Some people know something about the American tax-exempt foundations promoting absorption of the USA by the Soviet Union, because the issue was raised by the 1952 American Reece Committee. 1 Its chief investigator, Norman Dodd, learned that foundations were operating under a presidential directive from the White House to “use our grant-making power so to alter life in the United States that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union”. 2
Dodd also found that the Rhodes Scholarships, annual endowed fellowships awarded in the British Commonwealth and United States to study at Oxford University in England, were materially involved in promoting world government, Marxism, Communism and Socialism. 3
The Soviet Union, from the conquest of 1917 onward, slaughtered tens of millions of innocents (read “Stalin’s Willing Executioners” by Kevin Macdonald); Chinese communist leader Mao Tsetung is credited with a death toll of 40-100 million Chinese. Your first concern then is mass murder on apocalyptic scales. Your second worry is slavery, survivors being conscripted into the state-planned economy, dissent not allowed.
Anatoliy Golitsyn, a high-ranking KGB officer who defected to the United States in December 1961, warned against the global merger, the “re-education camps” and the “bloodbaths” “of which the west currently has no conception”. 4Canada, too, has tax-free foundations. At least two have been involved in the long-planned overthrow of Canada for Communism. Given the Reece discoveries, it is only logical that similar institutions with similar goals exist in Canada. Obviously, the Soviet Union (which is currently underground, having staged its own “collapse” to better merge with the West on the way to a “World October Revolution”: Anatoliy Golitsyn) cannot annex the USA without annexing Canada. The involvement of the Trudeau regime in staging the Soviet collapse can also be inferred from this article: “How a three-hour conversation at a Liberal cabinet minister’s home triggered the collapse of the Soviet Union” by Allan Levine, special to The National Post, March 17, 2013.
It is long past due that Canadians look for the influence of tax-exempt foundations in our own country. Foundations with political objectives, including unconstitutional objectives, are perfectly capable of being financed locally, and by handouts from the big U.S. foundations of the “radical rich” who want a world government.
One of Canada’s left-wing foundations is the Ontario Woodsworth Memorial Foundation, the subject of this article. Another is Donner Canadian Foundation, on which information is being developed. However, it is currently known that the U.S.-based Donner co-financed a “Committee on the Constitution” of the Canadian Bar Association (CBA) from 1976-1979, essentially a legalistic front for the overthrow of Canada by a leftist coup d’état in 1982 disguised as a “constitutional amendment”. Allan Gotlieb, North American Chairman of Rockefeller’s globalist Trilateral Commission, is involved in Donner Canadian; for how long and in what capacity, and whether he was there at the time of the CBA committee, is not yet fully known. Donner came under the wing of the Fraser Institute, a US-based think-tank in 1998. The links of William H. Donner, the American “philanthropist” behind Donner Canadian include Richard B. Mellon and Andrew W. Mellon, a good potential lead. In any case, it is doubtful whether “philanthropy” includes financially backing sedition and a coup d’état in someone else’s country.
In the search to discover the origins of the Ontario Woodsworth Memorial Foundation, a dinner speech was found on a library shelf on Saturday afternoon, the 7th of October 2017 around 3:00 PM. The printed speech had long ago lost its original cover and was rebound in cardboard covers and canvas tape. The original cover being missing, the photo by Karsh, credited in the text, was not a part of the item on the shelf. Photos of James Shaver Woodsworth have thus been found online to complete the article.
The speech, by Frank H. Underhill, a Rhodes Scholar, is entitled “James Shaver Woodsworth, An Address delivered at the Dinner to inaugurate the Ontario Woodsworth Memorial Foundation,”. It was delivered at the King Edward Hotel in Toronto on Saturday, October 7th, 1944. (Download the scan & the html of the speech).
The beautifully written biographical sketch of the life of the founder of the CCF, predecessor of the NDP, reveals that J. S. Woodsworth wanted “an international republic”. In other words, a world government. (Adrien Arcand, in the same era, would have called it a “Universal Republic”, which he opposed.) James Shaver Woodsworth was born in Canada in 1874, was educated here and spent a year at Oxford in 1899. Although the Rhodes endowment did not yet exist, Woodsworth returned to Canada inoculated with missionary zeal for both world government and socialism.
In 1932, he founded and became the first leader of the Co-Operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), a “democratic socialist” party that later became the New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP) with an influential seat at the Socialist International (SI). 5
Adrien Arcand, writing at page 43 of “Fascism or Socialism?” (Fascisme ou Socialisme ?) in 1933, a public address to launch his political party, under the bold header, ‘There is no Christian Socialism’ (“Il n’y a pas de “socialisme chrétien”“), points out:
“Contrairement à ce que certains illusionnés prétendent, il n’y a ni ne peut y avoir de socialisme chrétien. Ce mythe a été confondu par la plus haute autorité chrétienne, celle du Vatican, lorsque Pie X a condamné les erreurs du “Sillon”. D’ailleurs, les grands doctrinaires du socialisme, entre autres Proudhon, Millerand, Jaurès, ont affirmé que toute prétention à un socialisme chrétien est aussi illusoire qu’idiote.”
“Contrary to what some illusionists claim, there is not nor can there be Christian socialism. This myth was confounded by the highest Christian authority, that of the Vatican … Moreover, the great doctrinarians of socialism, among others Proudhon, Millerand, Jaurès, have affirmed that any claim to Christian socialism is as illusory as it is idiotic.”
The “illusionists” must be the CCF’ers, for Arcand was probably addressing himself to Woodsworth who founded the CCF the previous year. At page 10 of his political manifesto in 1934, Exposé of Principles and Program of the National Christian Social Party (Exposé des principes et du programme du Parti National Social Chrétien) (note the word “social”, as in Christian social principles; not “socialist”), Arcand points directly to the Woodsworth group:
“… les esprits que leurs instincts naturels portent vers la gauche, ils ont formé le parti socialiste canadien, appelé Co-Operative Commonwealth Federation, qui revendique un règlenent de la question sociale dans le sens internationaliste et anti-chrétien, par le matérialisme et le refoulement des traditions.”
“… spirits whose natural instincts tend to the left, they have formed the Canadian socialist party called the Co-Operative Commonwealth Federation, which is calling for a settlement of the social question in the internationalist and anti-Christian sense, through materialism and the stifling of traditions.”
That is the CCF party, forerunner of the NDP.
In any case, the quote first above helps to qualify, in my view, what ex-Methodist minister, James Shaver Woodsworth really was doing with his “socialist” CCF, i.e., he was founding a new synthetic religion of materialism; one that continues its missionary work today in the Messianic person of recent NDP leadership winner, Jagmeet Singh, aka (Jimmy Dhaliwal).
The Radical Roots of the NDP
The 1970 Praxis Conference proceedings, entitled Industrial Democracy, are copyrighted by Our Generation Press — Black Rose Books. The copyright acknowledges first publication by the Ontario Woodsworth Memorial Foundation and Praxis: Research Institute for Social Change. The name, “Praxis Research Institute for Social Change” appears to reflect some of the objects for which the Woodsworth Foundation was incorporated in 1944: “as a corporation establishing an educational institution to teach and provide courses and research in the social sciences, economics, philosophy and kindred subjects.”
At the founding of the Woodsworth Foundation, it was “hoped that rentals for the use of space in Woodsworth House by organizations fulfilling its purposes will make it self-sustaining”; yet in 1969, Praxis Research Institute is found in premises belonging to the University of Toronto, at 373 Huron Street.
Huron also lodges other groups whose membership overlaps that of Praxis. The tactic is probably the same observed by Robert Rumilly in his 1956 exposé of the leftist penetration in Quebec by a core of individuals who spread themselves through a number of institutions. Said Rumilly in The Leftist Infiltration in French Canada (L’Infiltration gauchiste au Canada français) at page 87:
“À l’opéra, pour produire un effet de masse, le metteur en scène fait défiler plusieurs fois les mêmes figurants. … cela produira plus d’effet que si l’équipe … disposait d’un seul groupement.”
“At the opera, to produce a crowd scene, the director has the same cast parade by the audience several times. … a bigger effect will be produced than if the team … had just one group”.
The night of 18 December 1970, the Huron Street headquarters of Praxis burned down.
Toronto journalist Peter Worthington (of the Telegram) was pilloried by The Varsity Toronto (see i.e., its unsigned piece of Wednesday, January 13, 1971, entitled “U of T Silent, While Activist Groups Burn”. (Available online in Anticommunist Archive.) Worthington had published comments critical of the far-left Praxis; and the left-wing community now views Worthington’s remarks as the “cause” of the fire.
Woodsworth Foundation Teams Up
One reason I look askance at Our Generation Press (publisher in 1970 of the Praxis conference papers) is that its founder, Dimitrios Roussopoulos, is said to have been a colleague of Bernadine Dorn. Dorn was a communist terrorist who manufactured nail bombs to massacre Americans. On its Roussopoulos page, Wikipedia says:
Roussopoulos organised in August 1968 the first international meeting of the new left in Ljubljana, Yugoslavia with delegates from several countries, including Frank Wolff from the German SDS and Bernadine Dorne from the U.S.
Roussopoulos also, according to Wikipedia, founded Black Rose Books in 1969, and published “most of the political works of Noam Chomsky” which he thus introduced into Canada.
At page 180 of Politics and Suicide: The Philosophy of Political Self-Destruction by Nicholas Michelsen, footnote 9 quotes a Black Rose book calling for the complete “destruction” of France:
“To save France, the whole country must be turned into a desert. All houses blown up. All cities burnt to the ground, everything the bourgeoisie holds dear, capital, industry, commerce, in short, the whole land must be turned into one vast cemetery”. — M. Bakunin, Bakunin on Anarchism, ed. S. Dolgoff (Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1980)
Executive Intelligence Review, a Lyndon Larouche publication, has linked the Praxis Research Institute to “Rockefeller policy” for Canada, specifically his policy for (extinguishing) Canadian sovereignty. In its July 12, 1977 issue, Vol. IV, No. 28 (ISSN 0146-9614), in an article entitled “Praxis — The Institute for Policy Studies’ Canadian Extension“, EIR said:
Praxis Corporation was consolidated in 1968 out of “new left”-oriented Fabian circles at Toronto University and York University in Toronto, Ontario. Praxis’s founding directorship brought together individuals of influence within government, national party, media, academic and professional layers as well as within established “left radical” networks.
Praxis Corporation’s own 1969 brochure emphasized the importance of Praxis ties to two U.S. institutions: the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) headed by Marcus Raskin, and the Cambridge Institute overseen by linguistician-brainwasher Noam Chomsky of MIT. Both these U.S. institutions have been exposed in this and other newspapers for their coordinating role in international terrorism.
The Praxis ties to IPS and Chomsky were established through the auspices of several of its founding members: Gerry Hunnius, former IPS Fellow and ongoing “consultant” to the Cambridge Institute; Jeffrey Jowell — Cambridge Institute Center for Urban Studies Fellow, 1967-68. In addition, Hunnius, as associate editor of the “Our Generation” Canadian branch of Chomsky’s anarchist-terrorist Black Rose, maintained close ties with several other IPS Fellows including John Case, New England Free Press founder, and David Garson, head of the IPS Labor Information Committee. Praxis maintained additional international ties through its relationship to the Chomsky-run Yugoslavian “dissident” movement of the same name. Andre Gorz, Yugoslav Praxis magazine international editorial staff member, co-chaired a 1970 Praxis Canadian forum on Mussolini-style “workers’ control” with Hunnius. Reciprocally, Hunnius and fellow Praxis founder Abraham Rotstein jointly attended a similar conference in Yugoslavia in the early 1970s.
Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his bride Margaret, holidayed in Communist Yugoslavia in 1970. As for Fabians, a Fabian is a wolf in sheep’s clothing; a socialist on the way to world government who pretends to be a lamb. He is heading for Communism by the low road, slow and easy does it.
Gerry Hunnius was a colleague of Pierre Elliott Trudeau who in turn, was a colleague and supporter of the CCF-NDP. Secret meetings are alleged to have been held between Trudeau and Hunnius in Montreal in the early 1960s. This, of course, is the era when the FLQ terrorists were being trained in Cuba. 6
In the segment of his 1971 CANADA How the Communists Took control called “The Poor War Revolution”, Alan Stang describes the Praxis Research Institute as an
“‘agit-prop’ outfit (agitation and propaganda), egging people on to Marxist revolution”.
In the same article, Stang highlights a typical Praxis initiative:
“For instance, in March, 1970, Praxis had run another conference, on “industrial democracy,” at which Gerry Hunnius, who runs Praxis, said workers should “control the means and processes of production.” What that means, said Hunnius, is this: “It should be obvious that a fully operational system of workers’ self-management cannot operate within a Capitalist system ….” [Emphasis added.]
Stang then underscores:
“In October, 1970, Praxis had run still another Conference — this one on “Workers’ Control and Community Control” — at which a demand was made to destroy Capitalism by revolution. Capitalism would be replaced by “radical Socialism.” Confrontation is obsolete, the conferees were told. What they should do now is “infiltrate,” and, like “microbes,” destroy Canada from within.”
Praxis made the headlines of The Winnipeg Free Press (WFP) on Thursday, January 27th, 1977: “Did Radicals Aim To Overthrow Government?”
The WFP reported that a “1971 letter by Jean-Pierre Goyer, then solicitor-general”, had been “accompanied by a list of 21 names, mostly public servants”. “The letter”, continued the WFP:
“said the New Left, a 1960 movement, had devised an extra-parliamentary opposition program to ‘mold the underclass into a revolutionary force capable of overthrowing the present socio-political system.’”
What the WFP failed to report is that Goyer and Trudeau themselves were both Communists who had already penetrated the system and were in the course of “overthrowing” it from within. The exposure of Praxis by Goyer was possibly internecine competition of the kind we later see between the Parti Québécois and the NDP over a PQ seat at the Socialist International. Or else there was fear by Goyer that the Trudeau gang would be exposed, if inadvertently, by Praxis, whom Trudeau was in fact financing through handsome grants from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at least as of 1968.
In the January-February 1971 issue (Volume III Number 5) of Straight Talk!, the journal of the now-defunct Edmund Burke Society (EBS), the observation was made in “Praxis Exposed! Your Money, Their Revolution”:
“The backbone of the Praxis budget is a $68,000.00 grant from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in Ottawa.”
The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) is a federal government agency. In other words, the government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau was financially subsidizing the forward thrust of radical Yugoslav-style Communism in Canada with taxpayers’ dollars. But, Trudeau himself, around the same time, had sat on a “secret committee at Power” Corporation of Canada, which produced the Communist PQ with its 1972 manifesto for Yugoslav-style Communism (Visit https://nosnowinmoscow.wordpress.com/ and download a free copy of their 1972 manifesto in the sidebar); the very thing promoted by Praxis, and by their associate, the NDP. A 1974 Montreal Gazette article by Luana Parker, who interviewed mostly NDP’ers, suggests the possibility that the American Ford Foundation (one of the pro-Soviet big three under inquiry by the Reece Committee) is linked to Canadian experiments via Praxis. We thus now have links from two of the big three, including Rockefeller networks. The article, entitled “The great debate: How much worker control?”, in The Report-Business and Finance for Tuesday, 24 December 1974, quite specifically associates “industrial democracy” with the Parti Québécois, but fails to admit that this is Communism.
Indeed, the PQ under René Lévesque tried to join the Socialist International circa 1982. 7 (I say circa, because I am not convinced of the dates reported to author Poulin by PQ insiders, who, I think, may have been covering up for an earlier autocratic demand by Lévesque to SI without party knowledge). By that time, the SI had long since adopted its twin formal mandate of a world government and industrial democracy, i.e., Yugoslav-style Communism, at their 1962 Congress in Oslo, Norway. Which further underscores the fact that the PQ manifesto of 1972 is all about industrial democracy, Yugoslav-style Communism.
The “Fabian Effect” becomes clear. Trudeau, in reality a Communist and an NDP’er, while penetrated into the federal Liberals, co-orchestrates the set-up of the Communist Parti Québécois to pursue the dismantling of Canada for the same Communist goal as the NDP: industrial democracy. A de facto one-party system appears, as both the federal and provincial levels combine their forces against Canada, aimed at the Fabian goal of “molding Canada closer to the heart’s desire” and so destroy Canada for their preferred international Communist regime, aka J. S. Woodsworth’s “international republic”.
Furthermore, the federal Bloc Québécois, formed when a number of MPs crossed the floor, led from behind by Lucien Bouchard, was created as a shoe-horn to wedge Quebec “out of Canada” under PQ control; the game being to facilitate “negotiations” to dismantle the whole. The federal Bloc is therefore, necessarily, a pro-Communist party. Its longtime leader, Gilles Duceppe (a “former” Marxist-Leninist-Maoist), is a reverent admirer of African terrorist Nelson Mandela, a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
EBS noted in the same piece:
“Another familiar leftist pattern is evident in the extensive overlapping membership of Praxis, the Woodsworth Foundation, Stop Spadina, the Just Society, the Toronto Women’s Caucus, and the Metro Tenants’ Association. However, the familiar pattern persists: that of an exclusively upper-class membership, usually in unproductive tax-subsidized jobs, as Praxis attracts university professors, CBC employees, social workers, sociologists, as well as a very small percentage of businessmen.”
Ed Broadbent sets the course
of the “new” NDP
The 1970 conference proceedings of Praxis include a paper by M.P. for Oshawa-Whitby and future NDP leader, Edward Broadbent, participating (dubiously) under his parliamentary acronym.
In his paper, “Industrial Democracy: Where do we go from Here?”, for Praxis, Broadbent concludes as follows:
“Together with the trade unions, the New Democratic Party should make the creation of a democratic industrial Canada its guiding ideological principle. This is what the ‘new’ in New Democratic Party should be all about.”
In other words, the NDP was called to pursue Yugoslav-style Communism for Canada in alliance with the “radicals” of Praxis Research Institute, which the Executive Intelligence Review claims to be a Rockefeller front linked to terrorist controllers.
The Ontario Woodsworth Memorial Foundation, which published Broadbent and others, thus becomes of interest for the political, social and religious views of the man whose name it bears, and who founded the CCF, the ideological predecessor of the current New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP).
The NDP, like the Parti Québécois (the latter owned by Power Corporation with its links into Rockefeller networks through, i.e., the Rhodes Scholarship committee for Quebec, hosted on its Montreal business premises) is pushing world government and industrial democracy, aka New-Left Communism.
Indeed, the Socialist International has declared that there is a place for “transnational corporations” as well as the new “municipalities” (international city-states) in its New World Order of world government and industrial democracy.) At its numbered paragraph 2 of its document, “GOVERNANCE IN A GLOBAL SOCIETY – THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC APPROACH”, produced by the XXII Congress of the Socialist International at Sao Paulo from 27-29 October 2003, we read of a place for mega-business in the planned, upcoming world government:
“Globalisation is calling into question very basic elements of the political and social order we are used to. The nation-state which for more than a century has been a central element of the political, social and economic order of more and more of the world’s societies, is losing strength and importance.. New trans-national units, like global and regional organisations or trans-national corporations, and sub-national units, like increasingly autonomous sub-regions and municipalities are taking over parts of the state’s discretionary capacities.”
By “discretionary capacities”, the SI means national sovereignty. Anyway, this is all foolery, since nothing takes anything over, legally speaking, from the Canadian nation-state; the Constitution rules, not the SI. Of course, the Constitution must be enforced, or else talk is cheap.
Today, the NDP is trying to shove Communism and “diversity” (anti-nationalism — perhaps Woodsworthian anti-nationalism? 8 ) into Canada by manipulating race and identity politics. “Vote for the brown guy, prove you’re not a racist!” Why not be straight and say, “Vote for the communist!” (Because the racist slur is the left’s weapon to turn the homelands they are targeting into “cemeteries” of their founding peoples.)
Most recently, to gain support for his buzzword agenda of “equality”and “participation” (participation is a key word of industrial democracy, the New-Left’s Communism), Jagmeet Singh, a Sikh in a flashy set of brightly colored turbans, campaigned for and won the federal NDP leadership (2017). Singh used the non-political slogan (“Love and courage”); a slogan that might as well have come from “A Prayer” written by Minister Woodsworth for the Winnipeg Labor Church in 1920 (annexed to the Underhill speech):
“We confess that we have not yet learned to live together in love and unity.”
Indeed, Underhill asks, “What were these qualities which we think of most readily when we look back over Mr. Woodsworth’s life?” and he replies:
“First and most important of all was moral courage.”
Do we therefore see in Jagmeet Singh a leadership campaign in direct descent from the spiritualized Socialism of the preacher-founder of the CCF, J. S. Woodsworth, himself?
The Messianic overtones were unmistakable when Singh’s campaign photo was unveiled. Posing Buddha-like, in profile in a yellow turban in a flood of light, Jagmeet Singh personified perfect political and religious enlightenment. He was not merely a leader, but a saint. During his leadership campaign, Singh wooed the electorate by demonstrating how to wrap a Sikh religious turban, and by discussing Sikh religious values.
Thus, the new leader of the federal NDP appears to be on the same path as J. S. Woodsworth: a visionary whose religious values have been sublimated into Holy Socialism. When he campaigns again, and next time for prime minister of Canada, will Jagmeet offer hairs from his greying socialist beard as holy relics to bedazzled followers?
Jack Layton often displayed a similar glassy-eyed serenity. On the other hand, it might just have been the lobotomized gaze of the well indoctrinated. Layton moreover had a guru, his good friend Charles Taylor (another Rhodes Scholar and race annihilator). Page 6 of Industrial Democracy (by Praxis) reveals Layton’s guru to be a Communist. Said Praxis:
“While the issue may appear academic, it is real and essential. Is workers’ participation in management an end in itself — for its psychological, economic and humanitarian benefits to workers and enterprise — or is it an integral, necessary aspect of a broad strategy toward an all-going transformation of society? This is the approach taken by Charles Taylor in his “Socialism in the 1970’s in Canada”. Taylor’s view is that socialist planning of the economy is a pre-condition for democratization of Canadian society, but cannot guarantee democracy unless responsibility for important decisions is placed in the hands of the people who are most affected by these decisions. This general approach also appears to be adopted by the leadership of the Yugoslav government and Communist League, though observers outside that country are far from unanimous on the subject.
That should make it clear that the word democracy has a very different meaning for the Communist NDP than it has for you or I. In fact, these Fabians happily manipulate our inevitable misunderstanding of terms like participation and democracy to our disadvantage, and their benefit. We will say “yes”, thinking they mean one thing; the NDP will accept the yes knowing that for them it means something else entirely that we would reject if we understood it. The semantic divide can be summed up by Alice’s observation in Wonderland that the Mad “Hatter’s remark seemed to her to have no sort of meaning in it, and yet it was certainly English”.
We know Charles Taylor today especially in Quebec for his hard-peddling of multiculturalism (a step toward eliminating “barriers” of race by eliminating race). The still surviving founders of New France (French Canada) have not incorrectly identified Taylor’s objective as our genocide. Multiculturalism destroys the institutions of the founders by handing them to mass-immigrated others for a contrary purpose. Loss of institutions equals loss of self-government, loss of the means to preserve one’s own culture, and ultimately, as the ethnic owners of the country sink into the great immigrated hodge-podge, racial death.
All the roots of the NDP are clear to see in the life of J. S. Woodsworth as told to inaugurate a foundation in his name. We are not looking at ordinary politics; but at Communism fueled with all the religious fervor of a converted proselytizer in the full throes of a mystical revelation.
Behind the NDP smiley face and the spiritual froth of its Messianic and guru-courting leaders, with their sunny turbans and orange waves, lurks real potential for organized terror. This is clear because the real seekers of world government are not the NDP, but those behind them, to some degree identified by Larouche’s EIR. It is clear from the background above on Praxis and its anarchist-terrorist associates. Probably, such violence today would only emerge if the political (Messianic) objectives of the NDP (and for that matter, those of the PQ and the federal Bloc and other sundry related far-left movements here) were squelched.
To view that prospect in reverse, in 1970, Pierre Elliott Trudeau ordered assassinated one François Mario Bachand 9, a talented left-wing organizer on the FLQ’s periphery. Trudeau’s “secret committee” party, his Yugoslav-style Communist PQ, had just taken 7 seats in the Quebec legislature (under void oaths, it must be noted). A risk of terrorist violence would accompany Bachand’s return from France to Canada, upsetting Pierre’s and Power Corp’s new Communist apple-cart. 10 As long as the dismantling of Canada could be viewed through the black ice of a political settlement, terrorism was unwelcome. And so, the risk of terror was ordered eliminated.
However, it was never established whether the two bullets to the back of the neck that Bachand took in Paris were from Trudeau or some other messenger. In any event, criminal intent to murder this Canadian citizen abroad in cold blood and without trial was never officially laid at the feet of our so-called prime minister; although as Bracton advised, “The king is below no man but God and the law”.
Who was J. S. Woodsworth?James Shaver Woodsworth (1874 – 1942) was a Methodist evangelical preacher who rejected the doctrines of Methodism. Also, for him, the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament were incompatible with war. Woodsworth tried to resign his post as a minister for lack of conviction; only to be forced to resign by his co-religionists when he opposed conscription. He opposed war again in 1939, and gave up his seat in Parliament. At the same time, in Quebec, the devout Catholic and political leader, Adrien Arcand, who also opposed war, was interned as a security risk in a Canadian concentration camp. The treatment afforded a war-opposing socialist apparently differed substantially from the treatment afforded to a war-opposing nationalist Catholic.
As Woodsworth, the man, withdraws from his own vocation as a Methodist minister, changing course for the manual labor of the docks, and then again for Parliament, we see organized Socialism in Canada go forth as a personal surrogate for religion.
Illustrating the Underhill speech is a cartoon of Woodsworth waving a cross with the acronym C.C.F. on it, while brandishing a sword. The joke perfectly identifies the Socialism of the CCF-NDP as religious in character.
Ominously, in the selected writings of Woodsworth at the end of the Underhill inaugural speech to launch the new Foundation, we find the seeds of mass world genocide.
Woodsworth too easily depicts the peoples of the world as “divided into alien groups”. This implies a call for destruction of all nations, all races, and all peoples, viewed by Woodsworth as “barriers” to his dreamed-of Utopia, his “international republic”.
William Z. Foster, in his 1932 book, Toward Soviet America, explains the Communist goal of racial amalgamation:
“Geographic isolation of the early human stock into widely separated groups brought about its differentiation into individual races; contact between these various races, bred of modern industrialization, is just as irresistibly breaking down these racial differences and bringing about racial amalgamation. The revolution will only hasten this process of integration, already proceeding throughout the world with increasing tempo.” (See page 306.)
In his chapter segment, “Marxism and the Problem of a World State”, Soviet Professor Grigoriĭ Ivanovich Tunkin quotes Lenin in reference to the same goal of eliminating nations and races in the course of trade blocs being formed (new associations):
“The purpose of socialism,” wrote V. I. Lenin, “is not only to eliminate the splintering of mankind into petty states and any isolation of nations; is not only the rapprochement of nations, but also their amalgamation.”
Interestingly, CCF’er Frank Scott, a Rhodes Scholar (another Oxford man), like Woodsworth, has church roots. Francis Reginald Scott was the son of an Anglican minister, Archdeacon Fredrick George Scott. Frank Scott’s work, speaking chiefly of his poetry, now seems to me to embody a sublimation of religion into Socialism. Here is a true meeting of opposites, where materialism displaces the spiritual “as” the new spirituality in an earthly paradise of conscripted labor and ration coupons.
In a document I cannot now trace, Frank Scott made a statement much like this: “The human race is more important than any one race”. The question of what he meant may perhaps be linked to the views of Woodsworth that races and nations are “alien groups” and “barriers” to the future Utopia envisioned by these men.
One wonders where these religious Socialists would presume to derive their authority to sentence entire races of human beings as unworthy to exist. And since both were religious men, we would presume they would have been gentle in their merciful acts of the genocide of all peoples for the greater good of “humanity” as they prefer to envision it.
It will be interesting to know the fate of the Ontario Woodsworth Memorial Foundation. Was it successful in its drive for sponsorship? Did it purchase its building? Who were its founders and directors? What were its main sources of revenue, who were its benefactors and its beneficiaries? Did Woodsworth Foundation give money to Praxis? Is Woodsworth active today under that name, or in another form?
Woodsworth founded the CCF in 1932; he died in 1942; The CCF was with the SI at least as of 1951 for its Frankfurt Congress.
What would Mr. Woodsworth think of the Socialist International, its other member parties, and the general collapse of full-blown socialism wherever it has been tried; most recently in Venezuela where none other than Moscow agent Lech Walesa has been living while documents have emerged exposing him (as Golitsyn warned) as a red traitor working for the Kremlin? (And here, I interject: red agent Walesa enjoyed the company and advice of Communist PQ leader Jacques Parizeau. See Parizeau’s biography here under Dramatis Personae.)
What would Woodsworth think of the CCF and the NDP rubbing elbows in the SI with the terrorists of the world, with elite cronies of the mass murderers of Moscow and their fellow dictators, all of whom preach that the ends justify the means, although little is seen in their orthodoxy of the alleged utopian ends, and quite a bit more of the bloody and repressive means.
What would Mr. Woodsworth think of the foundation named for him, which by the 1970s would be linked with the aims of those Bolshevik financiers the Rockefellers; and through Praxis Research Institute with “terrorist controllers” tied to the name of Chomsky?
The origins of the CCF as the political formulation of a highly religious former Methodist preacher who spent a year at Oxford (where he may have converted to globalism), are important to our understanding of the NDP and its aims today.
Until now, the one firm link between the NDP and its goal of a world government has been its full-party membership status and its influential seat in the Socialist International (SI). However, this Underhill speech on J. S. Woodsworth reveals that Woodsworth himself, at the time he founded the CCF (in 1932), desired a world government. That desire is wholly incompatible with the existence of Canada, its founding peoples and our lawful Constitution, the British North America Act of 1867.
In fact, Mr. Woodsworth and his friends apparently viewed the Constitution as yet another “barrier” to their own hopes and program, 11 which may help to explain at least in part the coup d’état on Canada in 1982 largely wielded by the NDP and our Communist-penetrated Trudeau Liberals. According to Frank Underhill:
“Steadily he kept pressing the question of the B.N.A. Act and of the obstacles which it presents to any advanced social-reform policy. And just as steadily the Liberal government kept making the B.N.A. Act an excuse for doing nothing. It was only at last in 1935 that Mr. Woodsworth succeeded in getting a special committee appointed to examine our constitutional difficulties, and the report of that committee is one step in the sequence of events that led to the Rowell-Sirois Commission.”
The real “difficulty” is that the gurus and political missionaries have no use for the Constitution. It is therefore never developed and never used; or when used, it is abused. Those who think they know better have no patience for the wisdom of others; nor for the will of others, nor for their self-determination; nor for law, nor allegiance. For them, the Holy Rule of Socialism conquers all. (This, by the way, is the difference between the Rule of Law (caps) and the “rule of man”; the difference between the rule of the Constitution versus human caprice and the arbitrary.)
The founders of Canada chose the B.N.A. Act — their Constitution, through their elected representatives — in a conscious view to preserve themselves, their cultures and their heritage for their children, for generations; indeed, “for all time to come”.
Which illustrates the basic perversion of idealistic religious Socialists, who merely decide that contrary to the wishes of these specific peoples to exist, they should be eliminated; and their Constitution that preserves them, swept away.
It is now my impression, from reading Underhill on Woodsworth, and from knowing the origins of poet Frank Scott, also of Oxford and who advocated world government, that the NDP is not a political party at all, but a pseudo religious movement masquerading as a party. And given that a Sikh and his spiritual values can be attached to it, even as its leader, it can hardly be “Christian” socialism.
In the language of psychoanalysis, for example, transference is the process whereby emotions are displaced from one person to another. It would appear in the case of the CCF-NDP that emotions unfulfilled by religion had been transferred onto material socialism, onto anti-spiritual Marxism and Communism. Any religious impulse, Christian in kind or otherwise, i.e. Sikhism, for example, could be the subject of a pathological transfer to the Communist object.
A famous poem by Scott ends with the line: “The future of man is my heaven”. That line is from “Creed”, published in 1964 in Signature. The complete poem of four lines reads:
The world is my country
The human race is my race
The spirit of man is my God
The future of man is my heaven.
These words can only be the spiritualization of materialism. The Catholic Arcand might call it an “error”. As he said in The Universal Republic (La République Universelle) (1950) at page 19:
“Cette folie de république universelle, qui semble toute nouvelle à certaines gens, a déjà été dénoncée depuis longtemps par l’Église.”
“This folly of a Universal Republic, which seems quite new to some people, has already and long ago been denounced by the Church.”
Arcand specifies, quoting French Cardinal Andrieux in 1924 (Universal Republic, 1950, page 19):
“Après que peuples et nations auront été déchristianisés, il sera facile, en l’absence de tout lien religieux et social, de les réduire en poussière afin de les réunir de nouveau ; puis, quand ils auront été libérés de l’ignorante idée préconçue d’une terre natale, les incorporer dans une “république universelle” dont la capitale sera Jérusalem et dont le Grand Architecte, Satan, tiendra les rênes du pouvoir, sous le manteau de pourpre de quelques fils d’Israël”.
“Once peoples and nations have been dechristianized, it will be easy, in the absence of any religious and social bond, to reduce them to dust in order to unite them anew; then, when they will have been liberated from the ignorant preconceived idea of a homeland, to incorporate them in a “Universal Republic” whose capital will be Jerusalem and whose Grand Architect, Satan, will hold the reins of power, under the purple mantle of a few sons of Israel”.
Arcand then cites Pope Benedict XV, writing in “Bonum Sane” (translation):
“De cette république, fondée sur les principes de l’absolue égalité des hommes et la communauté des biens, seraient bannies les distinctions nationales, l’autorité du père sur ses enfants n’y serait pas reconnue, ni celle de Dieu sur la société humaine. Si ces idées sont mises en pratique, il s’ensuivra inévitablement un règne de terreur inouï.”
“From this Republic, founded on the principles of the absolute equality of men and community of goods, will be banished all national distinctions, the authority of the father over his children will not be recognized, nor that of God over human society. If these ideas are put into practice, an unprecedented reign of terror will inevitably follow.”
Anatoliy Golitsyn might agree.
At his web site, “Montreal Poetry: A Micropedia”, Dr. Robert G. May, of Queen’s University Department of English says:
“The poem speaks to Scott’s faith, which shaped his political actions.”
I say, no. Scott’s political actions were his faith. Scott’s “world is my country” is not a valid Christian spiritual objective.
Relying on Sandra Djwa, Scott’s biographer, May says:
“The poem expresses Christian socialism and represented an emergence from the “radical Christian socialism of the twenties”.
Again, I say, no. Christianity and Socialism are opposites. As Arcand observed, quoted above, “[A]ny claim to Christian socialism is as illusory as it is idiotic”.
Scott’s poem is therefore not inspired by his faith, it represents something else, the spiritualization of the material, a new Marxist, even Zionist religion.
Calling socialism Christian is a front; as it was in France for the crowd around the pro-Soviet review Esprit, on which Trudeau and his leftist ring based their own magazine, Cité Libre (the title referring obviously to the intended future city-state in a Marxist world-state). Christian socialism is the Fabian wolf in priest’s clothing. Or in the case of the CCF-NDP, in Methodist and Anglican Ministers’ clothing. (And now, in Sikh religious turbans.)
As well, there was no “emergence” out of nineteen-twenties’ radicalism. Scott’s poem “Creed” embodies the alchemical transformation, the long and still desired establishment of the radical as mainstream.
Scott’s poem has nothing to do with his Anglican faith, and everything to do with his Marxist faith. “Creed” announces the (Gramscian) inversion of principles; the deification of material man; the Luciferian descent (or fall) of heaven into material Earth; the exaltation of history (or at least its future Marxian end) as the new “heaven”; and the genocide of all races once merged producing a mythical transhuman superman: “The future of man is my heaven”.
Quoting Djwa, May says the subject of Scott’s poetry:
“is man in the generic sense and human relationships”.
No, again. The subject is man in the material sense as a hoped-for mixed breed, non-differentiated into races, nations and peoples. Or, as Woodsworth calls it in his 1920 socialist prayer for the Winnipeg Labor Church, a new humanity not
“divided into alien groups separated from one another by barriers of language, race and nationality; by barriers of class and creed and custom.”
Scott’s poem entails the new universal creed of the CCF, and of its heir, the NDP. Their creed is the creed called for later by Antonio Gramsci: the Marxisation of religion to conquer the west for Communism. Said Gramcsi, quoted in Golitsyn’s The Perestroika Deception:
“Thus religion must be destroyed, and the worship of God (above Man) replaced by the worship of Man — to ‘help Man establish his home on earth’.”
Scott’s poem’s appearing in 1964 cannot be historical accident. The same inversion of principles occurs with a complete change in theology of the Catholic Church under Pope John II. The outcome of the Vatican Council II (1962-1965) is an apparent Marxist takeover of the Church from within. The VII abandoned the universal Latin liturgy, adopted multiple languages, desacralized the host, sacrificed its own history and existence to ecumenism and made other “reforms”. It seems to have made a double leap directly into Luther’s protestantism and from there into Gramsci’s deification of the material. 12
The Fédération Québécoise de Souche (FQS), in its 2014 article entitled (translation:) “The Second Vatican Council: A Quiet Revolution in the Church” reports:
Selon Jérome Bourbon de l’hebdomadaire Rivarol, le concile introduisit une nouvelle manière de se situer par rapport à Dieu. Prétendant que l’homme avait changé, les Pères conciliaires en déduisirent qu’il fallait aussi modifier le rapport de l’homme à Dieu, en passant du théocentrisme à l’anthropocentrisme. Inversion radicale des fins : la religion n’étant plus au service de Dieu, mais au service de l’humanité. « L’homme est la seule créature de Dieu créée pour elle-même » et « l’homme est le centre et le sommet de toutes choses ». Telle est la doctrine instaurée par la constitution Gaudium et Spes conclue par le concile.
According to Jerome Bourbon of the Rivarol weekly, the [Second Vatican] Council introduced a new manner of being situated with respect to God. Claiming that man had changed, the Fathers of the Council deduced from this that the relationship of man with God also had to be changed, passing from theocentrism to anthropocentrism. A radical inversion of objects: religion being no longer in the service of God, but in the service of humanity. “Man is the only creature of God created for itself” and “man is the center and the summit of all things”. Such is the doctrine instituted by the constitution Gaudium et Spes concluded by the Council.
The FQS continues:
Paul VI, dans son ahurissant discours de clôture du Vatican II, alla jusqu’à dire : « La religion du Dieu qui s’est fait homme s’est rencontrée avec la religion — car c’en est une — de l’homme qui se fait Dieu. […] Nous aussi, nous plus que quiconque, nous avons le culte de l’homme. » [Emphases added.]
Paul VI, in his confusing closing speech to Vatican II, went as far as saying: “The religion of the God who became man has met the religion (for such it is) of man who makes himself God. […] we, too, in fact, we more than any others, honor mankind.”
The FQS concludes:
Si l’homme devait maintenant être considéré comme la fin et le sommet de tout, il fallait évidemment repenser toute la théologie catholique. L’Église conciliaire se définit comme un moyen, une institution (parmi beaucoup d’autres), un signe au service de l’homme. C’est la fameuse théorie de l’Église sacrement.
Jean Paul II pourra ainsi dire que « l’Église a révélé l’homme à lui-même », ou encore que « l’homme est le chemin de l’Église ». Si tel est le cas, on comprend que la liturgie ait alors pour objectif de célébrer l’humanité, sujet du rite sacré et du sacerdoce. D’où les autels retournés vers l’assemblée des fidèles dont le prêtre n’est que l’animateur, la nouvelle messe n’étant pas hiérarchique, mais démocratique.
If man were to now be regarded as the end and the summit of all, obviously the entirety of Catholic theology had to be rethought. The conciliar Church is defined as a means, an institution (among many others), a sign in the service of man. It is the famous theory of the sacramental Church.
John Paul II will be able to thus say that “the Church revealed man to himself”, or that “man is the way of the Church”. If such is the case, it is understood that the liturgy has then as its objective to celebrate humanity, the subject of the sacred rite and of the priesthood. Thus the altar is turned towards the assembly of the faithful whose priest is merely the master of ceremonies, the new Mass being not hierarchical, but democratic.
In “Creed”, Scott was obviously referring to the materialist future of mankind, a heaven on earth achieved through the socialism of the CCF and the NDP. That Socialism today is focused on religious “love and courage”, unattainable (mythical) “equality” (which has nothing to do with equal distribution), “participation” and “industrial democracy”.
As Leo Roback noted at page 13 of the 1970 Praxis conference proceedings:
‘“Workers’ Self-Management’ was not only seen as a functional system for harnessing initiative and self-interest toward rapid industrial development, but became a powerful ideological weapon … In other words, the new system was a means of showing that the Yugoslav Communist Party was the ‘true heir’ of Marx. In contrast to the Soviet Union, where the Party-State bureaucracy interposed itself between the workers and the means of production, the Yugoslav working-class (in an all-inclusive sense) would be ‘reunited with the means of production’ …”
That is really what the NDP and Jagmeet Singh are preaching.
In his 1950 pamphlet, The Universal Repulic (La République Universelle), Adrien Arcand said:
“En faisant de la raison humaine l’Absolu suprême dont découlent tout commandement, toute loi et toute initiative, le libéralisme a posé le même geste que Lucifer. Et la politique en a subi la même chute terrifiante, chute qui n’est pas encore rendu à son terme mais qui s’accentue chaque jour davantage vers des ténèbres plus épaisses et un chaos plus profond, dont le communisme donne une première image.”
“By making human reason the supreme Absolute from which every command, law and initiative flows, liberalism has imitated Lucifer. And politics has suffered the same terrifying downfall, a fall that has not yet come to its end, but accelerates day by day toward deeper darkness and more profound chaos, of which Communism is a first glimpse.”
“Dans des termes plus compréhensibles au profane, c’est ce que le Pape Pie XI expliquait de façon plus courte et plus claire lorsque, dans sa lettre encyclique “Quadragesirno Anno”, il disait : “Le socialisme a le libéralisme pour père et le communisme pour héritier”. Maintenant, en cette ère de politique absolue, les impératifs de la politique sont acceptés par tous sans discussion ni esprit critique, ce qui explique que le libéralisme, le socialisme ou le communisme ont pénétré partout et gangrené tous les milieux.”
“In words more intelligible to the layman, this is what Pope Pius XI explained more briefly and clearly in his encyclical letter “Quadragesimo Anno”, when he said: “Socialism has liberalism for its father and communism for heir”. Now, in this era of absolute politics, the imperatives of politics are accepted by all without discussion or critical thinking, which explains why liberalism, socialism or communism have penetrated everywhere and gangrened all environments.”
Not long ago, Rémi Tremblay and Jean-Claude Rolinat published “Le Canada français, De Jacques Cartier au genocide tranquille“, (“French Canada, From Jacques Cartier to the Quiet Genocide”). The title is an obvious play on the label given to the mythical event of the “Quiet Revolution” in Quebec during the Communist-infested Jean-Lesage liberal takeover of 1960-1965. There is ironically an introduction to the book by Richard Le Hir, a “minister” with the Communist PQ that has always worked to destroy French Canada.
However, as CCF’er and NDP’er Frank Scott said:
“The human race is more important than any one race.”
In other words, your grief, your agony in disappearing, is the price the Socialists are willing to pay for the imaginary advent of an earthly paradise cleansed of nations and peoples.
But, finally, the apotheosis is a dream; the deification of man an illusion, a loathsome ruse. Hell on Earth is the climax of liberalism; a plummet into the Abyss, into Communism, slavery, dictatorship, civilization’s end; and death.
Enjoy the Underhill speech, it’s really well written; and so are the Woodsworth extracts at the end.
1 The full name of the Reece Committee was the “United States House Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations”. It began to sit in April of 1952 to investigate the great tax-free foundations, the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation. The minute books of the foundation for the period 1908-1910 showed that world government was the goal, and that war was the means elected to achieve it.
2 Norman Dodd, director of research for the Reece Committee, was interviewed in 1980 by Dr. Stan Monteith for Radio Liberty. Monteith was the first person to film Norman Dodd. In 2009, Dr. Monteith updated that film with additional commentary and made it public. It can be found online, incluidng at YouTube nder the title: “Norman Dodd Reveals ‘The Secret Agenda of the Tax Free Foundations’ in 1980 – Radio Liberty Interview (US-Soviet merger)”>
3 Ibid: Dodd tells Stan Monteith about Rhodes Scholarships and Foundations.
4 See a) The Perestroika Deception; and b) New Lies For Old. The full quote, from page 209 of the former is: “The pragmatic basis for a revised US response to ‘perestroika’ is the need to protect and preserve the American system from ‘restructuring’ preparatory to ‘convergence’ with the ‘reformed’ Soviet system, and to save the American people from the blood baths and re-education camps which such ‘convergence’ will eventually bring about, of which the West currently has no conception.”
5 The Wikipedia page on Woodsworth claims that today, “the New Democratic Party has largely abandoned Woodsworth’s vision of a socialist Canada.” Nothing could be more incorrect. The NDP assumed the seat of the CCF at the Socialist International, whose mandate is a world government and industrial democracy. Industrial democracy is Communism as developed in the former Yugoslavia (SFRY) after 1950 under Marshal Tito. In 1970, in a conference paper for Praxis Research Institute (co-sponsored by the Ontario Woodsworth Memorial Foundation), MP for Oshawa-Whitby, Ed Broadbent, future leader of the NDP, underscored the mission of the NDP to bring Yugoslav-style Communism to Canada. He has been quoted to this effect in the post above.
6 The Communist FLQ (Front de Libération du Québec) under the wing of Fidel Castro, received sympathy from Canadian Socialists, trade-unionists, folk-singers and so-called Liberals. FLQ mailbox bombs blew the arms off postmen, whether French or English speaking; and their Montreal trade center attack at Victoria Square seems to have been a very tiny preview of 9/11, the latter obviously done with certain new and as-yet unidentified technologies. (I continue to be astonished that Richard Gage and his Architects & Engineers have not yet managed to join forces with physicist and engineer, Dr. Judy Wood, PhD, a materials scientist and former assistant professor of mechanical engineering.)
7 Philippe Poulin. « La tentative d’adhésion du Parti québécois à l’internationale socialiste », in the Bulletin d’histoire politique, vol. 6, number 3, Spring 1998, pp. 84-106; my translation of Poulin is available online, search for it at https://nosnowinmoscow.wordpress.com/
8 All depends on where Woodsworth got it; whom did he encounter in his year at Oxford in the 1890’s? The secret society of Cecil Rhodes was formed officially in 1891; but there appears to be a difference in ideology between Rhodes and Woodsworth. Woodsworth seems to want a merger of all races (an official Communist-Zionist policy, excluding the Jews, of course). Rhodes, in contrast, prefers that the world be populated far and wide by Englishmen; I doubt that he meant multicultural Englishmen.
9 Bachand was co-responsible in 1969 for organizing with Red Stan Gray, the anti-English communist front called Opération McGill Français.
10 Power Corporation of Canada is apparently the hidden transnational-corporate sponsor of the dissolution of Canada for Communism. CEO Paul Desmarais, Sr. had a long chase through the parties in his effort to find one — or someone within one — willing to run a referendum to dismantle Canada.
When Daniel Johnson took the helm of the old Union Nationale of Maurice Duplessis, and seemed about to run one, Johnson dropped dead. At this point, the “secret committee at Power” was compelled to fill the gap by setting up its own “separatist” party (the Parti Québécois). René Lévesque (a refugee from the Jean Lesage liberal party which tried but failed to produce a functioning Communist plan in 1961 — [See the PQ’s 1972 manifesto in the sidebar, pages 101-103] was told to organize the new party of Power.
Another controlee of Power, Pierre Marc Johnson, a son of Daniel Johnson, would later sign the 2005 “Building A North American Community” plan to merge North America, co-authored by the CFR and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. The latter is a spinoff from Paul Desmarais’ Business Council on National Issues (BCNI). Since a monarchy cannot be merged with a republic (in fact, Canada was founded as a monarchy to prevent annexation), one or both of Canada and America would have to be dismantled. A referendum in Quebec becomes indispensable to take Canada apart. If Canada cannot be toppled, the North American region cannot be finished. The globalists, therefore, would always have been interested in Mr. Woodsworth and his opposition to the “barrier” of the B.N.A. Act.
Power also sat on the NACC, the North American Competitiveness Council, after 911, a kind of proto-parliament of the big corporations, who dictated changes to the laws of Canada, USA and Mexico to ease the North American merger.
Power Corporation of Canada is at the core of the Quebec Communist problem. Power also has a penchant for hiring men and women on the RCMP’s list of suspected Communist subversives; Sylvia Ostry for one; Pierre Trudeau for another. Power Corporation is also linked to Rockefeller networks through the Rhodes Scholarships, and forms the annual committee to dole them out for Quebec. An excellent project for someone in each of the other provinces would be to find out whole doles them out there.
11 Apparently, so did Nikita Khrushchev, who raised the question of whether the British parliamentary Westminster system (Canada’s model) was (legally) able to go over to Communism. I can answer that: No, it isn’t.
12 Arcand would probably not agree with that statement, if only to save face. In Chapter VIII of À Bas La Haine ! (Down With Hate!) at page 57, Arcand quotes Saul Hayes, Q.C., of the Canadian Jewish Congress, commenting on Vatican II *:
“Dans de telles conditions, la civilisation occidentale et chrétienne ne peut plus dominer le monde et le catholicisme doit faire face à de nouvelles forces tels (sic) que le communisme et l’athéisme”.
“In such conditions, Western and Christian civilization can no longer dominate the world and Catholicism must confront new forces like Communism and atheism”.
The statement seems to me to imply that the Jews had overthrown the Church at Vatican II, but Arcand refuses to give Hayes ground, retorting: “Is that an observation, a cry of triumph, or a hoped-for outcome?” (“Est-ce une constatation, un cri de triomphe, ou un espoir de réalisation ?”)
Arcand would never have admitted that the Jews who had long targeted the Catholic Church had finally overthrown it. Indeed, at Vatican Council II, the circle around the Pope was formed largely of converted Jews, most likely Marranos. Adrien Arcand confirms the presence of Jews at Vatican II. In À Bas La Haine ! (Down With Hate!) (1965), at chapter II, page 19, Arcand states:
Les Juifs n’ont pas plus affaire dans ce concile, eux qui réprouvent le baptême, que des baptisés peuvent avoir affaire dans la franc-maçonnerie exclusivement juive des B’nai B’rith (Enfants de l’Alliance). Mais il faut que les Juifs y soient, qu’ils y exercent leur influence, qu’on parle d’eux, voire que l’on défigure le Nouveau Testament (qu’ils repoussent) afin de leur faire plaisir.
The Jews have no more business in this Council — they, who repudiate Baptism — than the baptised can have any business in the exclusively Jewish Freemasonry of the B’nai B’rith (Children of the Covenant). But the Jews must be there, to exert their influence, to be the subject of discussion, yea, even so that the New Testament — which they repudiate — shall be disfigured in order to please them.
And by then, the Church had inexplicably formed an agreement with the Soviet KGB to stop criticizing Communism! This was the Metz Accord. The FQS, in its “Quiet Revolution in the Church” (2014) describes it this way (translation):
“C’est Jean Madiran qui, dès 1963, a révélé l’accord entre Rome et Moscou pour faire taire toute critique du communisme en échange de la participation de représentants de l’Église orthodoxe russe (inféodée au Parti communiste) au concile Vatican II.”
“It was Jean Madiran who, as of 1963, revealed the agreement between Rome and Moscow to silence all criticism of Communism in exchange for the participation of representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church (pledged to the Communist party) at the Second Vatican Council.”
FQS continues (translation):
“A.Socci, journaliste célèbre en Italie, publia le 11 octobre 2006 un article sur le sujet dans le quotidien italien Libre. Qui plus est, profitant de la publication de nombreux documents d’archives relatifs au concile Vatican II, il replaça dans son contexte « le pacte scélérat entre le KGB et le bon pape Jean ». J. Madiran avait également publié dans Itinéraires, dès février 1963 (no. 70), la révélation de l’accord conclu à Metz, effectué par l’hebdomadaire central du Parti communiste français (France Nouvelle, du 16 janvier 1963), puis confirmé par La Croix, du 15 février 1963. C’est aussi grâce à Itinéraires que l’on a pu connaître l’affaire Pax (no. de juillet-août 1964) sur les infiltrations communistes dans l’Église grâce à une note du Cardinal Wysynski, primat de Pologne.”
“A. Socci, a famous journalist in Italy, published on October 11th, 2006 an article on the subject in the Italian daily newspaper Libre. Furthermore, profiting from the publication of many archive documents relating to the Second Vatican Council, he placed back into its context “the villainous pact between the KGB and the good Pope John”. J. Madiran had also published in Itinéraires, as of February 1963 (no. 70), the revelation of the agreement concluded at Metz, made by the central weekly magazine of the French Communist Party (France Nouvelle, of January 16th, 1963), then confirmed by La Croix of February 15th, 1963. It is also thanks to Itinéraires that we are able to know about the Pax affair (the July-August issue of 1964) of the communist infiltrations in the Church thanks to a note of Cardinal Wysynski, the primate of Poland.”
* Vatican Council II, or the Second Vatican Council, formally opened under the pontificate of Pope John XXIII on 11 October 1962 and closed under that of Pope Paul VI on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, 8 December 1965.