49 Center at the Maria Mitchell Observatory | Phone: (845) 437–7233.  URL: http://vcencyclopedia.vassar.edu/alumni/elizabeth-bentley.html (Accessed on 4/8/2014 11:21:07 AM)

– 30 –

“Worker’s Control,” a book review by Gilles Laflamme, Laval University (1974)

Exclusive English Translation for
Anti-Communist Archive

 
Citation for the French original:  Laflamme, G. (1974).  Review of [Workers’ Control, A Reader on Labor and Social Change, Edited by Gerry Hunnius, G. David Gardon and John Case, New York, Random House, 1973, 493 pp.]  Relations industrielles / Industrial Relations, 29 (1), 228–229. https://doi.org/10.7202/028491ar

(Emphases added.)


RECENSIONS

BOOK REVIEWS

Le sujet qu’abordent les auteurs, «Le contrôle ouvrier», est loin d’être un sujet nouveau bien qu’il n’ait jamais été tellement à la mode au Canada et aux Etats-Unis.

The subject dealt with by the authors, “Worker’s Control,” is far from being a new subject although it has never been so popular in Canada and the United States.

En effet, le problème de la démocratisation des rapports du travail au moyen d’une gestion de l’entreprise par les travailleurs a toujours été au centre des théories socialistes et c’est une demande qui s’inscrit dans la tradition du mouvement ouvrier international.

In effect, the problem of democratizing work relations by means of company management by the workers has always been at the center of socialist theories and is a demand inscribed in the tradition of the international workers’ movement.1

L’intérêt que nous portons à ce livre est d’autant plus grand que peu de travaux portant sur le contrôle ouvrier ont été publiés ou sont disponibles en Amérique du Nord. De plus, les auteurs ont su éviter le danger d’offrir une option qui pourrait nous apparaître de peu d’intérêt eu égard à la valeur de notre système de relations du travail.

Our interest in this book is all the greater because few works on Worker’s Control have been published or are available in North America.  In addition, the authors have avoided the danger of offering an option that may seem to us of little relevance to the value of our labor relations system.

C’est pourquoi, ce livre, très bien conçu, comprend d’abord une critique sévère de la négociation collective dont «le rôle aujourd’hui est de fournir un cadre institutionnel rigide à la lutte des classes».  On fait ressortir les limites de ce système institutionnel.  On porte également un jugement sévère sur le syndicalisme américain «qui sert les intérêts des grandes firmes» et qui contribue à intégrer la force ouvrière au système.  Nous retrouvons sur cette question d’excellents articles de Stanley Aronowitz et de Daniel Bell.

That is why this well-crafted book first of all includes a harsh critique of collective bargaining, whose “role today is to provide a rigid institutional framework for the class struggle.”  The limits of this institutional system are highlighted.  There is also a harsh judgment on American trade unionism “which serves the interests of large firms” and helps to integrate the working force into the system.  We find excellent articles on this question by Stanley Aronowitz and Daniel Bell.

Après une critique du système de négociation collective nord-américain, les auteurs présentent certains modèles contemporains de participation et d’autogestion.  Ainsi les idées de «contrôle ouvrier» perdent ce qu’elles pouvaient avoir d’obscures pour s’offrir à nous comme une réalité.  La perspective critique est toujours présente aussi bien dans l’analyse du système yougoslave que suédois que dans celle du modèle de cogestion allemand, lequel est perçu par Helmut Schauer comme une «rationalisation des relations sociales existantes» et non comme une «suppression du pouvoir capitaliste».

After a critique of the North American collective bargaining system, the authors present some contemporary models of participation and self-management.  Thus, whatever obscurity ideas of “Worker’s Control” might have had is removed to offer it to us as a reality.  The critical perspective is always present both in the analysis of the Yugoslav and Swedish systems, and of the German co-management model, which is perceived by Helmut Schauer as a “rationalization of existing social relations” and not as a “suppression of capitalist power.

Et dans une dernière partie les auteurs présentent le «contrôle ouvrier» comme une des stratégies de changement.  Le «contrôle ouvrier» ne saurait être perçu comme une fin en soi, ni comme une simple réforme industrielle.  Il ne trouve sa vraie signification que s’il est placé dans «la perspective stratégique d’une révolution politique et sociale».  Les articles de André Gorz et de Ernest Mandel sont des plus intéressants sur cette question.

And in a final part, the authors present “Worker’s Control” as one of the strategies for change.  “Worker’s Control” is not viewed as an end in itself, nor as a mere industrial reform.  Its real significance is only found if it is placed in “the strategic perspective of a political and social revolution.”  The articles by André Gorz and Ernest Mandel are most interesting on this question.

Il est nécessaire avant tout de retenir que le «contrôle ouvrier» se situe totalement en dehors des théories participationnistes actuelles et tel que présenté dans ce livre il est une revendication anticapitaliste.  On voit mal comment il pourrait être absorbé ou digéré par le système au même titre que des augmentations de salaires ou des avantages sociaux accrus.  C’est tout le problème de la relation entre stratégie et fin qui est posé.

It is necessary above all to remember that “Worker’s Control” is totally outside the current participationist theories and as presented in this book it is an anti-capitalist claim.  It is hard to see how it could be absorbed or digested by the system in the same way as increases in wages or benefits.  This is the whole problem of the relationship between strategy and purpose.

/ 229

Le mérite de ce livre pourrait être de faire renaître un débat autour de ce thème et de reposer le problème du contrôle syndical obtenu par la négociation collective, de la bureaucratisation du syndicalisme et de son intégration.

/ 229

The merit of this book could be to revive debate around this theme and to restate the problem of union control obtained through collective bargaining, of the bureaucratization of trade unionism and and of its integration.

Gilles LAFLAMME
Université Laval

Gilles LAFLAMME
Laval University

Modernism Wrecking Many Christian Churches

Category: Historical Reprints.
Source: Straight Talk! The Official Bulletin Of The Edmund Burke Society.
Editor: Attila Marschalko
Associate Editor: Emilio De Bono
Volume 5, Number 3, January 1973

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

The Western Guard is financed mainly through small donations from generous Canadians. Straight Talk!  is produced by voluntary labour.


Modernism Wrecking Many
Christian Churches

By Dr. E. R. Fields

Churches Losing Membership

 
A number of the largest Christian denominations have recently announced sharp declines in membership and financial support. The Associated Press surveyed 9 of the nation’s largest Protestant churches and found they have lost a total of 226,750 members during 1972. They also reported contributions fell by $47 million.

Two of the biggest Protestant magazines have been severely hit with losses in revenue. They are “Presbyterian Life” and “United Church Herald”. In order to stay in business they have merged into one magazine entitled “A.D. 1972”.

The Catholic Church has likewise been hit with declining support. Two Catholic sociologists were assigned to discover the extent to which the world’s largest religious denomination is suffering from the same problem. They found that 71% of Catholics attended Mass regularly in 1963, but today only 55% do so. More important, 76% of Catholics aged 20 to 29 would be at mass several times a month. Today only 46% of this age group attend. This represents a serious drop among those who would keep the Church going in the future.

The Catholic publication, “Clergy Report” covering 343 of 410 parished in ten New York counties, showed a dip in attendances at Mass of over 200,000 people.

The Catholic Church is facing a desperate shortage of priests. Ireland has long been the source of priests who were sent to English speaking countries. Now there are not enough to fill the vacancies in Ireland itself. Deaths and retirements are exceeding the number of new entrants by 200 each year since 1965. The recent number of priests ordained to serve in England fell from 39 to 26 from the preceding year. Spain has given the Catholic Church its largest source of priests [who] serve in the Spanish speaking countries of South America. There is now a great shortage of men entering all seminaries thus creating a severe problem of world-wide effect for the Catholic Church.

What Is The Reason?

Most of the large Christian denominations have forsaken Bible study and fundamental beliefs in Jesus Christ. Many have radically altered their church service and adopted “modernist” stands that show more interest in sociology (including race-mixing and U.N. one-worldism) than in Christianity.

It is this writer’s view that many big, liberal churches have lost touch with the religious needs and interests of their own members. That is why their members are quitting in droves. They are not leaving Christianity, but are quitting organized religion. Ask the average man in the street if he is a Christian and he will respond affirmatively, but we find most also say they are not affiliated with any particular religious body.

It has been said that one can find more atheists in the pulpits than in any other segment of society. This may be true because far-out leftists have taken control of many seminaries and have brainwashed thousands of ordained ministers with a pro-communist and atheistic outlook. This is why they shy away from preaching from the Holy Bible and instead give sermonds supporting race mixing, uplifting minorities and shaming Whites for being guilty of the “sin of being White”. They are in large measure responsible for instilling the guilt complex phobia of “White self-hate” which is manifested in so many White people.

Proof of this conclusion is the fact that many of the smaller fundamentalist “back to the Bible” type churches have recently enjoyed big gains in membership. This is what the people are seeking and the only question is whether or not the big churches will awaken to this truth before they simply go out of business.
 

The Canadian Spy Ring

Source:  “The Canadian Spy Ring,” from Humphrey and the Old Revolution: Human Rights in the Age of Mistrust by A.J. Hobbins.  See pages 124 – 126.  NB:  That whole document, “Humphrey”, is extremely interesting, in part because it highlights the socialist inclination of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.    Here’s a backup: Humphrey and the Old Revolution.  (A photo has been added to this post for interest.)

Excerpt from the Introduction:

“John P. Humphrey wrote the first draft of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and was one of the key United Nations Secretariat figures in the post-war human rights programme.  Humphrey was a socialist and the Universal Declaration contained social and economic rights from its very beginnings.  The inclusion of these rights made the Universal Declaration an object of attack from the American right as an instrument to introduce state socialism.  Humphrey by and large escaped any public attack as an individual, but a few of his friends and a number of his acquaintances were alleged to be Soviet agents.”


THE CANADIAN SPY RING

Before joining the Faculty of Law, Humphrey practised law at Wainwright, Elder and McDougall (1930-1936).  He and his wife, Jeanne, lived in an apartment building on Côte des Neiges and became friendly with another young couple, Eric and Josepha Eric Adams.20  Eric Adams (1907- ) had graduated from McGill in 1929 with a degree in Engineering, and then took an M.B.A. (1931) at Harvard.  He returned to Montreal to work for the advertising agency, Cockfield Brown, for four years.  Although he had met Humphrey as an undergraduate, they became friends only after Adam’s return to Montreal.  During visits to one another’s apartments, they used to argue about politics, Adams being far to the left of Humphrey’s socialism.  Humphrey’s theory regarding Adam’s political orientation was that as an engineer Adams expected mathematically precise answers to problems, and so, when he switched his field to economics, he naturally gravitated towards Marxism-the one philosophy that claimed to offer precise answers.  The discussions between Humphrey and Adams were usually quite heated, so much so that Jeanne Humphrey became disturbed by them and suggested the couples see less of one another.  The visits became less frequent and then ceased altogether shortly before the Adams moved away.  Adam visited Russia (1934) and then moved to the U.S. until 1939.  During the war he returned to Ottawa and worked for the Wartime Requirements Board (1940), the Foreign Exchange Control Board and Bank of Canada (1941-1944), and, moving to Montreal, for the Industrial Development Bank (1945).

Soviet cypher clerk Igor Gouzenko’s dramatic defection from the Soviet embassy in Ottawa was to change Adams’ life.  On September 5, 1945, Gouzenko took a number of papers relating to the existence of a Soviet spy ring in Canada from the embassy safe.  He went to the Ottawa Journal  where he was told to come back in the morning or go to the R.C.M.P.  The city editor was too busy to see him, thereby missing the scoop of a lifetime.  He then tried the Minister of Justice, Louis St. Laurent, but was also told to come back the following day.  The next day he again visited the Minister of Justice and was once more rebuffed, although he told the secretary to whom he spoke that he was left with no alternative but suicide.  Returning home with his wife, he noticed that two men were watching the apartment and assumed they were Soviet agents.  In fact these were Canadian agents sent by Prime Minister Mackenzie King.  King had been informed about Gouzenko that morning by Norman Robertson, the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, and wrote in his diary:

We learned later that the Russian man had left saying he was going to his own flat; that there was nothing but suicide ahead of him.  Again, Robertson thought of getting the police to seize the papers, I suggested that a Secret Service man in plain clothes watch the premises.  If suicide took place let the city police take charge and this man to follow in and secure what there was in the way of documents, but on no account for us to take the initiative.21

King was anxious to avoid any diplomatic confrontation with the Soviet Union.

Gouzenko hid in a neighbour’s apartment, while he tried to decide his next step.  At this point four members of the Soviet staff broke into Gouzenko’s apartment.  The Ottawa city police were called by the neighbour and when they tried to make an arrest, all four Soviets claimed diplomatic immunity.  When the police heard the story, they contacted the R.C.M.P. who, on instructions from Robertson, placed Gouzenko and the papers under their protection.  Gouzenko’s defection was safely completed despite the callousness and indifference he had encountered.

The Gouzenko papers showed the existence of an extensive spy ring in Canada.  Justices Taschereau and Kellock of the Supreme Court were appointed to a Royal Commission to inquire into the matter.  In his subsequent testimony before the Royal Commission on February 13, 1946, Gouzenko identified the Soviet agent with the codename “Ernst” as “Eric Adam”.  Unlike some of his other identifications, he was unable

/ 125

to provide more information than the name.  The identification was based on having seen a file compiled by Lieutenant-Technical Gouseev, but the file was not amongst the papers Gouzenko took.  The following day one of the Counsel for the Commission, Gérald Fauteux, ordered Adams’ arrest.  Adams was in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, when the officers came to his house in Montreal.  After they had left, Josepha Adams sent him a telegram that read “Helen’s baby dying.  Will send you further word.  Sally”.22  When Adams was arrested in Saskatchewan, she contacted Humphrey for the name of a lawyer and he provided a referral to a local criminal practitioner.

Colonel Nicolai Zabotin,  1944

Colonel Nicolai Zabotin, 1944, Library and Archives Canada, PA-116421, Zabotin headed the GRU spy network in Canada

Adams was held in detention by the Commission under the War Measures Act for over a month without the benefit of habeas corpus or legal advice.  Another witness, Kathleen Willsher, assistant registrar in the British High Commission who was subsequently found guilty of espionage, identified Adams as the leader of a communist cell, or study group, in Ottawa to whom she had passed information.  Adams first appeared before the Commission on March 15th, 1946, and showed himself to be a shrewd individual, to the evident exasperation of the Commissioners and their Counsels.  He refused to take the oath until it had been modified to his satisfaction and then refused to testify without access to counsel.  The Commissioners explained that he was merely a witness and that they would decide when it was appropriate for him to be represented by a lawyer.  Adams remained adamant.  When he finally received counsel he proved a difficult and evasive witness, with poor powers of recall.  Had the issue been less serious, some of the exchanges between Adams and the Commission’s Counsels (who usually came off second best) could be viewed as quite amusing.  Adams refused to convict himself by his own testimony, and the Commissioners became frustrated with his evasiveness.  In their report they used harsh words for Adams and concluded:  “We are satisfied on the evidence that Adam was an important unit in Zabotin’s organization”.23

On the Commission’s recommendation, Adam was subsequently tried in Federal Court on a charge of conspiracy to communicate information.  The court was less impressed than the Commission with the evidence, which consisted essentially of some cryptic papers stolen from an embassy, a vague identification, and the fact that he owned some books about Communism.  Nor apparently was the prosecution able to use all the witnesses that the Commission had heard in camera.  While there was plenty of evidence about Adams’ Marxist leanings, this in itself was not a crime.  Adams categorically denied that he had ever been a member of the Communist Party or that he had passed along secret information.  He was acquitted on October 23rd, 1946.

Indeed, most of those who refused to co-operate fully with the Royal Commission secured acquittals, while those who co-operated, like McGill Chemistry Professor Raymond Boyer, were generally convicted.  In the final analysis nothing in the treatment of the suspects from the suspension of their civil liberties through their cavalier handling before the Commission to the use of their testimony against themselves in criminal court would encourage anyone to co-operate with such a process.  Even Mackenzie King was distressed at the process, writing in his diary:

It is an immense relief to have the Order in Council [allowing the Commission to detain suspects sine die] cancelled.  I feel the Commissioners have thought more of themselves and doing a fine bit and of the report they are making than of the position in which they have placed the Government and our party.  It will always be held against us and the Liberal party that we sanctioned anything that meant so much in the way of deprivation of liberty for a number of people.  Moreover, as I saw at the start, it has raised an issue in the minds of the people even more important than that of the espionage and will probably result in several of the persons being freed altogether when they come before the Court, or given trifling sentences.  It will be an interesting study in the power of public opinion and the preservation of freedom.24

After his acquittal Adams expressed the hope he could return to his job at the bank, but this was not to be.  Shortly thereafter he left with his wife for an extended tour of Eastern Europe.

The usual conclusion of the general public to proceedings such as these is that the defendant is guilty

/ 126

but managed to get off in court through some technicality or superior legal advice.  Eric Adams has never publicly discussed the matter over the last fifty years.”25  However, not everyone was certain of Adams’ guilt.  Humphrey, who knew many of the participants such as Fauteux and Robertson quite well, clearly had his doubts.  When Eric and Josepha Adams returned to Canada in August, 1949, from their European visit, Humphrey was also a passenger on the R.M.S. Aquitania.  He confided to his diary:

Last night I had a long talk with Eric and Jo Adams.  The conversation gradually drifted to world politics.  Perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised to discover that notwithstanding the experiences that Eric has gone through his ideas are apparently unchanged.  There was the same incompatibility between us as there was, it must be over fifteen years ago, when in spite of this incompatibility we were close friends.  Last night however there was a bitterness in his remarks which he nevertheless seemed at pains to hide.  He has a good mind but it is rigid and, I suspect, totally without warmth.  That he is still a Marxist I have no doubt whatsoever.  Was he really a Soviet spy?  I doubt it; but [he] would probably be capable of it if intellectual consistency pushed him far enough.  Of such stuff are fanatics made.26

__________

20.  The facts concerning Adams and Igor Gouzenko are mainly taken from J.W. Pickersgill and D.F. Foster, The Mackenzie King Record (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1970) Vol. 111, Robert Bothwell and J.L. Granatstein, The Gouzenko Transcripts (Ottawa: Deneau Publishers, 1982) and the Royal Commission to investigate the Facts Relating to and the Circumstances Surrounding the Communication, by Public Officials and Other Persons in Positions of Trust of Secret and Confidential Information to Agents of a Foreign Power, Report (Ottawa: King’s Printer, 1946).

21.  Pickersgill, 9.

22.  Royal Commission, Report, 226.  In this regard the transcript of Adams’ cross-examination reads in part:

Q.  Would you care to explain that telegram?

A.  Sure.  Ever since I have started travelling, which is a good many years ago, my wife and I have had an arrangement whereby if she is ever in trouble and wants to see me come home, and does not want to talk about the whole thing in a telegram, she simply sends me a telegram that Helen’s baby is sick.

The Commissioners added: “Needless to say we do not believe his explanation”.

23.  Ibid.  The Soviet Military Attaché, Colonel Nicolai Zabotin, ran the spy ring.

24.  Pickersgill, 157-158.

25.  When I spoke to Adams on a completely unrelated matter he said he never talked about the issue because all it did was stir up a lot of unwanted publicity.

26.  Humphrey, On the edge of Greatness, 209.

– 30 –

The Pelletier Crisis

Foreword: I am giving the citation data from the masthead of the volume and issue in which the article below first appears. Articles in Straight Talk! on anti-communism, and the penetration of Fabian socialist and far-left forces into Canada, are a researcher’s dream. They are full of quotations backed up with author, title, date and page number. If you are researching Communism in Canada, you can take Straight Talk! to the library and pore over the microfilm to find the documents referred to.

NB: I am featuring these articles for research purposes; not to make any particular political statement. Hope you find them useful. [Ed. NSIM]



Category:  Historical Reprints
Source:  Straight Talk! Published by the Edmund Burke Society
Editor:  F. Paul Fromm, B.A.
Associate Editor:  Kastus Akula
Writers:  E.B.S. Members and friends
Directors:  The Council of the E.B.S.
Volume III No. 9, May 1971

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

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



The Pelletier Crisis

La Crise de Pelletier:
An Apologia for Trudeaucracy

by Peter Dauphin

 
In our April issue, in discussing the new book by Secretary of State Gérard Pelletier (“Though René Lévesque belongs to what one might call the moderate left, I do not think that the political regime which he would install in an independent Québec would be of a socialist type”) 1, on the October crisis (La Crise d’Octobre, Editions du Jour, Montréal, 1971), we reviewed how Pelletier himself, in his function as Secretary of State and as Minister responsible for the federal Company of Young Canadians, had participated fully and actively in the Trudeau Clique’s program of financing “Red fifth column operations”, while bending every effort to protect them from a thorough-going investigation during the “Little October Crisis” of October 1969.

The readers of this magazine have been kept informed on the operation of this treasonous misfeasance, which has also involved the Canada Council (with Pelletier, again, as the Minister responsible) and the Department of National Health & Welfare, under the control of John Munro (“They’re going to raise hell!”), who turned over a half a million dollars in federal funds to the left-racist Black United Front in 1969, and who this year diverted public funds to the tune of $104,000.00 to the Hamilton Welfare Rights Organization, a violent mob which has terrorized Hamilton welfare workers. This mob is headed by a militant of the CCF-NDP, William Freeman. Further, Munro’s Mafia, along with the Citizenship Branch of the Office of the Secretary of State (Pelletier), the federal Central Mortgage & Housing Corporation, and the Indian Affairs Branch, also funneled thousands of federal dollars into the phoney Poor People’s Conference staged by leftist agents in Toronto last January.

This bulletin, like the Edmund Burke Society for which it speaks, has constantly exposed, deplored, condemned and lamented this program of public financing of anti-democratic activities, but the régime of Pierre-Elliott Trudeau (“I hold no brief for the Liberal opposition — on the contrary, its mediocrity is partly to blame for the ills we suffer”), which inherited this program from Lester Pearson (“A totalitarian régime may well be devoted to the interests of its people”) and expanded it, has always been evasive in its explanations for it.

There has been much double-talk about “social animation” and “the belief that people should have a greater degree of responsibility and opportunity to identify their own social and economic problems and to seek solutions to them” (Cf. Ian Howard’s letter to Don Andrews, September 1969). One might almost suspect that we were living in 1771, rather than 1971, and that there were no trade unions, cooperatives, cultural organizations, credit unions, or other democratic organizations in Canada today engaged in “identifying social and economic problems and seeking solutions to them.” The curious thing, of course, is that this federal largesse is never made available to such genuine, representative organizations (EBS applied for a similar grant to match that made to the BUF, and was politely, but firmly, turned down) but to counterfeit fronts of a racist and/or totalitarian persuasion, all telling us how they are in solidarity with the oppressed poor in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, etc., (though never, alas, in solidarity with the oppressed poor behind the Iron Curtain).

Nor is this Trudeauvnik generosity (with our money) felt by what is probably the largest oppressed minority of Canadian citizens, who have spent their lives contributing their labour and energy to the national economy: the old age pensioners, who are expected to die, soon and quietly, and to stop haunting the national conscience. (In the meantime, let them go on subsisting on a can of dog food every other day.)

With the publication of Pelletier’s book, we are now told, quasi-officially, as it were, what the Government’s rationale is for this policy. In about as frank a statement as we are likely to get from a Trudeauvnik Cabinet Minister, we are treated to a pretty good rule-of-thumb definition of Trudeaucracy by one of its key practitioners:

“Every government has the mission to ‘put society to bed’, to foresee and provoke the changes that are needed, to run the risks of collective becoming, and to dream of it, to imagine beforehand the evolution toward a more just society, where the human person can expand. Very far from combating the new, emerging forces, it must go out to meet them, and to help them in their democratic action to transform, adapt, and improve economic and political conditions… Operational responses to problems like unemployment, for example, pollution, or terrorism, are not numerous.”

At a number of points in his book, Pelletier reiterates that the government is disposed to discourage the resort to violence in the pursuit of social change (which, according to the classic progressive superstition, is always presumed to be good in se) by “concretely encouraging” certain “tenants’ leagues, cooperative associations for family economy, and several other peoples’ initiatives” with “public funds”. Pelletier elaborates the “Trudeau Doctrine” in these terms:

“It is a matter of urgency that the State concretely provide certain disadvantaged groups with the technical means to make their case heard and to publicize their ideas… Governments already distribute very substantial subsidies in several areas; in the same manner, and without getting lost in some kind of utopia, the movement to favour people’s pressure groups, already begun, must be accentuated. Without the support of the public authorities, these latter will renounce their activity within the rules of the game of democracy, and will succumb to the temptation of totalitarian strategies… in a democratic system — or one which is tending toward democracy — the most efficacious help which can be brought to a disadvantaged group consists in informing it and providing it with appropriate tools, in order to avoid the frittering away of its energies in the multiplication of initiatives leading nowhere… to explore with them all the existing possibilities for them to achieve their objectives. When no possibility remains, then, doubtless, violence is justified, for it is the last resort of man seeking to safeguard his dignity…”

As thus articulated by Pelletier, this “doctrine” forms a part of his apologia for the Trudeauvnik police state imposed on the nation last October by the invocation of the War Measures Act. According to this rationale, the federal government provides means for such subversives to “raise hell” within the framework of a tenuous legality, and the recourse to kidnapping of prominent public personalities by the FLQ was a violation of Ottawa’s ground rules for subversion, that last straw of “violent” procedure which the Trudeau Clique was not prepared to tolerate.

What is significant here, is that the Doctrine takes little account of the substantial totalitarianism of such groups and their aims, only the means which they employ. At any rate, that is the theory; as we have seen, totalitarianism is not merely a question of “strategies and in practice, the red terrorists (felquists and other) have long benefited from federal financial solicitude, even when their terrorism exceeded the bounds of legality and “non-violence”.
 

The Trudeauvnik “Master Plan”

 
We have seen, and continue to see, precisely how “popular” (of the people) are the “people’s pressure groups” receiving such federal aid. Last April we cited advertisements published in the FLQ paper, DEUX MAI, by the Department of National Defense as recently as a few months ago. Alex Bandy, one of the Soviet wheels running the aforementioned Poor People’s Conference, perhaps let too many Trudeauvnik cats out of the bolshevik bag when he told the conference that

“The way Munro tells it, the government is really, secretly, on our side. It’s everybody else who is against us, and that’s why the government can’t help us. So, the master plan is to give us money to organize and demonstrate and win popular support, then the government will move…”

Thus we see that Munro, and the Trudeau Compact of which he and Pelletier are parts, are in collusion with the Stalinist fifth columnists in our midst, aiming essentially for the same objectives as they, but eager to have it appear that when Ottawa makes its dramatic move to socialize the economy, one way or another, it will seem to be in dutiful response to a massive demand from “the people”, i.e., from the street mobs organized and mobilized by the red fronts, and financially manipulated by the Trudeau gang. As we have indicated before, this is the classic Communist strategy of “pressure from above and pressure from below“. As in occupied Czecho-Slovakia, it is the people which is in the middle. It is the working class which must move decisively to smash this leftist “master plan”, and to preserve what remains of our democratic liberties. The time, citizen, is getting shorter, and shorter, and shorter…
 
__________
1  Yes, it would be of the “socialist type”.  Download and read your own free copy of the 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois for a Communist state of Quebec, in the sidebar. Look for the blue lightning.
 

Gérard Pelletier And The FLQ: New Dimensions In Trudeauvnik Hypocrisy

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 Dauphin

Gérard Pelletier

Gérard Pelletier

Last 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!

Pierre-Elliott Trudeau

Pierre-Elliott Trudeau

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 –

NDP leader Michel Chartrand backs FLQ terrorist Charles Gagnon

NDP leader Michel Chartrand backs FLQ terrorist Charles Gagnon

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:

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.

Pierre Vallières

Pierre Vallières

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.

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.)

L-R: Jean Marchand, Pierre-Elliott Trudeau, Gérard Pelletier (Pearson's "three wise men")

L-R: Jean Marchand, Pierre-Elliott Trudeau, Gérard Pelletier (Pearson’s “three wise men”)

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

“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.”

Lester Bowles Pearson (Soviet agent)

Lester Bowles Pearson
(Soviet agent)

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.

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!

Marc Lalonde

Marc Lalonde

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.

Claude Ryan

Claude Ryan

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.”

Robert Bourassa

Robert Bourassa

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”

René Lévesque

René Lévesque

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.

Communiqué de la cellule pantoufle

Communiqué de la cellule pantoufle


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.