Only Pawns in their Game

Category: Historical Reprints.
Source: Straight Talk! The Official Bulletin Of The Edmund Burke Society.
Editor: F. Paul Fromm
Associate Editor: Jeff Goodall
Writers: E.B.S. members and friends
Directors: The Council of the E.B.S.
Volume III, Number 1, September 1970

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.

Only Pawns in their Game

By F. Paul Fromm, B.A.

One of the cardinal principles adopted by the EDMUND BURKE SOCIETY from its very foundation was that we would co-operate with other conservative and anti-communist groups. We might feel that other groups might be too wishy-washy, too outspoken, poorly informed, or participating in dead-end causes or activities. We vowed that we would seek to co-operate with such groups in areas of common interest. We would not spend our time in fratricidal bickering and hair-splitting. The fight against our strong and common enemy is far more important than petty differences as to method or personality. It is, therefore, with deep regret that I am writing this article.

On August 20, the EDMUND BURKE SOCIETY was officially invited to participate and to provide a speaker at a rally outside the legislative buildings in Queen’s Park. The rally was organized by a small group of “Czech democrats” and the occasion was the sorrowful commemoration of the second anniversary of the Soviet re-invasion of Czechoslovakia.

Several hundred people representing a half-dozen nationalities were present. As we waited for the proceedings to begin, we noted with shock that two people, who had no ideological right to be there, were very thick and friendly with the organizers. Standing puffing serenely on his pipe was provincial N.D.P. leader, Donald MacDonald — the centre of attraction. Also hovering in the wings was Toronto’s far-left alderman, Karl Jaffary. On spotting our thirty members with their bright green, black, and white banners, one N.D.P. official muttered that that local Gestapo was here. Hurried consultations between MacDonald and the obviously flattered organizers resulted in an ultimatum — either the N.D.P. or us. The brave advocates of participatory democracy refused to share the same platform as us. The smooth-talking, slickly attired master-of-ceremonies turned out to be a law partner of Karl Jaffary; so, it came as no surprise that E.B.S. was told thanks but no thanks regarding a speaker.

Ironically, the speech that was to be made by our E.B.S. spokesman dealt with traps and pitfalls which we wished to warn the various ethnic leaders to avoid. We wanted to warn them against being taken in by selfish politicians, who will smile and sympathize with them to harvest the ethnic vote, and who will fulfill none of their promises. The N.D.P. had completely taken over the rally. The Czech leaders seemed positively mesmerized at the casual attention being paid to them by the N.D.P. politicos. In their speeches, the N.D.P. twosome allowed as how they opposed communism. They warned that freedom suffered at the hands of both the left and the right. (Dig! Dig!) Alderman Jaffary lost no time in criticizing the conservative government of Greece. (I thought we were there to talk about Czechoslovakia.) Jaffary had been involved with a far-left group and its efforts to beam radio broadcasts at Greece from an off-shore yacht.

When all the false tears were shed, the N.D.P. leaders urged that little could be done about Czechoslovakia. They bemoaned the fact that men could not live in peace — almost implying that the Czechs were somehow guilty for the Soviet invasion of their country. The purpose of their remarks was obvious — to steer young ethnics away from an active involvement in anti-communism by portraying the liberation of their homelands as a hopeless cause, and to placate the ethnic old-folks with sympathetic words about their country’s fate.

Alderman Jaffary claimed that when he heard the news that the U.S.S.R. had invaded Czechoslovakia, he went down to the Canada-U.S.S.R. Association and painted black SWASTIKAS ( ? ) on their property. Jaffary doesn’t seem to realize that the leader of the Canadian Nazi Party drew a six-month sentence for a similar escapade against a synagogue. However, if you are waiting to see what sort of punishment the courts will mete out to Jaffary for his self-confessed act of vandalism, you haven’t yet learned that there is one law for . . . and another law for . . . .

Unsuccessful mayoralty candidate, Margaret Campbell, gave a mercifully short speech which consisted of a list of the various ethnic groups that she sympathized with. She ended with a yawn after six [minutes] and showed her deep concern for the importance of the commemoration by leaving the park immediately.

The N.D.P. is the party that opposes just about every anti-communist government in the world. It opposes our NATO role. It opposes the Allied war against communism in South-East Asia. It has been a constant supporter of the U.S. draft-dodgers and as recently as May 9, showed their continuing support for the Red rabble in the streets by contributing $2,000.00 to the bail fund of the leftists arrested. The money ended up in the hands of the violent May 4 Movement and much of it was used to pay off previous printing expenses. The question remains, why were the N.D.P. invited in the first place?  They can no more call themselves anti-communists than the Black Panthers can pretend that they are soft, furry kitty-cats.

The leadership of this small faction of “Czech democrats” has fallen under the influence of the N.D.P., which is seeking ways to co-opt the ethnic vote in the big urban areas. The E.B.S. en masse, before the T.V. cameras, turned its collective back on the N.D.P. speakers.

One of our associates, speaking on the invitation of the organizers for the Latvian community, repudiated the sell-out politics of the liberals and the N.D.P.  In the months to come, we will be carrying to our various ethnic friends the message — beware of the politicians. Watch their record before you listen to their words. Only in this way can the ethnic anti-communists use their numerical strength to wring meaningful action from the politicians. The approach of the Czech democrats will only make anti-communists pawns in the game of their avowed enemies.

– 30 –

Strong Man Harry

Category:  Historical Reprints
SourceAlton Evening Telegraph, 2 Apr 1953, Thu, Page 6

Strong Man Harry

Victor Riesel Says

New York, April 2 — Even well informed insiders have been sharply underestimating the power and position of Harry Bridges in the Soviet scheme of things.

There is now available to the intelligence services of all western nations a man willing to charge that, to his personal knowledge 1, the belligerent Bridges is the Soviet’s control man for 10,000 miles of coastline.  This runs from Alaska right through the Cominform center in Guatemala, the Panama Canal Zone and on down to the vital copper-laden docks of Chile.

The man from whom I learn this is Pat Walsh, once Bridges’ undercover waterfront comrade-in-arms.  Today Walsh, carefully guarding his own documents and secrets, is in open rebellion against the Soviet’s global labor network.  Pat Walsh was leader of the Canadian waterfront section of the Communist Party until he broke recently.  It was Walsh now in Quebec City, who was ordered personally and he has the documents to prove it, to sabotage our Marshall Plan arms and food shipments to Europe.

Today, Walsh informed this column that Harry Bridges, although a convicted perjurer and a Communist Party member according to the testimony which led to his deportation order, is still the active Western Hemisphere liaison man for the Soviet’s global labor operation known as the World Federation of Trade Unions.

Just what is this world labor federation for which Bridges is fronting along 10,000 miles of vital defense coastline?

Let me show you what the French counter-intelligence headquarters thinks of it.  Just a few hours before this was written, scores of Paris police and special security officers jammed riot helmed riot helmets on their heads, picked up automatic rifles and descended on the French section of the World Federation of Trade Unions.

With the Parisian police, who obviously expected quite a battle, were French counter-espionage agents.  They broke into the headquarters run by the French General Confederation of Labor, and carted away special files and current records.  This confederation in France is the single most important and powerful affiliate of the Russian’s World Federation of Trade Union.  Obviously the French security police don’t trust it.

A sister union of the raided French Confederation of Labor is the International Seamen’s and Dockers’ Union.  Guess who turns up as president of this sister union?  Harry Bridges!

Furthermore, our own intelligence people have just learned that if the Supreme Court gets off its antipathy for ruling on the five-year-old Bridges case, and upholds the lower courts’ deportation orders, the man will go to Europe and will become official head of all maritime activities of the Soviet’s world labor federation!

Meanwhile, Pat Walsh charges that Bridges is in constant communication with the veteran Communist who now is Moscow’s specialist on maritime operations in the American Hemisphere.  Fellow’s name is Andre Fressinet, a powerful French comrade now operating out of Vienna where the Russians have located the World Federation of Trade Unions in their own zone.  There, the MVD can protect it and keep its sharp eyes on all its operations across the world.

(Copyright 1953)

– 30 –

1  Referring to intelligence obtained by Riesel from Pat Walsh for the former’s “Labor” column, Riesel claims that he is about to divulge the “personal knowledge” of Patrick Walsh, supposedly a deeply embedded former insider into Soviet penetration of labour.  However, it seems very odd indeed that Walsh would have claimed “personal knowledge” of the Soviet nature of activities undertaken by “Strong Man Harry” Bridges.  In his July 13th, 1953 testimony three-and-a-half months after the date of this news item by Riesel, Walsh denies “personal knowledge” of Harry Bridges’ Communism.  That exchange before the Un-American Activities subcommittee at Albany, New York, went this way (page 2378):

Mr. Kearney.  Do you have any knowledge of your own as to whether Harry Bridges was a member of the Communist Party or not?

Mr. Walsh.  Well, I haven’t got any positive knowledge, but among seamen and dockers it was commonly acknowledged that he was a member of the Communist Party or, if he wasn’t he was certainly doing everything that Communists were doing in the maritime section — and we could see, for example, in publications of the Communist Party, of seamen and dockers’ workers’ unions, that Harry Bridges even had articles.  For example, I have an article here from a French Communist paper of Harry Bridges, which I could submit to the committee, and I’ve seen various articles of Bridges in Italian and Hungarian and German and Dutch and French papers.

Mr. Scherer.  There wasn’t any question in the minds of those individuals like yourself who were acting in the Communist Party that Harry Bridges was a Communist, was there?

Mr. Walsh.  No, because Pat Sullivan, the founder and the president of the Canadian Seamen’s Union, told me that Harry Bridges and himself and other American Communists — that they met in the Morrison Hotel in Chicago, I believe, and that they had decided to coordinate plans in Canada for the eventual taking over of longshoremen’s unions, which were then controlled by the International Longshoremen’s Association.

Mr. Scherer.  Who would take over?  What do you mean?

Mr. Walsh.  Harry Bridges’ outfit — the International Longshoremens’ and Warehousemen’s Union.

How could Pat Walsh be qualified, according to Riesel writing at the beginning of April 1953, with the following credentials:

“There is now available to the intelligence services of all western nations a man willing to charge that, to his personal knowledge 1, the belligerent Bridges is the Soviet’s control man for 10,000 miles of coastline.”

Could it be that Walsh was willing to exaggerate to Riesel for some reason, but he was not willing to risk the prospect of perjury charges before the Un-American Activities subcommittee?  In any event, we cannot “convict” Walsh on Riesel’s words in the column above; but as hearsay, they conflict to a substantial degree with the claims and qualifications made by Walsh when later questioned on Harry Bridges by the U.S. Subcommittee.

On the other hand, perhaps Riesel “dressed up” the nature of Walsh’s words to him, to enhance the “authority” of his own column as a source of intelligence on Communist activities in labor.


Canadian Admits Ship Strike Role; Reds Aimed at Aid Plan, Probe Told

Category:  Historical Reprints
Source:  Democrat and Chronicle, 14 Jul 1953, Tue, Page 3

Canadian Admits Ship Strike Role; Reds Aimed at Aid Plan, Probe Told

14 July 1953

Albany — AP — A Canadian ex-Communist yesterday told House investigators that he helped engineer a 1949 shipping strike as a Communist scheme to scuttle the Marshall Plan.

Patrick Walsh, 37-year-old Quebec native, told a House Un-American Activities subcommittee the strike was run by the Canadian Seamen’s Union.

Walsh, who described the CSU as Communist-dominated, was the first witness before the subcommitee, as it opened a four-day inquiry here into subversive activities.

The stocky, ruddy-face Canadian said he joined the Communist movement when he was 17 or 18, but cut all party connections last February.

Speaking with a noticeable French accent, Walsh detailed what he termed the Communist planning and organization for the shipping strike.

In reply to one query, he told reporters that while still a member of the party, he had cooperated with anti-Communist groups.  Some of these agents, he said, advised him to stay in the party so he could better expose it when he finally made his break.

Walsh’s testimony occupied the entire first day of the hearing.  Beginning today, the investigators are to hear between “15 and 29” persons from the Albany area, including a number of present or former state employees.

Walsh told the probers, headed by Rep. Bernard W. Kearney (R-NY) that party orders caused him to join the Canadian Army, veterans organizations, the CSU and other groups.

The Canadian labor leader testified in answer to a question that during this period his primary loyalty was to the Communist Party and not to the Canadian government.

Walsh said he joined the CSU on orders from Harry Binder of Montreal and he testified that Raymond Collette, the union’s business agent, got him on a ship as a seaman.

Pat Walsh helped organize strike

… helped organize strike

Walsh explained that he was instructed to contact Communist dock workers unions in ports where his ship docked.  Then, he said, [he] was to try to persuade them to refuse to unload ships.

In Genoa, Walsh related, he attended a meeting of "top Communist agitators in the maritime section of the Cominform," at which plans for a worldwide shipping strike were discovered.

Walsh said he was to have been aboard the Beaver Brae, which he described as the "key ship" in the tieup, but that the party ordered him transferred to another vessel at the last moment an dhe did not take a central part in the strike.

The walkout, he said, halted shipping in Europe, Canada and some U.S. West Coast ports for nearly seven months.

Cargoes and machinery were damaged, he said, and "the Marshall Plan certainly received a serious blow."

It [the strike] finally failed, Walsh said, primarily because of the intervention of the non-Communist Seafarer's International Union and the return to work of some strikers.

Among other reasons he cited for the end of the shipping tieup was the inability of Harry Bridges, West Coast labor leader, to obtain passports to take part in the Genoa conference and another he said was held later in Marseille in a move to bolster the flagging walkout.

Another reason Walsh gave for the failure [of the strike] was refusal of the National Maritime Union, and the International Longshoremen's Association which controlled seamen in U.S. East Coast ports, to take part in the strike.

After the strike, Walsh added, he was sent to Toronto, where he became a member of the executive committee of the Canadian Peace Congress, which he described as a Communist-run organization.

He said that he finally decided to quit the party when the Communists ordered that, at all costs, atom spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg must be saved from execution.

Walsh testified that as late as last September, party members within the Canadian Union of Woodworkers had been alerted to sabotage forests and hydro-electric plants in the event of war with Russia.

Earlier, Walsh had set off a round of close questioning with a reference to Alger Hiss.

The Communist-dominated World Federation of Trade Unions was seeking recognition as the representative of world labor at the San Francisco conference at which the United Nations was organized in 1945, he said.

The federation was refused.  But Walsh produced a copy of a French periodical dated April, 1946, in which Sir Walter Citrine, then president of the WFTU, wrote that Hiss had notified the WFTU that any correspondence it addressed to the conference would be distributed to delegates "immediately and officially" as a memorandum.

– 30 –


Under the Soviet Rainbow by Louis Fischer (1944)

The Bolsheviks Come into Power

The Bolsheviks Come into Power — a sketch of Lenin and Stalin with the Red Guards in the Smolny Institute, Party headquarters, 1917

Foreword:  This article was published in the February 1944 “American-Russian Frontiers” issue of Survey Graphic, Vol. XXXIII, No. 2, p. 95.  The photo above is from a different article in the same issue, “Our Ally — Soviet Russia” by Walter Duranty, p. 118.

“Under The Soviet Rainbow” by Louis Fischer holds the keys to the 1982 Charter imposed on homogeneous Canada by Pierre Elliott Trudeau, to the anti-white racist epithet “white supremacist” and to mass immigration of foreigners into the west.  We are being Sovietized!

Under the Soviet Rainbow

Not pots of gold — but vessels of human clay in which millions of non-Russians are bound together by a “common experience of constant growth and flowering.”

By Louis Fischer

“The United States has been called a “melting pot”; in it, white immigrants from all the world merge to form an American pattern.  But Maxim Litvinov called the Soviet Union a “league of nations.”  There each race — Ukrainians, Tartars, Chuvashi, Mordvins, Russians, Chechentsi, Armenians, Georgians, Buryat-Mongols and 180 others — received at the hands of the Bolshevik Revolution the right, indeed the injunction, to retain its separate individuality (language, customs, costumes).  Since Leninism abhorred national superiority; or national inferiority, all nationalities were considered equal.

The 1917 Revolution could preach internationalism abroad and freedom for subject colonies because it immediately created its own International inside Old Russia and freed its subject races.  The domination of the Slavs and the cult of Pan-Slavism yielded to the supremacy of workers and the dictatorship of the Communist Party.  The Russian worker regarded the Russian capitalist as his enemy and the Uzbek worker or the French worker as his friend and ally.  This was not mere dogma; Soviet citizens felt it.  Blood ties ceased to count in the new Soviet league of nations.  Since nationalities were equal in the Soviet Union, militant nationalism began to fade away.

Soviet scientists have counted 189 races in the USSR. But there is no guarantee that others will not be discovered.  Of 195,000,000 Soviet inhabitants in peacetime, only 80,000,000 were Russians.

The Soviets catalogued men not according to blood and birth but by class, occupations, and ideas.  That is why the theory of Bolshevism is the extreme opposite of fascism.

Under the autocratic Tsars, the Russians ruled and all the other races were “aliens” whom St. Petersburg tried to “russify.”  Where this attempt to foist the Russian language and Russian traditions on non-Russian or anti-Russian peoples failed, the Cossacks stepped in with their guns and knouts, or one race was set against the other.  Ukrainians pogromed Jews; Armenians and Tartars engaged in mutual slaughter in the Caucasus; and other minorities fought interminably.  The authorities looked on when they did not feed these feuds.  Division helped the “Tsar of all the Russias” to rule.  “Russia” meant nothing to the Tadjiks of Central Asia or the Ossetians of the North Caucasus except Tsarist oppression.

This “prison of subject races” was converted into a peaceful “league of nations” by the simple expedient of abolishing the supremacy of the Russian and Slav.  The hatred of the national minorities for the Tsar thereupon began to melt into eager cooperation with Soviet Moscow.

The numerous races inhabiting the long periphery of what had been Russia now felt that they “belonged.”

A Red Emancipation Day

On November 15, 1917, eight days after the Bolsheviks came to power, a Soviet decree signed by Lenin, the Russian, and Stalin, the Georgian, proclaimed “the right to free development of all national minorities” and “their self-determination including separation.”  Lenin conformed to the principle of self-determination when he facilitated or refrained from obstructing the independence of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland which had been annexed by Tsarism.  These non-Russian lands were never regarded as Soviet irredenta, and Stalin did not except them he declared in 1936:  “We want no foot of foreign territory.”

He did not say:  We want no foot of foreign territory except the border republics once conquered by the Tsar.  He said, “We want no foot of foreign territory.”  This Stalin slogan was in the spirit of Leninism — and Bolshevik speeches, banners, broadcasts and articles repeated it millions of times.

The principle of “free development of all national minorities” inside the Soviet Union was adhered to even more loyally by the Soviet government.  In fact, the treatment accorded to races is the brightest page in the political history of the Soviet Union.

Persecution of national minorities or discrimination on account of race was made tantamount to counter-revolution in revolutionary Russia.  To be anti-Tartar or anti-Jewish, or to exalt the Slav or Russian, was a crime against the socialist state, and was mercilessly punished.  Just as Hitler later deliberately fostered race hatred in Germany in order to divert attention from the class war and to intensifv German nationalism, so the Bolsheviks curbed racial passions and nationalism and emphasized the class war.

Racism is to fascism as racial equality and internationalism are to Bolshevism.

Fractions and Federalism

The Soviet regime did not merely end discrimination against  national minorities.  It discriminated in favor of national minorities so as to wipe out their cultural, political, and economic lag.  Every opportunity, encouragement, and aid was given to the races of Soviet Asia, the Caucasus, the Volga region, the Ukraine and White Russia — to educate themselves, to develop the economic wealth of their areas and, as far as was practicable within a highly centralized country, to enjoy political autonomy.  Each large national minority, like the Ukrainians, Georgians, Uzbeks, White Russians, and Armenians, constituted an independent republic inside the federal union.

But in Georgia, for example, there is a race called Adjari, numbering a few thousand, who live in and around the Black Sea port of Batum, and another race of Abkhazi at Sukhum.  So the Union Republic of Georgia includes the autonomous subdivisions of Adjaristan and Abkhazia.  Like all other subdivisions and republics of the national minorities, Adjaristan and Abkhazia use their own racial language in their schools and government offices.  Most of their officials are members of these races.

Soviet economy is planned in and directed from Moscow.  The federal government owns all land, large factories, oil wells, railroads, mines, lines of communication, wharves, ships — all forms of capital.  The federal government operates all important industrial units and also controls the finances and domestic and foreign trade of the entire country.  Moreover, the communists are the only political party and their primary allegiance is to Moscow.  The secret police — keystone of any dictatorship — the Red Army, Air Force, and Navy, are likewise functions of the central government in Moscow.  The powers and responsibilities of the regional autonomous republics and territorial subdivisions which constitute the Soviet Union are therefore, of necessity, severely circumscribed.  Yet in the central government, Russians have had no monopoly.  Many Soviet leaders of the past, Dzerzhinski, Trotsky, Svcedlov, Zinoviev, Rakovski, Kamenev, Ordzhonikidze, Yagoda, and so on, were non-Russian.  Stalin is a Georgian; Mikoyan, Commissar of Trade, an Armenian; Kaganovich, the able industrial organizer, a Jew.

Every Soviet citizen knows that racial origin has not been a bar to the attainment of the highest goals.

Virgin Human Soil

Even the limited political and Economic rights and prerogatives which the national minorities enjoy in their autonomous regions have infused them with a sense of dignity.  New opportunities have fired their ambitions and given them a mighty incentive to achieve progress and knowledge.  The country’s tremendous expansion in the economic and educational fields created a vast demand for talent and ability.  The national minorities, especially, answered the call, since many of the new industries were located in the peripheral areas — the Caucasus, Central Asia, Siberia — which are largely peopled by non-Russians and which Tsarist Russia had exploited in the usual imperialist manner.

In some cases, the human soil was almost completely virgin.  I visited Central Asia in 1930 when the ambitious Turkestan-Siberian railway was opened.  Bill Shatoff, former Chicago revolutionist who supervised the construction of the line, told me that one of his chief difficulties was building a railroad with labor that had never seen a railroad.  By labor he meant the Kazakh nomads of the vast empty spaces bordering on China.

These are more Chinese than Russian and they had not yet reached even the agrarian stage of civilization.  They live in cylindrical or conical felt yurts (cousin of the wigwam) and followed the grass crop with their flocks.  They rode ponies.  In fact, they seemed to live on their ponies.  I saw thousands of them, assembled from the endless domains of Central Asia, listen to many speeches while sitting in their saddles.  The women did the hard chores, and the men, Shatoff said, consequently had “lady fingers” and suffered from the unaccustomed work of building the railway.

The moment they accepted employment, the Soviet authorities started teaching them to read and write and to be loyal citizens.  In Ain Bulak, a Kazakh settlement on the new Turk-Sib line, a native bard, strumming a gourd-like instrument, sat on the rails and extemporized couplets about “giant bands of steel” and “the iron chug horse.”

Amid the Caucasus Mountains, under the shadow of Mt. Elbrus which is higher than Mt. Blanc, dwell the Swannetians who saw Soviet airplanes fly over them before they themselves were sufficiently advanced to use wheeled vehicles.  At a lower altitude in the same region, I met Kevsurs who wore coats of mail and claimed to be descendants of the Crusaders.

Even these very retarded peoples moved forward rapidly with Moscow’s aid and under communist prodding.  Betal Kalmikov, a Kabardinian married to a Polish woman, acquired an all-Soviet reputation for the skillful administration of his native Kabardino-Balkarian Republic in the North Caucasus near Pyatigorsk, and he was only one of a new generation of leaders and executives which quickly emerged under the warm sun of racial opportunity.

Soviet experience has demonstrated that “backward” races quickly lunge forward when they are no longer held back.

Alphabets and Unity

The overwhelming majority of the members of the national minorities were illiterate before the Bolshevik Revolution.  That was because the Empire had not devoted itself to the education of Russians much less non-Russians and, equally, because where schools were established their language of instruction was Russian — an often hated tongue to the racial groups.

The Soviet regime reversed this.  Teachers began to teach in the national language of each race.  If there were enough Jewish pupils to constitute a class or school in a Russian or Ukrainian or Tartar region a class or school was opened for them in Yiddish.  Just as Russians were no longer able to impose the Russian language on Ukrainians or Georgians, so the Ukrainians could not impose Ukrainian on Germans, Poles or Jews nor could Georgians impose Georgian on Russian or Armenian or Turkic inhabitants of Georgia.

Some nationalities were so backward that they possessed no written language or grammar.  Soviet scientists evolved these for them.  Literacy in some races was particularly low because they used the complicated, cursive Arabic script.  The Soviet government substituted the simple Latin alphabet for this script and the result was a sharp rise in literacy in the Caucasus and Central Asia.  By creating a script-gulf between the Turco-Turanian peoples of the Soviet Union and their kin abroad, this innovation, incidentally, was calculated to weaken the Pan-Turanian movement.

Moreover, through the industrialization and modernization of the country, Bolshevism served to Europeanize Russia.  The grant of culture to the eastern nationalities was a further westernizing influence.  In the primitive hills of the Caucasus I once met a young Ossetian who had learned the Latin alphabet.  I showed him an American magazine and he slowly spelled out the syllables, although he could not understand the words.  This feat gave him the sense of having performed a miracle.  He said, “I have jumped across an ocean and I have touched America.”

He felt as if he had risen into interplanetary space on the vehicle of language.

“None of my ancestors back to birth of the earth,” he said, “could ever read his own language.  Now I can read yours.”

In my fourteen years in the Soviet Union, I traveled a good deal among the national minorities because there the creative processes released by the Revolution were most exciting.  A few hours’ trip took one from the home of one race to the home of a very different race bound to its neighbor by the new and common experience of constant growth and flowering.

Daring and Consistency

Literacy plus, of course, dynamic Soviet politics, helped to break the influence of religion — especially of the Moslem and Buddhist churches — in the retarded regions of the minorities.  The emphasis of scientific teaching in Soviet schools and, in general, the rationalistic nature of communist theory served to further undermine religion.

It is impossible to assume that Stalin would give up Soviet centralism in the midst of a war that requires the highest concentration of political authority and military organization.  Moscow’s decision to accord the sixteen constituent Soviet republics the right to maintain their own armies and to have their diplomatic representatives abroad was published just as the Red Army touched Estonian soil and when the Soviet penetration into Poland began to develop.  It is logical to suppose, therefore, that Stalin hoped his promise of separate armies and separate foreign representation would weaken the resistance of Baltic nationalists to what they might otherwise regard as the total extinction of their countries.  The same promise may stimulate the desire of Balkan peoples to solve their problems by merging with the Soviet Union.

Occasionally, Soviet minorities have given Moscow plenty of trouble. Ukrainians or Georgians or Armenians have been accused of wishing to expand their nationalism to a point where it might lead to secession.

The Ukrainians were thus charged with dreaming of an independent Greater Ukraine embracing the Ukrainians of the Soviet Union, Poland, Rumania, and Czechoslovakia.  Such designs were branded as “bourgeois” and those accused of harboring them were liquidated.  In several instances, the number of liquidated Ukrainians was large.  But in view of Russia’s pre-revolutionary past and the variety of social, political, economic and cultural levels, the unity which the Soviet Union achieved has been truly remarkable.

Freedom under Moscow pleased the racial minorities which had been irked by Russian supremacy.

Racial Peace

All the minorities have forged ahead very rapidly in cultural attainments and economic development.  There has also been much intermarriage between races!  Peoples that were anathema to one another and traditional enemies — like the Armenians and the Tartars, the Ukrainians and the Jews — have intermarried in considerable numbers.  Racial divisions mattered less because the full expression of racial personality was unimpeded by the Soviet government.  No one “superior” race made the others race-conscious.  In Samarkand I once asked an Uzbek woman whether the child she had by her Russian husband would be an Uzbek or a Russian.

“He will be a Soviet citizen,” she answered.

In his book, “The Soviets,” Albert Rhys Williams describes Tsarist policy as “One Tsar, One Religion, One Language,” or, in the more abstract formula, Autocracy, Orththodoxy, and Nationalism — meaning by the last the culture, customs and institutions of the Great Russians.”  This is a profound truth.  Not only Russian nationalism but monarchy and the Orthodox Church conflicted with Bolshevism; it was no accident that the Soviet regime opposed all three.

Another factor contributed to racial peace within the Soviet Union:  total employment!  and the elimination of an exploiting class.  Beginning in 1928, on the eve of the introduction of the First Five-Year Plan, unemployment ceased; later, indeed, manpower shortage became the rule.  In this circumstance, no one could feel that another person was keeping him out of work.  Moreover, given the Soviet monopoly of domestic trade, no middleman exists who can be blamed for high prices, for cheating in weights and measures, for cornering the market.  I think this condition has helped to diminish anti-Semitism and to improve relations between the many Soviet races and the Armenians and Tartars who formerly bulked large in retail business.

Religion counts for very little to the new generation of Soviet Jews educated by the Revolution — and that means all Jews thirty-six years old or younger.  They have had no Hebrew education and they do not yearn for Palestine.  Anti-Semitism is too weak to reinforce their Jewishness or to make them want to be less Jewish.  I have talked to Jewish parents in the Ukraine who did not send their children to the government-encouraged Yiddish-language schools on the ground that pupils who acquired their knowledge in Yiddish would be handicapped in using it among non-Jews — say as teachers, physicians, or agriculturists.  For this practical reason, many Jews prefer Ukrainian schools to Jewish schools and, elsewhere in the Soviet Union, Jews frequently attend Russian-language schools.

When Lenin died in 1924, Alexei Rykov became Prime Minister not because he was most fitted for the position but because he was a Russian, whereas Boris Kamenev, who might have met the requirements better, was a Jew; and Stalin, whose power could have given him the job, was a Georgian.  But I remember how apologetically communists, then, explained this by the backwardness of the Russians.

In 1924, I visited Soviet Georgia together with a German newspaperman.  Georgian officials entertained us in a huge wine cellar in the wild mountains of Kakhetia.  General Tchaikovsky, a Russian commanding a cavalry regiment stationed in that area, was also present.  A Georgian filled his ram’s horn with wine and spoke a toast to “our three guests.”  Tchaikovsky remarked that there were only two guests.  “A Russian is always a guest in Georgia,” the official replied.  Even as late as 1936, I encountered resentment in the Caucasus against the presence of officials who were Russian.  Such instances were exceptions.

Gulfs widened by fear and hatred are bridged by tolerance.

The Nub of the Question

Soviet citizens have a remarkable blind spot for differences of race, religion, color, and place of birth.  They like foreigners even when they fear to associate with them.  Our American Negroes are special favorites in Soviet society.  In Soviet factories, offices, social gatherings, racial distinctions seem to pass unnoticed.

The Soviet policy of equal opportunity for all nationalities was practical and logical.  It offended no one and satisfied everyone except perhaps some Great Russian chauvinists and a few extreme anti-Bolshevik nationalists among the minorities.  It made administration of far-off areas easy and it accelerated progress throughout the land.  It had everything to recommend it.  Its concrete advantages and benefits might recommend it to other countries.

The Soviet policy towards national minorities had a particularly interesting effect on the teaching of history in the Soviet Union.  Russian history before the Revolution celebrated the works of monarchs, princes, generals who had ruthlessly conquered the territories inhabited by the national minorities; it glorified the classes that had exploited the common people.  It was, above all, the history of Russians.  Russia’s racial stepchildren had no part in it.  The Tsar’s imperialistic dream about the Balkans was disguised as the “Little Father’s” tender concern for “Brother Slavs.”  For all these reasons, the Bolsheviks rewrote the history books and showed the past in a very unfavorable light, a light which reflected the abhorrence which all good Soviet citizens — and especially the racial minorities — felt towards the deeds of the Tsarist regime.  This is the nub of the entire race question in the Soviet Union.

The Bolsheviks were able to establish racial peace at home because they broke with the past.  That is also the key to world peace.  There is no peace in the past.


— A Philadelphian who first set out for Moscow in 1922 — Mr. Fischer’s encounters for fourteen years were not only with Russian leaders who planned and wrought greatly but with workers, collective farmers, racial minorities.  His abiding faith in the future of the Soviet Republic has been matched by open-mindedness as an observer, and independence as an assessor of such issues as purges and pacts.

Long time correspondent of The Nation, and other journals, Mr. Fischer’s Russian books include “The Soviet and World Affairs,” 2 vols. (1930); “Why Recognize Russia?” (1931); “Machines and Men in Russia” (1932); “Soviet Journey” (1935).

Since 1936, along with lecturing at home, has come his interpretation of civil war in Spain, India in tension.  Meanwhile he has distilled the meaning of our times in an autobiography, “Men and Politics” (1941); “Empire” (1943).


FBI File on Lester Pearson

Soviet Espionage:  FBI File on Lester (Mike) Pearson



(Actual FBI file extract is embedded below.)

FBI Memo About Lester Pearson

September 8, 1951

Mr. A. H. Belmont

Mr. C. E. Hennrich

Michael Pearson:


To recommend that the answers to the State Department’s questions concerning the information made available by Elizabeth Bentley on Lester Pearson, highly placed Canadian government official, by [be] forwarded to the State Department. To recommend that additional information made available by Bentley regarding Lester Pearson be forwarded to the Department of Justice and to Inspector Bayfield of the RCMP.


Elizabeth Bentley was interviewed by agents of the New York Office on August 17, 1951, at which time she related that she recently had been a witness before the McCarran Committee and had answered questions placed by the Committee concerning Lester Pearson. On interview Bentley provided as much as she could recall of the testimony that she gave on August 14, 1951 to the McCarran Committee. In effect she stated that in 1943 and 1944 Pearson, then an official of the Canadian Embassy in Washington, made information available to Bentley through an intermediary. Pearson allegedly gave information of a political nature.

The intermediary was not identified in the communications sent to the Department of State, the Department of Justice, or Inspector Bayfield under date of August 27, 1951. Elizabeth Bentley identified the intermediary as Hazen Size, member of the Canadian Film Board in Washington, D. C.

By teletype dated September 5, 1951, New York advised that on reinterview on that date Bentley was unable to state in what manner Size obtained the information concerning top level British policy and political matters from Pearson. She did not know whether Pearson provided such information voluntarily to Size knowing that it was going to be given to an unauthorized party. Bentley restated that Pearson and Size were very friendly in Canada and were connected with left wing circles in that country. She advised that she was only guessing but that she was of the opinion that Pearson either knew that the information made available by him was being given to an unauthorized person or that he simply was stupid.

[Approximately 18 lines deleted under United States Freedom of Information Act.]


Answers to the above questions obtained during the interviews of Bentley are set out as follows:

1. Bentley identified the intermediary who passed information from Pearson to her as Hazen Size, member of the Canadian Film Board in Washington, D. C. Bentley on interview on September 5, 1951, told New York agents that she was only guessing but that she was of the opinion that Pearson either knew that the information made available by him was being given to an unauthorized person or that he was simply stupid.

2. By confidential memorandum dated August 27, 1951, Inspector Bayfield of the RCMP was advised of the identical information provided to the Department of State and the Department of Justice under letters of that date.

3. Bentley provided the information attributed to her to agents of the New York Office on August 17, 1951, and on September 5, 1951.


It is recommended that this information requested by the State Department through Liaison be forwarded to them together with the information provided by Bentley on reinterview. In view of the additional information provided by Bentley on reinterview it is recommended that this information be forwarded to the Department of Justice and to Inspector Bayfield.


For your approval are attached letters to the Department of State, the Department of Justice and a memorandum for Inspector Bayfield.


Source:  Unknown, FBI Memo About Lester Pearson, The Education and Research Institute, Silvermaster File Online,, (September 8, 1951)

Read a copy of Pearson’s FBI spy file online here:


M O R E   E X T R A C T S

(Actual FBI file extract is embedded below.)

FBI Memo About Lester Pearson



Date: August 16, 1951



AUGUST 16, 1951

At 11:15 P.M., New York Night Supervisor John Willis called, referred to your call earlier this evening in connection with instant matter, and advised as follows:

The files of the New York Office fail to reflect that Elizabeth Bentley at any time spoke to Bureau Agents concerning Michael Pearson, Canadian Minister of External Affairs.

The Agents handling Bentley don’t recall the name Michael Pearson; however, Agent Tom Spencer will look into the matter further and will call you tomorrow from the New York Office.


None. This is for your information.



The above call is in response to my request of August 16, following the receipt of information from a representative of the McCarran Committee that Miss Bentley allegedly furnished certain information to the Bureau regarding Lester B. (Michael) Pearson, Canadian Minister of External Affairs. The New York Office was advised that a thorough check of the Bureau’s records had failed to locate any information received from Miss Bentley regarding Pearson. Accordingly, Mr. Willis was requested to check the files of the New York Office and if no record was located there, arrangements should be made to have Miss Bentley interviewed concerning this matter.

At 9:20 A.M., August 17, 1951, I talked to Mr. Spencer, who was acting on Mr. Whelan’s desk, and inquired as to the status of this matter. Mr. Spencer stated that he was endeavoring to reach Miss Bentley and that he would notify the Bureau as soon as Miss Bentley was interviewed. At this time Mr. Spencer stated that he was positive that Miss Bentley never furnished any information to him concerning Pearson.




At 3:35 P.M. Mr. Spencer advised that he had talked to Miss Bentley, who stated that she is of the opinion that she previously had furnished information concerning Pearson’s activities to the Bureau during the several interviews had with her by Bureau representatives in connection with the Gregory and other cases. Mr. Spencer stated he assured Miss Bentley that she had not furnished information concerning Pearson. Spencer further pointed out that Miss Bentley then stated that apparently she was in error since it was her recollection that she had made this information available to Bureau Agents.

Mr. Spencer then stated that the information he obtained from Miss Bentley had been incorporated in a teletype and forwarded to the Bureau.


Upon the receipt of this information, consideration should be given to making it available to the Department and the State Department in view of Pearson’s official Canadian position.



[ Page 58 of 116 of the Silvermaster PDF: ]


MR. L. L. LAUGHLIN          September 6, 1951
MR. V. P. KRAY [sp?]


Under date of August 17, 1951, the Bureau supplied to the State Department information concerning the alleged Soviet espionage activities of Lester B. Pearson, as reported by Elizabeth Bentley.

The information supplied by the Bureau reflected that in 1943 and 1944, Pearson, then an official of the Canadian Embassy in Washington, made information available to Bentley through an intermediary. Pearson allegedly gave information of a political nature.


RRR: mfs:mer


It is recommended we comply with the State Department’s request and supply to Mr. Matthews for his personal and confidential use the answers to the above mentioned questions raised by him.

The Liaison Unit should be informed of the nature of the reply to be given to Mr. Matthrews [sic].



[ Page 63 of 116 on the Silvermaster PDF: ]

September 8, 1951
Michael Pearson

Reference is made to my communication to you dated August 27, 1951 in captioned matter.

This is to advise that Elizabeth Bentley has stated that Lester Pearson and Hazen Size, member of the Canadian Film Board in Washington, D.C., were friendly in Canada and were connected with and moved in left wing circles in Canada before World War II. Accordingl [sic] to Bentley, while Pearson was either number 1 or number 2 man in the Canadian Legation in Washington, D.C., in 1943, he attended all top level meetings with British diplomats in Washington, D.C. At these meetings policy and political matters were discussed. Pearson would make this information available to Size, who in turn would provide the same to Bentley. This type of contact was maintained for about 1-1/2 years in 1943 and 1944.

Bentley advised that she was unable to state in what manner Size obtained that information from Pearson and that she did not know whether Pearson provided such information voluntarily to Size knowing that it was going to an unauthorized party. She also stated that she was only guessing but that she was of the opinion that Pearson either knew what [sic] the information made available by him was being given to an unauthorized person or that he was simply stupid.

The information attributed toe [sic] Bentley in this communication and in the communication of August 27, 1951, was provided by her to Special Agents of this bureau in New York on August 17, 1951 and on September 5, 1951.

cc:   Mr. Glenn H. Bethel
c/o The Commissioner
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Foreign Service Desk



L’Affaire Norman Revisited

L’Affaire Norman Revisited

Category: Historical Reprints.
Source: Straight Talk! The Official Bulletin Of The Edmund Burke Society.
Editor: Joseph A. Genovese
Associate Editors: F. Paul Fromm, D. Clarke Andrews
Volume I Number 3, December 1968

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.

L’Affaire Norman  Revisited

The publication of William A. Rusher’s new book, SPECIAL COUNSEL (Arlington House, New Rochelle, N.Y.), a series of fascinating reflections of the author’s work with the Internal Security Subcommittee of the American Senate (I.S.S.C.), for the years 1956-57, will have special interest for Canadians if only for the two chapters in which he reviews the strange case of E. Herbert Norman, the Japanese-born communist, whose career as a Soviet agent in our Foreign Service came to an abrupt end with his suicide in Cairo in 1957 on the heels of his devastating exposure by the Subcommittee.

Prior to the Subcommittee’s revelations and unknown to the Canadian people, the RCMP had tumbled to Norman’s game as early as 1940, as a result of information from an undercover informant in the Communist fifth column who subsequently became an RCMP agent.  “According to information developed by the Mounties”, Rusher reveals,

“… Norman had probably been a member of the Canadian Communist Party as early as 1935.  In that year he married Laure Irene Clark, and one of the official witnesses had been Charles P. Holmes, a well-identified Canadian Communist … In February 1940, however, an underground source of the RCMP had identified Norman (by now a Canadian Foreign Service officer and about to leave for service in Japan) as a member of the Canadian Communist Party.”

Two years later, in 1942, there was an exchange of civilian prisoners, according to which a Japanese economist of the Communist persuasion, one Shigeto Tsuru, who had been at Harvard, was repatriated to Japan, and Norman was repatriated to Canada.  In the rush to leave, Tsuru left a raft of letters and documents in his apartment.  Norman then approached the FBI, represented himself as acting confidentially for the Canadian Government, and asked for custody of these papers.  He later admitted that he was not acting in any official capacity, but as a matter of personal interest.  He didn’t get the papers, which proved to be documents involving a “study group” in which Tsuru had played a leading role in the thirties.  Among them was a project of Tsuru’s for the “study” of American capitalism from the Communist point of view, as well as a paper by E. Herbert Norman on … AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.

Five years later, in 1947, Norman had been recalled from Tokyo to explain his close friendship with Israel Halperin, who was a member of one of the Russian spy rings uncovered in the previous year (1946) by Igor Gouzenko, the defecting cipher clerk of the Soviet Embassy in Ottawa.  The Third Interim Report of the Taschereau-Kellock Royal Commission revealed that Halperin was known to the Soviet Embassy by the cover name “Bacon”, and that he had “formed part of the group which was to operate under the direction of Captain Gordon Lunan.”  For reasons which seemed more technical than valid, Halperin was acquitted, despite the Royal Commission’s finding that “he violated the Official Secrets Act on more than one occasion.”  Norman seems to have talked himself out of any embarrassment on this occasion and continued to rise in our Foreign Service, largely, says Rusher, because of his “powerful friends”, chief of whom was Lester Pearson, then Secretary of State for External Affairs.

In October, 1950, the RCMP submitted a Memorandum to the Government on Norman’s subversive connections and activities, which was squelched.  “Pearson actually succeeded,” reports Rusher, “in forcing the RCMP to issue a second report in December 1950, modifying and softening its October memorandum; and Norman sailed serenely on.  Of this struggle behind the scenes, of course, the Canadian public was told nothing.”

Then came the famous Wittfogel testimony.  Professor Karl August Wittfogel, a German-born former Communist on the faculty of the University of Washington, and famous authority on Chinese history, was testifying to the Subcommittee on the activities of the infamous Institute on [sic] Pacific Relations and its anti-Chinese and pro-Soviet intrigues prior to World War II.  In the course of his testimony, he described one of those famous “study groups” to which he had belonged when he was at Columbia University in New York in 1933.  One of its members was our boy, Norman, who by 1951 had risen to become Chief of the American and Far Eastern Division of the Secretariat of State for External Affairs, and acting head of our delegation to the United Nations, if you please!

Behind The Liberal Curtain

When the Wittfogel testimony was made public (1951), the Liberals were understandably thunderstruck, for this merely corroborated the substance of the October 1950 Memorandum of the RCMP, which had been suppressed by Pearson.  On this occasion Pearson played it cool:  Norman was not called to account, he was not arrested, he was not discharged.”  Pearson expressed his “complete confidence” in him, a confidence which was not so complete that he did not find it expedient to recall Norman from Turtle Bay, and, after the smoke had cleared a little, pack him off to New Zealand in 1953 as our High Commissioner.  There he pastured until the public had forgotten the affair, and then in 1956 Pearson sent him to Cairo as our Ambassador with concurrent accreditation as Canadian Minister to Lebanon.

The Pearson Cover-Up

On the heels of this, Pearson was to face a further embarrassment.  Shigeto Tsuro (remember him?) the Japanese Communist who had been repatriated to Japan in 1942 (he had played a major part in Communist intrigues in postwar Japan) was now back in America, as a visiting lecturer at Harvard.  The Subcommittee subpoenaed him to get at the bottom of his interesting documents left behind in 1942, about which Tsuru had almost completely forgotten.  They especially wanted to know why Norman should have been so eager to put his hot little hands on them.  “Tsuru testified”, Rusher reports, “that he had met Norman at Harvard, through a mutual friend, in the spring of 1936.  Within a year they were both members of a study group — yet another of those famous study groups! — at Harvard, founded … ‘for the study of American capitalism from the Marxist point of view.”  The Tsuru testimony also revealed that Tsuru had been introduced to, of all people, Israel Halperin, by Norman, “possibly around 1937”.

All of this evidence, of course, meant nothing to the defeatists and conciliationists, who clamoured for the abolition of all Congressional investigations into fifth column Communist activities in North America.  In Canada, according to Rusher, “Lester Pearson’s bland and total rejection of the massive evidence against Norman was quite enough to satisfy even those individuals and newspapers that were preparing to oppose Pearson in the election.  Canada, firmly in the grip of political forces we may call liberal in the broader sense, was virtually unanimous in wanting no so-called ‘McCarthyism’ in its public life.  The information concerning Norman, accumulated by the RCMP in the years preceding 1950 and placed on the public record for the first time by the ISSC on March 14, 1957, was not really evaluated and rejected by Canadian opinion; it was simply ignored, on Pearson’s repeated assurance that it was wholly false.”

Death In Cairo

Then came the news that Norman had committed suicide in Cairo.  The fat was now in the fire.  In the lynch-mob atmosphere which prevailed in the communications media, Rusher and his colleagues awaited the full fury of the co-existential wolf pack.  At this moment, Monsignor Bela Varga, prominent Hungarian anti-Communist and head of the Hungarian-American National Council turned up at Rusher’s office to thunder “like an Old Testament prophet” that “You will be savagely attacked, but you are right, and you must never forget it!”

The attack, of course, was unleashed:  the Subcommittee was widely and thoughtlessly accused of having hounded an “innocent” man to death.  The attacks, of course, ignored the incontrovertible evidence, and seemed founded on nothing more substantial than Pearson’s assurances that the charges were “slanders” and that Norman had been cleared by the Canadian Government’s alleged “exhaustive security check”.  The Subcommittee of course, knew that this was not the case.  “From our vantage point in the Subcommittee,” writes Rusher,

“we knew how empty Pearson’s assurances were.  The truth was that there had been no security check worthy of the name, and that the full force of the case against Norman had never reached unbiased eyes and unfettered tongues until March 14, 1957, when our Subcommittee published the transcript of its first Emmerson Hearing.  Even then, a complacent press had in effect conspired with Pearson to minimize the clear implications of the evidence … It was with an almost hypnotic fascination that we watched our critics inch out onto the limb Pearson had inadvertently provided for them.”


“the cool, moon-faced opportunist who had quarterbacked Herbert Norman through the Canadian Foreign Service, bullied into silence the Canadian security officials who knew the truth concerning him, and all but succeeded in concealing with the world forever the facts about his protege’s long Communist record”

now began to fear that if the anti-American hysteria went too far his “assurances” would evaporate in the heat of the evidence against Norman, and issued “a call to Canadians for forbearance.”  It was to no avail; Pearson had unleashed a storm he was now powerless to abate.  The liberal newspapers continued to scream for the suppression of the Subcommittee.  On Wednesday April 10 (still 1957), President Eisenhower held his regular press conference, and it had been fully expected that he would add his voice to the clamour against the Subcommittee, all of which would accelerate the campaign to abolish all such Congressional investigations.  It didn’t work out that way.  Eisenhower pleaded that the whole affair “be dropped, if possible …”

“What we did not know, writes Rusher,

“and were not to learn until some months later, was the [fact that] Eisenhower also had the benefit of a dispatch radioed from Cairo by American intelligence sources less than 48 hours after Norman’s suicide — in other words, on or before Sunday, April 6.  According to this dispatch, Norman had dined with a friend, a doctor, the night before his death and had told this friend that, as a result of the impact of our hearings on the forthcoming Canadian elections he feared that a Royal Commission would be appointed to investigate the entire matter; that, if called before such a Royal Commission, he would be forced to implicate ‘sixty or seventy’ Canadians and Americans and that, rather than do this, he would kill himself.”

The public, of course, was unaware of all this, just as they remained in ignorance of the published record of Norman’s service as a fifth columnist in the service of Communism.  Here, as more recently, the press has failed in its primary function:  to keep the House informed.

The Crunch

Then, on April 13th, the day Parliament closed up shop to the federal election in June, John Diefenbaker, who had previously tossed his rhetorical bricks at the damn Yankees, in one of those stunningly dramatic moments which studded his career as leader of the Opposition, rose in the House to put a question to Lester Pearson, the Secretary of State for External Affairs:

“Will the Minister say that the allegations before the Subcommittee of the United States Senate on March 12 and 21 specifically were untrue, unjustified and had no basis in fact?”

Pearson’s sweeping denials outside the House were one thing, but however Liberal his ethics, he would not want to be caught lying to Parliament, especially since he had no way of knowing precisely what Diefenbaker was prepared to spring on him. 1  He waffled.  He read a prepared statement (Diefenbaker had filed his question in advance) stating that Norman

“as a university student was known to have associated with Communists or persons thought to have been Communists, and he made no secret of it.  These associations were, of course, known to us.  We examined Mr. Norman’s record on the basis of confidential information.  I examined this information more than once myself.”

No reference was made to the massive evidence revealed by the American hearings.  Diefenbaker, with an instinct for the jugular, pressed his question:  would Pearson state categorically that this evidence was “untrue, unjustified, and had no basis in fact?”  Pearson is reported to have blushed, as the crowded visitors’ Gallery focussed intently upon his fumbling.

“I’ve made my statement”, he replied, “I will stand on that.  I am not going to say at this moment whether any single statement made in a United States Subcommittee is accurate or not.  I have not got the statement before me.”

Diefenbaker hammered back,

“The answer is an equivocal one. He equivocates.  He has the statements released by the Subcommittee in connection with its hearings of March 13 and March 21 … He has come into the House with a prepared statement, but he has not denied those charges.”

the nation went to the polls in the knowledge that Pearson would not reiterate to Parliament his extra-Parliamentary assurances that the evidence against Norman was totally a matter of slander.  On the following Wednesday, April 17th, Pearson tried to salvage something from the debacle, in a telegram to the Montreal GAZETTE in which he pointed out that the Subcommittee has based its findings on the October 1950 Memorandum of the RCMP, re which the Canadian people had known nothing until that moment.  He then went on to point out that the RCMP had modified its view in a second Memorandum (in December 1950), which he quoted to the effect that the first Memorandum was based on “mistaken identity”.  This first Memorandum, let it be remembered, revealed Norman as a member of the Communist Party and covered much of his subversive activity from 1935 on into the 40s.

Pat Walsh

To give him the lie, the famous undercover informant whose intelligence was the basis of the original October Memorandum which Pearson had suppressed, now turned up and publicly vouched for the accuracy of his information.  It was no less a person than Pat Walsh, now research director for the Canadian Intelligence Publications of Flesherton, Ont., which is Target No. 1 of Pearson’s children, the Trudeaucrats.

“I met Norman personally in Toronto in the thirties,”

Walsh revealed, “when I was with the Canadian League Against War and Fascism and he was secretary of the Canadian Friends of the Chinese People, a commie front.  He was introduced to me as ‘Comrade Norman’.  A chap by the name of A. A. McLeod, who later became a Communist member of the Ontario Legislature and editor of the Communist Canadian Tribune told me that he had sponsored Norman as Secretary.”

Walsh’s connection with the CIP publication of embarrassing information re the left-wing activities of another of Mr. Pearson’s famous proteges, Pierre-Elliott Trudeau, may account for the special edge of malice directed against CIP from which other anti-Trudeau “hatemongers” are presumably spared.

Norman left two suicide notes before he died, which were published on April 18th (the day following Pearson’s wire to the Montreal GAZETTE) in the NEW YORK DAILY NEWS.  One was to his wife, in which he said, “I have no more hope of life, no more future.”  The other was to his friend, the Swedish Minister to Egypt, Brynolf Elq, in which he said,

“I cannot bring myself to tell you the true reasons that impel me to commit suicide.”

Hardly what one would expect from a man hounded to death by slanders.  Pearson had received copies of the notes from the Egyptian authorities, and authorized a statement to be released on the next day (April 19th) branding the versions published in New York as “complete fabrications”.  Now the NEW YORK DAILY NEWS texts were probably retranslations from the Arabic translation, and may therefore be somewhat variant in wording from the originals.  In any case, those originals have never, to this day, been published by the Canadian government.

Diefenbaker, of course, won that election, and the whole matter was dropped.  Mr. Norman’s “powerful friends” have never been more powerful than they are today, and we must now pay the price for not having swept them into the dustbin ten years ago.  Such are the consequences of the lotus-eating apathy which has characterized Canadian political life for far too many years.

– 30 –


The exposure of E. Herbert Norman to the RCMP as a Communist by Patrick Walsh was reported on eleven years earlier than the item above by the EBS.  On 19th April 1957, a Washington Post and Times Herald staff reporter, at page A11, gave an account entitled: “Ex-Red Courier Says He Originated Charges Against Norman in 1940“.


Maine At The Front

Category:  Historical Reprints
SourceThe Evening Journal, Lewiston, Tuesday, July 14, 1953

Maine At The Front

That Maine is at the very front of a possible air or other invasion route is indicated by the maintenance of big air bases.

An ex-Red testified before a House committee at Albany, N.Y., that Communists had been instructed to set forest fires along the Maine-Canadian border and to sabotage hydro-electric power plants in case of war between Russia and the West.

Also, he said, that a 1949 shipping strike was a Red plot to wreck the Marshall Plan.

Patrick Walsh, 37-year-old labor leader from Quebec City, said that as late as last September, Communists had been alerted to sabotage Canadian hydro electric plants and set fire to forests in the event of war with Russia.

– 30 –


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

Exclusive English!

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

Je reviens de

“I’m Back
from Moscow”



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

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

par Pierre Elliott-Trudeau

by Pierre Elliott-Trudeau

— II —

— II —

Le moi est haïssable” (Pascal)

The ego is hateful” (Pascal)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Je passe !

I’m in !

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

À la Messe !

To Mass!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Je commets un sacrilège

I commit a sacrilege

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Translator’s Notes

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

Stalin's Holodomor against the Kulaks

Stalin's Holodomor against the Kulaks

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

Exclusive English!

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



Red Mole Pierre Elliott Trudeau

Red Mole Pierre Elliott Trudeau

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

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

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

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

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

“Je reviens de Moscou”

“I’m Back from Moscow”

L’auberge de la grande U.R.S.S.

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

par Pierre Elliott-Trudeau

by Pierre Elliott-Trudeau

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Une Rencontre

An International

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problème de conscience

A problem of conscience

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

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

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

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

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

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

Un risque légitime

A legitimate risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

Le citoyen moyen
n’est pas un imbécile

The average citizen
is not an imbecile

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

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

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

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

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

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

LUNDI:  Premières rencontres.

MONDAY:  First encounters.


Translator’s Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ma bohème

Arthur Rimbaud


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

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

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

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

My Wanderlust

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

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

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

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


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


Bourgeois Leftism in the Student Movement

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bourgeois Leftism in the Student Movement

By Edward Goldenberg and Julus Grey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Julius GREY

– 30 –