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.
 

Propaganda – The Concealed Weapon of the Cold War

Propaganda – The Concealed Weapon of the Cold War

Category: Historical Reprints.
Source: Straight Talk! The Official Bulletin Of The Edmund Burke Society.
Editor: F. Paul Fromm
Associate Editor: Jeff Goodall
Volume II Number 6, March 1970

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


Propaganda – The Concealed Weapon
of the Cold War

In its December 13th, 1939 issue, the London Times had this to say:

“People and newspapers regard German propaganda with amused astonishment. Since so many of its statements are without effect, they regard it as wasted effort.”

In a few short months, the flower of British young manhood was being sacrificed to this naive, myopic egotism by being shot out of the sky in the Battle of Britain. Was Britain warned? Of course it was! A.L. Mackenzie wrote thusly in 1938, in ‘Propaganda Boom’:

“Propaganda is at work, unchecked among the most impressionable subjects, moulding young minds until they are simply incapable of grasping unorthodox ideas. In this stranglehold lies the Nazis’ greatest insurance against a successful revolt.”

Here he is referring to Germany; but he carries the subject further into the world context when he says:

“Propaganda is an attempt, either consciously or as part of a systematic campaign, by an individual or group holding certain beliefs or desiring certain ends, to influence others to adopt identical attitudes.”

Then, again:

“The rise of the great dictatorships has meant that their subjects by the hundred million have forfeited the right to think for themselves. The men in power keep the dominant group small and loyal by periodic purges.”

That is the history of Communism. And yet, in looking back down the long dismal aisles of time since the last great war, we find that people only believe what they want to believe, or what is fed to them with subtlety. In those seemingly far-off days before the second Great War, it was Communist propaganda which was working overtime during the smoke screen of the Nazi menace. People who would not think of being identified with the Communist party were definitely influenced by such bodies as International Peace Council, the National Peace Council, the Peace Pledge Union, the British Anti-war Movement, the Union of Democratic Control, the League Against Imperialism, and such like organisations, which were Communist fronts. Dimitrov in 1935 advised members of the Young Communist International that it was their duty to find ways, forms and methods of work which will help to create a new type of mass organisation of youth in capitalist countries, organisations which, without imitating the Communist Party, will concern themselves with all the interests of toiling youth and train them in the spirit of class struggle.

Pre-1939, Red propaganda was elementary compared to today’s: consisting in either psychologically-planned infiltration, or in literary or geographical coverage. Twenty years ago, it was definitely anti-Capitalist and notoriously anti-religious. Today, while it is absolutely the same in its goal, it has changed its tactics. It has successfully infiltrated and influenced capitalists like Cyrus Eaton and many others, and won the unswerving allegiance of ministers of all faiths; College professors, teachers at all education levels; and the shallow-pated peace-niks who pollute our land.

Mr. Average just won’t accept that Communism has not changed. To him, it is not the one-time menace. He says it has softened, that we rightists are witch-hunting, looking for Commies behind every bush. Yes, and there is often a snarl when he says it, too. He simply won’t listen to those who have suffered under its subhuman cruelties. Those who died trying to escape from this Utopia, are too far beyond the horizon of his thinking. It’s too disturbing to his interests. The funnies, sport and dollars are his consuming interests. His TV is the be-all and end-all of his mental existence.

Sounds like exaggeration, does it? Well, just watch your fellow-passengers on the morning or evening bus. Take note of what they are reading. Just what we said: the comics, sport and finance. If you see someone reading the international news, you can almost bet it’s one of those fellows we call ‘foreigners’, (we apologize for the term). And so, the Communists have correctly assessed our peanut-minded world, feeding it sugar-coated pills.

And yet the battle is not lost. We have men and women who are willing to spend and be spent. For instance, we have, on the home front, the Edmund Burke Society, the Canadian Intelligence Service, the Canadian Loyalist Movement, and the Friends of Rhodesia Association. These have been brought into being by men and women of vision who dared to blaze a trail as heralds of freedom. Theirs has been the limit of dedication. Their reward has too often been vilification by those who labelled them ‘extremists’; but forthright and sacrificial missionary enterprise by all these groups is beginning to make an impact on apathetic thinking. Their combined efforts, however, good as they are, in no way match the volume of Communist propaganda barraging the entire world at this moment.

Ian Greig in his matchless work published in 1968, THE ASSAULT ON THE WEST, is a must for anybody really wishing to assess the present world situation. He quotes a French authority as saying that in 1960 the Communist bloc was spending the equivalent of 170 million pounds sterling per annum on propaganda directed at non-Communist countries. An American Government Sub-Committee has estimated that propaganda of the U.S.S.R. alone is approximately one hundred times greater than the rest of the world put together. To further quote Ian Greig:

“The mammoth campaign to propagate the gospel of Communism is carried on by the dissemination on an unsurpassed scale of printed material, an ever-increasing use of radio broadcasting and an energetic cultural offensive involving the adroit use of films, cultural missions, exchanges and exhibitions. An additional facet of the campaign is the selective use of economic aid and the provision of educational facilities for students from the developing countries.”

The direct barrage alone employs about 350,000 people. That was some years ago. It has grown tremendously since then. In addition to this, over 90 foreign-language periodicals are published in the U.S.S.R. and China for the non-Communist world. Yet over 40,000,000 books are exported annually in foreign languages by Soviet Russia. Cuba is in the game now, annually exporting to the United States thousands of packages of magazines.

The above is merely scratching the surface of the situation that faces us today.

What is happening is that Canada has developed a false criterion of the Cold War. It is this false criterion on the part of our Federal government which could lead to our ultimate defeat by our enemy, Communism. The powers-that-be are burying their heads in the sand rather than face up to obvious but unpleasant facts. The Communists have declared war against what is left of the free world. They are constantly extending their bases. Asia is practically theirs. They have most of Europe, by treaty and otherwise. North America is brainwashed, and South America is toppling. Cuba is theirs.

The challenge is great, but character grows with the challenge in life. Please God, we shall face up to the challenge before it is too late.

— Herbert Dawes

– 30 –

Trudeau is a Bilderberger

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

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

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


Trudeau is a Bilderberger

Fuddle Duddle! (PET)

Fuddle Duddle! (PET)

Fuddle Duddle!

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

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

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

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

– 30 –

Termites in the Communications Media

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

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

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

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


Termites in the Communications Media

By J. M. Harris

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

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

Berton in Mexico

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

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

Sell Out Your Country …
For Money

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

*   *    *

 
Afterword:

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

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

 

Report From Montreal (November 1969)

Category:  Historical Reprints.
SourceStraight Talk! The Official Bulletin Of The Edmund Burke Society.
Editor:  Joseph A. Genovese
Associate Editors:  F. Paul Fromm, D. Clarke Andrews
Typist:  Veronica O’Hare
Distribution Manager:  Jeff Goodall
Writers:  EBS members and friends
Directors:  The Council of the EBS
Volume II Number 2, November 1969

The Edmund Burke Society is a conservative organization unaffiliated with any political party.  We are dedicated to the principles of individual freedom and responsibility, free enterprise, and firm ACTION against all tyrannies, especially Communism and all its manifestations in Canada and abroad.

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


Report from Montreal

From our Montreal Correspondent

 

It was a bad month all around here for leftists, anarchists and outside agitators hoping to get a piece of the action at the expense of the local police and population.

Montreal City Executive Chairman Lucien Saulnier, a widely-respected financier and administrator, took a shot at the do-good-for-nothing Company of Young Canadians who, he charged, were at the source of some of the city’s current rampages.  Cesar Chavez, who claims to speak for thousands of so-called under-paid and over­worked grape pickers in California, came to town to drum up sympathy — but ended up with indifference and even criticism on the part of the local populace.  The Vietnam moratorium day activities fizzled out.

Even Cheddi Jagan, Jr., son of Guyana’s illustrious commie, Cheddi Jagan, was complaining that things got so tough for him since his involvement with the infamous Sir George Williams University rioting of last February that he can’t find a job to live on.  He claims that prospective employers turn him down flat when he tells them who he is.  And the cruelest cut of all:  he’s been suspended from the university pending the outcome of the whole affair in court.

All this, together with some deft police work in stemming a planned leftist-separatist demonstration in early October, has left the liberals, pseudo-liberals and kindred souls pretty shaky.  The idea that Montreal may be entering a period of some tranquility and stability must be hard to take.

Heaviest blow, of course, came from Saulnier who called for a Royal Commission investigation into the activities of the CYC, long a target of criticism for stepping out of its defined limits.  Saulnier, in one of the harshest speeches he’s ever made, pulled no punches about his feelings on the CYC, strongly suggesting that some members of its local group may well have been involved in mapping out some of the (by now) well-known Montreal riots.  Even if his request for a commission probe goes unheeded (as it apparently will be), Saulnier’s status is established enough to raise some serious questioning about the outfit.

As a matter of fact, immediately following Saulnier’s charges, scores of mayors throughout Quebec followed suit, asking that the CYC be Investigated and/or get out of town.

The CYC was set up by mankind-loving Lester Pearson, the former Prime Minister, purportedly to help out the underprivileged.  Here is an example of some of the workings of the outfit in Montreal.  Last August the local office of the CYC distri­buted a pamphlet among beleaguered, low-income residents of a slum area known as Little Burgundy.  The leaflet warned that 800 families face eviction from their homes and called for the residents to fight for their rights.  (The area is being rehabilitated).

“Citizens of Little Burgundy,” trumpeted the pamphlet, “800 families will soon receive a visit of a city investigator.  It might be you.  What to do?  Be Careful!  Don’t Be Scared!  Fight for Your Rights!”

The leaflet goes on to list six “rights” the residents can use, including the power to demand the city find evictees new homes before moving them.  “The city has an obligation to do so,” the people were told.

Though the name of the CYC is not on the pamphlet, there are instructions to call a certain number which turned out to be the CYC headquarters here.  The city established that it was from this office that the pamphlet was issued.

As sympathetic as the leaflet appeared to be, the fact is that it contained a bunch of lies, and the CYC knew it!  The facts are that there were never any plans to evict the 800 — or any families at all; that the CYC either knew, or should have known, that its own warning was blatantly untrue (some weeks before, the city sent the CYC full details of its plans for the area); that even when informed of their error, the CYC activists did not see fit to print a retraction (while privately conceding their “mistake”, they refused publicly to let the scared and angry residents in on the secret); that such unfounded scare tactics have been partially successful in sabotaging city efforts to set up co-operation and rapport with local residents (it was only after an exasperating education campaign that the city was able to win the confidence of the residents once again).

– 30 –

 

Demonstration: Ottawa November 7 (1969)

Category:  Historical Reprints.
SourceStraight Talk! The Official Bulletin Of The Edmund Burke Society.
Editor:  Joseph A. Genovese
Associate Editors:  F. Paul Fromm, D. Clarke Andrews
Typist:  Veronica O’Hare
Distribution Manager:  Jeff Goodall
Writers:  EBS members and friends
Directors:  The Council of the EBS
Volume II Number 3, December 1969

The Edmund Burke Society is a conservative organization unaffiliated with any political party.  We are dedicated to the principles of individual freedom and responsibility, free enterprise, and firm ACTION against all tyrannies, especially Communism and all its manifestations in Canada and abroad.

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


Report from Montreal

From our Montreal Correspondent

 
A11 through this decade, Canadian anti-communists, usually led by activist Ukrainian Canadians, have demonstrated outside the Soviet Embassy in Ottawa on November 7, the night on which the Red diplomats throw a cocktail party in celebration of the Russian Revolution.  For free men, this night has a different significance:  it marks the beginning of the present agony for the shackled Russian and non-Russian peoples — an agony that Soviet imperialism has spread to much of Eastern Europe, and, because of the laxity and weakness of many Western leaders, is today diligently and successfully exporting to Africa and Latin America.

The Council of the Edmund Burke Society decided that, this year, the time has come to flex our growing muscles and to test the dedication and activism of our members:  in short, we decided to send a contingent to lead a demonstration against the Soviet embassy.  As November 7 fell on Friday, ethnic anti-communist participation promised to be weak.  Our Council felt that Canada would not afford to suffer a commemoration of communism to go by without a protest.  What galled us was that many Canadian officials and citizens would be joining the Soviet slaughterers in their festivities.  We believe that no loyal Canadian should join in this obscene celebration of tyranny.  Our aim was to embarrass those Canadians who, forsaking the traditions of freedom and justice that have built Canada, join the Soviets each November 7 to munch caviar and gulp vodka — produced by the forced labour of slaves.  To kill two birds in one trip we also decided to protest the proposed “hate-bill” on Capitol Hill.

Ukrainian activists underwrote the cost of a chartered bus, but fell short in providing the man-power.  At our November 4 meeting, the Council of the E.B.S. asked for volunteers for Ottawa.  Factory-workers and students stepped forward.  A painter, a musician, a writer, students — everyone who went to Ottawa made a personal sacrifice.  Thirteen E.B.S. members were joined by three Ukrainians.  No member who gave his word to come reneged.  This is a clear sign that our members are developing a serious attitude to politics and a hardened esprit de corps.

At the November 4 meeting, the Council urged all members who could not participate, to give generously to help send tho shock force to Ottawa.  An army must have a supply base behind it.  Members were urged to go out and solicit contributions from more cautious anti-communists.  The time has come for others to share the burden.  If the Edmund Burke Society is willing to be out in the front lines, older people or less courageous types must take a greater part in financing and equipping us.  The response at the meeting was phenomenal.  Tens and fives flew at the collection bowl.

November 7 dawned in Toronto and shed a weak sun into the cool morning.  We assembled outside the Ukrainian Hall on College, east of Bathurst.  Signs, sticks, pamphlets, flags, and warm clothing were all stowed aboard and by 9.45 our expeditionary force was on the road.  Rain dogged us all the way; but, it could in no way cool the good fellowship and friendly conversations amongst our group in the bus.

We reached Ottawa about 3.00 p.m. and set out immediately for the Parliament Buildings.  There we disembarked and moved on the double to take up positions outside the Parliament Building.  We quickly set up a picket line, while Paul Fromm went indoors to phone the press.  The rain threatened but held off in the hour and a half we were there.  Creditiste M.P., Andre Fortin, was the only representative to come out to see us.  Advance letters had informed all four parties of our presence and invited a representative to meet with us to discuss the “hate-bill”.  Our signs denouncing the totalitarian “hate-bill” were cleverly and artistically conceived:  “Hate-bill — hate or criticism where do you draw the line,” etc.  Ralph Cowan who was visiting Ottawa also came out and spoke to wish us well.

At four thirty, our well-disciplined ranks boarded the bus and crawled through Ottawa’s spaghetti-like streets in rush-hour traffic to the U.S.S.R. embassy.  We immediately took up positions with a second set of signs and leaflets and began picketing.  Here we stayed for three hours, through intermittent rain, until eight o’clock.  The Ottawa police were edgy and nervous.  They refused [to let] us to lean a bag of pamphlets up against the embassy’s iron fence:  that would be trespassing we were informed.  C.B.C. T.V. took extensive film footage of this demonstration.  We were visited by reporters from the Ottawa Le Droit, the Ottawa Journal, and the Ottawa Citizen, as well as by two snotty representatives from Canadian Press.  Goons inside the embassy shot film of us from a fourth floor window, while the R.C.M.P. kept an eye on us from tho top floor of a house across the road.

Another advance call to Ottawa paid off:  Telegram correspondent Lubor Zink joined us on the picket line and extended his sincere encouragement.  As the “beautiful people” began to roll up in their expensive cars to join the Red butchers in their celebration of infamy, we brandished our placards and howled insults at them.  The jewellery bedecked in-crowd stared at our group, startled as our ranks roared “traitors”, “quislings!”; “they have run out of vodka, you’ll have to drink blood … the blood of innocent people.  An officer in the Canadian Armed Forces winced as one of our members, just a year out of the army, yelled:  “Men like you are why Canadians are joining the U.S. army … you don’t even know what side you’re on.”

Our members hooted as External affairs Minister, mealy-mouthed Mitchell Sharp, stomped up the steps into the embassy.  Our shouting had made him furious and he pulled his fedora down tightly over his forehead and scurried into the embassy to toast the Kremlin bullies to whom his weak and witless foreign policy has given endless aid and comfort.

The saddest moment of the night involved a one-time hero to Canadian anti-communists.  In his dotage, huge and magnificent in his dark blue suit, stood the man from Prince Albert, John Diefenbaker.  His presence hurt and angered us.  Perhaps, he was involved in some private attempt to wring concessions from the Russians for those behind the Iron Curtain.  We cannot judge him, but we let him hear our vocal disapproval. 1  He smiled and waved to us in a friendly way.  An enigma — it’s hard to know what to make of his behaviour.

We arrived back in Toronto at 2.00 am., bone-weary but happy.  The discipline, endurance, and the esprit de corps displayed by our members was highly encouraging.  The Reds may yap about “community”; they may mythologize about their student-worker alliance; but, in reality, without loud rhetoric, it is the Edmund Burke Society that has forged a true spirit of co-operation and fellowship among people of vastly different ethnic and economic backgrounds.  Painter, musician, student and writer were one team, united, effective, and happy on November Seventh, 1969.

– 30 –

 
______

1  ACA Admin:  Diefenbaker’s presence at the celebration of the Russian Revolution at the Soviet Embassy might begin to be explained by the fact that his government dismissed the RCMP’s Featherbed File out-of-hand, although it claimed to expose profound Soviet penetration of Canada’s federal government, from the top down.

A sentence or two out of a draft article (circa 1979) on the RCMP’s Featherbed File by the late Peter Worthington has this to say about John Diefenbaker:

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

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

To call an investigation of Communist subversion of a nation “witch-hunting” is typical Communist line to protect the subversion.  Yet, three “governments” of Canada adopted typical Communist line to refuse to investigate RCMP warnings of serious infiltration.

We can understand this from the “government” of Soviet Agent Pearson (exposed to the FBI by Elizabeth Bentley) and from the “government” of Mole for Moscow Pierre Elliott Trudeau.  But indeed, for Diefenbaker to be on board with suppressing a police investigation of deep government subversion suggests that Diefenbaker was not a very avid “anti-Communist”.

A scan of Worthington’s draft article is online:

http://en.calameo.com/books/000111790cf331953e601

Additional evidence that John Diefenbaker was controlled opposition is the June 14th, 1970 clip from Toronto Sun reporter, Douglas Fisher entitled “Gouzenko Felt Cheated”:

The government issue was more turgid.  They had been very disappointed that during the years of the Diefenbaker government, they had had no more recognition.  No one had come round to hear their arguments that there had been a massive cover up within the senior Ottawa bureaucracy, organized as they saw it by Lester Pearson and Norman Robertson (clerk of the Privy Council during the spy uproar).  The Gouzenkos were convinced that several mandarins in the highest positions in the land were being protected by the ban against revealing all the documentation Igor had brought to the government and the subsequent proceedings of the Taschereau inquiry.

That makes three strikes against Diefenbaker.  (1.)  He celebrates the Bolshevik Revolution over at the Soviet Embassy;  (2.)  He dismissed the RCMP’s Featherbed File out-of-hand;  (3.)  He expresses no concern that vital information on the top-down Soviet penetration of Canada, produced by Gouzenko and the Taschereau Commission, has been squelched.  But, of course, the best is that the EBS caught him entering the Red Embassy to celebrate the 1917 Communist conquest of Russia.