What Would Communism Be Like? (Question to the West)

Since the Rockefellers are among the handful of international financiers who bankrolled Lenin and Trotsky’s Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, let’s see how life actually was for working Americans employed by the Rockefellers…

William Lyon Mackenzie King and John Davidson Rockefeller II

William Lyon Mackenzie King and John Davidson Rockefeller II

John Davidson Rockefeller II was born in 1874 and died in 1960. John D. owned several coal and iron mines in the Colorado Rockies in Ludlow, Colorado. JD paid the miners less than $700 a year and forced them to live in company houses and shop at the company store. The mining camps were patrolled by armed guards and infiltrated by company spies…

In 1913, 9,000 miners went on strike… they demanded union rights. More money, better conditions, an end to the prison camp-type of system and they wanted to talk to Junior (J.D. Rockefeller). J.D. refused to talk to the workers and instead he brought in Texas and West Virginia gunmen, the Colorado State militia, the National Guard and the Cavalry to protect his mines…

… Then Rockefeller’s army attacked… they charged through the miners’ tent camps in armored cars, raking the miners with machine gun fire and they burnt one camp to the ground… Dozens of men, women and children were shot or burned to death…

That December, the cold, starving miners who survived gave in to John D. Rockefeller II… two years later, the National Guard shot to death three striking Standard Oil workers in New Jersey…

That pretty much sounds like Communism, don’tcha think? Nationalized “housing”, forced labor, starvation wages, spies, prison-camp conditions, and the use of the National troops to murder you and your family if you don’t cooperate.

The Rockefellers are just some of the people who subsidized the Sovietization of Russia into a vast slave labor camp where only for starters, 10 million Catholic ethnic Ukrainians died by forced starvation for refusing to hand over their farms and property for “redistribution”.

As well, the USSR’s great Baltic White Sea canal was built with unfed slave labor under the reign of Joseph Stalin. The Soviet authorities deemed it cheaper to work a man or a woman to death for a few days, than to feed them; because with the neighborhood-fascist spy system in the USSR, there were always plenty of free replacements. If a man did not denounce a minimum number of his own neighbours to the secret police, he himself was taken into forced labor.

Given that the Rockefellers also bankrolled the setup of the United Nations, facade of our intended future world government, the question “What would Communism be like?” is very appropriate to anyone in the West who has not experienced Banker-financed subjugation.

In closing, you will notice how careful Canada’s de facto government archive is when describing the infamous strike at the Rockefeller-owned mining company. Says our government, “During this bitter and violent strike, which lasted 15 months, more than 40 people were killed.” They neglect to mention that the Rockefellers murdered their own workers and their families — men, women and kids — in cold blood, using State-supplied troops.

Perhaps the omission of this unpleasant historical detail is related to a wish to keep sacrosanct the “image” of Canada’s one-time Prime Minister, who was John D. Rockefeller’s “Real Companion and Friend”, that is, The Honourable William Lyon Mackenzie King.

– 30 –

The Secret Behind Communism By Dr. David Duke (June 2013) New Book Preview

SPECIAL FEATURE
Pre-Publication Sample Chapter

THE SECRET BEHIND COMMUNISM
By Dr. David Duke

Source: The Secret Behind Communism (Introduction) Publication Pending.
Video:

http://youtu.be/WrieUdYe_e8

The Secret Behind Communism By Dr. David Duke, Video of the Book Preview June 2013″
Web site: http://www.davidduke.com/?p=40066

The Ethnic Origins of the Russian Revolution
The Greatest Holocaust in the History of Mankind

Introduction

“You must understand. The leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse.

The October Revolution was not what you call in America the ‘Russian Revolution.’

It was an invasion and conquest over the Russian people.

More of my countrymen suffered horrific crimes at their bloodstained hands than any people or nation ever suffered in the entirety of human history.

It cannot be overstated. Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time.

The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrators.”

— Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

These were startling words, spoken to me by the famous Russian writer and philosopher Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn when I had the privilege of meeting him in Moscow in 2002.

His words made me fully realize the fact that most of the people of the world know little about the tribalist entity which created and drove the Communist juggernaut that took over Russia. They also know frighteningly little about the greatest slaughters in history, the genocide of tens of millions of people that was spawned by deep ethnic hatred.

For so many people, even for some of those who have studied the “Russian Revolution” in history courses in universities around the world, this is “The Secret Behind Communism.” This secret, even though plain to see if one just looks closely, is rarely spoken about in either the mainstream press or in mainstream academia.

The revolution occurred in Russia, and although a percentage of Russians participated in it, it was not a Russian Revolution.” It was led by an alienated, non-Russian, Jewish ethnic minority who hated Russia, Russians, and the Tsar for their alleged anti-Semitism. Their fellow tribalists around the world financed and supported and provided shock troops that executed the brutal takeover of the Russian government. Upon achieving total power, their deep, psychopathic, racist hatred against Russians became manifest in the greatest human slaughter of all time.

Any historian who has studied modern communism from its ideological origins in Karl Marx and Moses Hess, through the mass dispossession, forced starvations, and Gulags of the twentieth century, is aware that communists are the real world champions of mass murder. There is no historical dispute about the fact that communist regimes killed many times more innocents than any other regime in history, including Hitler’s Germany.

But unlike members of that National Socialist regime, the greatest mass murderers of all time have not been hunted down across the face of the Earth. They have not faced trial for their horrific crimes against humanity. Perhaps even more importantly they have never faced the court of popular revulsion. Why? It’s because these communist perpetrators have been shielded by their tribal brethren who have an inordinate influence on media, academia, and governments.

The deaths in just one of the many communist killing fields, totaled 5 to 8 million men, women and children of the Ukraine who were starved, killed, imprisoned, and worked to death in what is today called the Holodomor. It is a death toll equal to or even greater than the numbers in what today is called the “Holocaust.”
 
Why Do the Hollywood Bosses Ignore
the Largest Holocaust in Human History?

The Ukrainian Holodomor

The Ukrainian Holodomor*

Today, nearly every person on Earth, through mass media and government commemoration, is aware of and empathizes with the victims of the Holocaust, but 99 percent of humanity are completely unaware of the Ukrainian Holodomor.

The world has been inundated with both fictional and non-fictional dramas about the sufferings of Jews and Jewish children, such as Anne Frank, in the war. However, the great masses have not been led to shed tears for the little girls of Ukrainian and Russian heritage who suffered and died. They are unknown, unremembered and unmourned in the media of today.

People are unconscious and cut off from empathy for the millions murdered by the Bolsheviks in Russia, even if they have a vague knowledge of the millions suffering under communism. Very few people have an emotional attachment to the victims of the communists because Hollywood and the media have done nothing to instill any concern for them. That’s in stark contrast to their unending dirge of the Jewish Holocaust.

In the Hollywood media of movies and television, in broadcasting and major publishing, every adult has absorbed thousands of hours of what is called “the Holocaust”. It is the trade-marked jealous god which demands no other gods before it.

[DAVID DUKE IN VIDEO PRESENTATION: I want to point out that I show a number of pictures of the Holodomor, and other victims of Soviet Communism, pictures that you’re not so familiar with, that they don’t show you constantly on television and in the newspapers.

I show a picture of an emaciated, beautiful little girl who was starved to death in the intentional ETHNIC GENOCIDE of the Ukrainian people…]
 

Girl starved to death in Holodomor
This little girl was Starved to Death
in the Intentional Ethnic genocide
of the Ukrainian People…

you don’t know her name,
you don’t know her story.

The same Hollywood that Brings
You the “Holocaust” almost
every day of your life – shows
you nothing about the largest
Genocide in the
History of Mankind.

WHY?

When I met Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008), he had just published his last work, called Two Hundred Years Together (2001). It was about the Jewish experience in Russia, and contained three chapters devoted to discussing the Jewish role in the revolutionary genocide and secret police purges of Soviet Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution of October 1917.

I waited for ten years in vain for the book to be published in English. It remains unpublished in English to this day. Of course. The secret behind communism must remain a secret to most of the public.

Solzhenitsyn knew that he would be condemned for daring to point out the secret, but he went ahead nonetheless, telling me that it was his duty to tell the truth so that the world would know. He paid the price. Although his book was a runaway bestseller in Russia, this last important book by the Nobel Prize-winning author has never been published in English. So the largest audience in the world has been denied the truth. The controlled media had to mute the great man’s voice.

However, this book, The Secret Behind Communism will somewhat remedy that suppression, for it contains many important and relevant quotations from Two Hundred Years Together, many of the revealing quotes were the reason that the book has not been published, fully, in English.

6 Jewish Gulag Bosses of the 1930s as documented by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

6 Jewish Gulag Bosses of the 1930s as documented by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn


It wasn’t the first time that Solzhenitsyn had raised the subject of the Jewish ethnic driving force behind Communism and its slaughters. In his famous The Gulag Archipelago books, 1, 2 and 3, in which he described his imprisonment by the Soviets, he pointed out that almost all the commanders of the Gulag camps were Jews, by famously including pictures (shown on the left) of six Jewish Chekist Gulag bosses of the 1930s.

In Two Hundred Years Together, Solzhenitsyn wrote that he had taken their pictures (on left) from an official Soviet-era publication which boasted about the Gulags.

Despite Solzhenitsvn’s efforts — and those of many others, including Frank Britton (some of his excellent work and research is included in this volume), the truth about the Jewish supremacist role in the creation, execution and maintenance of world Communism, and the “Russian” Revolution in particular, remains little-known. The reason for this is simple:  The Jewish supremacist tribalists who influence major media throughout the West make sure that almost nothing is said about the fact that Jews, along with organized Jewish support worldwide, not only created communism, but were the leaders who brought it into such grim reality. They were indeed the nexus of the greatest slaughter and mass human suffering in history.

This is the core of the secret behind communism, overwhelmingly documented in this book.
 

The Paramount Jewish Role
in Communism:  No Secret in Israeli Media

Ironically, Jewish historians are quite happy to discuss the leading Jewish role among themselves — although any Gentile who dares to raise the topic is immediately decried as an “anti-Semite.”

A good example came with the article that appeared in the popular Israeli online Jewish Zionist news source, YnetNews.com.


Sever Pocker

Stalin’s Jews

We mustn't forget that some of greatest murderers of
modern times were Jewish (By Sever Pocker, Israel Opinion, 12-21-2006)


CAPTION: Jewish historians and publications have no reluctance to point out in Jewish publications, to Jewish readers in Israel and around the world, the dominant role of Jews in the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. They even admit their key role in the greatest mass murders of all time. However, this vitally important information is covered up in mainstream print and broadcasting media in Europe and America.


 

In December 2006 it shared an article with its Jewish readers called “Stalin’s Jews,” which tells facts about the Jewish role in mass murder that would certainly be criticized as ‘anti-Semitic” if any gentile historian or publication had told these facts.

The article, written by well-known Jewish writer Sever Pocker, is subtitled:

“We mustn’t forget that some of (sic) greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish”

“We cannot know with certainty the number of deaths Cheka was responsible for in its various manifestations, but the number is surely at least 20 million, including victims of the forced collectivization, the hunger, large purges, expulsions, banishments, executions, and mass death at Gulags.

“Gengrikh Yagoda was the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU’s deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin’s collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system.”
 

Genrikh Yagoda

Genrikh Yagoda

CAPTION: Gengrikh Yagoda, murdered twice the number of people alleged by Adolf Hitler, but although Jewish scholars realize this fact, not 1 of 1000 gentiles even know his name.
 

To understand the incredible level of deception about the enormous Jewish crimes against humanity, just consider how the globalist Jewish-dominated media hides Yagoda’s role in a genocide of at least 10 million human beings.

Jewish writers and a major Jewish Israeli website casually report to their Jewish readers that the Jewish Bolshevik, Yagoda, murdered twice the number of the alleged 5.1 million victims counted by the pre­eminent Holocaust historian, Raul Hilberg.
 

The Holocaust is “never forget.”
The Bolshevik Holocaust is “never remember.”

Yet, this Jewish genocidal murderer who ironically has an identical mustache to Hitler, and who murdered double the number of people than are alleged against Hitler, is completely unknown. Not one person in a thousand would be able to identify Yagoda’s very distinctive name, much less associate it with mass murder.

Why does the media tell us that we should “never forget” the Jewish Holocaust but in regard to the much bigger Bolshevik Holocaust the message is “never remember.” This illustrates The Secret Behind Communism in a more profound way than this author could ever express.
 

Ethnic Hatred Expressed in Both Communism and Zionism

This book exposes the little-known fact that Zionism and Communism have the same ethnic and very similar ideological roots. Karl Marx was descended from a long line of Talmudic scholars, and he learned much of his communist theory from Moses Hess. Hess, himself, later morphed into a rabid Jewish racial supremacist and Zionist while at the same time continuing to embrace the principles of Communism.

Tragically, the ethnic cleansings and murderous ways of the Jewish tribalists in Russia are being repeated in the Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Similar ethnic racism was at work in Palestine as it was in Russia, and in other European nations.

It can be seen in the ethnic genocide against the Ukrainians. The Jewish Bolsheviks purposely murdered them to reduce their numbers, and then flooded their country with non-Ukrainians to destroy their national and ethnic unity (See: Holodomor chapter). Raphael Lemkin, father of the word genocide, wrote this in his article “Soviet Genocide in Ukraine”.

“The fourth step in the process [of genocide] consisted in the fragmentation of the Ukrainian people at once by the addition to the Ukraine of foreign peoples…  In this way, ethnic unity would be destroyed and nationalities mixed. Between 1920 and 1939, the population of Ukraine changed from 80% Ukrainian to only 63%…”

The Soviet Archives in Moscow has this revealing statement from a Bolshevik leader in Ukraine showing the genocide there was to break their ethnic unity in opposition to Bolshevik rule.

“Famine in Ukraine was brought on to decrease the number of Ukrainians, replace the dead with people from other parts of the USSR, and thereby to kill the slightest thought of any Ukrainian independence.”

This volume reveals how Israel today honors one of the worst Bolshevik criminals of the Second World War, Ilya Ehrenburg, and shows how Zionism embraces the same ethnic hatreds as did their Bolshevik brethren.
 

The Israeli Holocaust Museum Honors Bolshevik
Promoter of Genocide Who Hid Bolshevik Crimes from the World

Ehrenburg was a leading international propagandist for the Bolshevik state while it committed the worst mass murder in history. He was also the chief propagandist for the Red Army, who urged on the genocidal mass murder of Germans and other Eastern Europeans. The Canadian Jewish News states:

Until his death in 1967, “his support for the Soviet state, and for Stalin, never wavered. His loyalty and service were acknowledged in 1952 when he received the Stalin Prize.

He is most infamous for his viciously anti-German wartime propaganda: The Canadian Jewish News states:

“As the leading Soviet journalist during World War II, Ehrenburg’s writings against the German invaders were circulated among millions of Soviet soldiers.”

In one booklet called “Kill,” Ehrenburg incites Soviet soldiers to treat Germans as sub-humans. Its final words include the following:

“The Germans are not human beings. From now on the word German means to use the most terrible oath…. We shall kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day… If you cannot kill your German with a bullet, kill him with your bayonet. If there is calm on your part of the front, or if you are waiting for the fighting, kill a German in the meantime. If you leave a German alive, the German will hang a Russian and rape a Russian woman. If you kill one German, kill another — there is nothing more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses. Do not count days, do not count kilometers. Count only the number of Germans you kill. Kill the German — that is your grandmother’s request. Kill the German — that is your child’s prayer. Kill the German — that is your motherland’s loud request. … Kill.”

Ehrenburg’s incendiary writings certainly contributed in no small measure to the orgy of murder and rape by Soviet soldiers against German and other Eastern European civilians.

I also show a headline from The Daily Mail, from historians talking about the mass rape. The headline reads: “Red Army: Millions of Eastern Europeans, Women and Girls Raped”.
 

The Canadian Jewish News further writes:

Ilya Ehrenburg a True Jewish Hero of the Second World War

Ilya Ehrenburg a True Jewish Hero of the Second World War

HEADLINE:  “Jewish News
Ilya Ehrenburg a True Jewish Hero of the Second World War”
(The Canadian Jewish News)

“… The recent disclosure that Ehrenburg arranged to transfer his private papers to Jerusalem’s Yad Vashem library and archive, while still alive, comes as a stunning revelation… Ehrenburg agreed… on condition that the transfer, and his will, remain secret for 20 years after his death.”

So we discover that a dedicated Bolshevik Soviet leader whose propaganda hid the Bolshevik Holocaust, had secretly willed his private papers, not to the Soviet Union but to the Zionist State, where he is honored today at Yad Vashem.

The honoring of a genocidal Bolshevik at Yad Vashem, the most important Jewish memorial to the Holocaust, speaks of an enormous hypocrisy that boggles the mind. Only in a deeply corrupted morality could the most important memorial in the world against genocide honor a man who supported genocide. More importantly, there is not a word of criticism in the press. It seems that one man’s genocidal maniac is another man’s hero.

Zionist Israel today honors leaders who openly promote ethnic genocide in words just as horrific as Ehrenberg’s. The former chief Sephardic rabbi of Israel, rabbi Ovadia Yosef, calls for the extermination of the Palestinians. BBC quotes him:

“It is forbidden to be merciful to them. You must send missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable,” he was quoted as saying in a sermon delivered on Monday to mark the Jewish festival of Passover…

“The Lord shall return the Arabs’ deeds on their own heads, waste their seed and exterminate them, devastate them and vanish them from this world,” he said.

Rabbi calls for annihilation of Arabs
(BBC NEWS Tuesday, 10 April, 2001
16:01 GMT 17:01 UK)

Rabbi Yosef is the spiritual head of powerful Shas Party, one of the Israeli Prime Minister’s closest allies. He has also said that

“The only purpose of Gentiles on Earth is to serve Jews.” Could one even image the world outrage if any political leader in America or Europe was in political partnership with someone who preaches that Jews must be exterminated? This alone reveals Zionist power in government and media across the world.
 

The Bolshevik Holocaust:
Down the Memory Hole

Why there is vast knowledge and emotional attachment to a Holocaust perpetrated against Jews and so little attention on a larger Holocaust perpetrated by Jews, is clear. It’s the result of Jewish influence in media and government. We must increase our knowledge and our passion for all victims of genocide.

I begin with a short chapter from my book, Jewish Supremacism, for an introduction to the shocking historical data. After completing The Secret, I urge you to read Jewish Supremacism completely for a deeper understanding of Jewish ethnic racism and extremism.

Then I explore a wealth of material that has gone down what George Orwell called the “memory hole” in his classic novel, 1984.

I share with you some of Frank Britton’s ground-breaking research on the topic first published in 1952 and supplemented since that time, including my additions and updates. Then I delve into my own research into the topic and that of many other scholars.

This book seeks to answer crucial questions. Why has there been such a close relationship between Jewish tribalism and Communism all over the world? For at first glance the two movements would seem to be incompatible.

How does one explain rich capitalist Zionists supporting communist atheist movements?

How and why did communist Jews who worshipped Trotsky morph into so-called neo-conservatives?

Zionists support a state based on ethnic supremacism. Israel promotes Jewish-only immigration, one of the strictest immigration policies on Earth. Israel promotes segregated schools and housing between Jews and non-Jews. Israel does not even allow a marriage to be performed between a Jew and a Gentile. It allows its citizens to own and even carry machine guns on the street.

However, those same Zionists who support Israel, overwhelmingly support the opposite political agenda in every nation in which they dwell. They overwhelmingly support leftist and Marxist movements and ideologies in the Gentile nations in which they live, still today, decades after losing control of Communist Russia. Why?

Zionist influence over American and EU policy directly led to the Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the death and suffering of millions of innocents in Zionist, Jewish tribalist-driven wars in the Middle East. What do these events and the communist genocides have in common?

The racial hatred behind the genocides by the Jewish Bolsheviks must also be examined and fully understood. Can one understand the crimes of Zionism without seeing their relationship to the crimes of communism?

The Bolshevik Holocaust is a horrific story that all people who love life and freedom should learn about if they are not to be doomed to repeat similar horrors.

If the world had been aware of the Jewish tribalist forces behind communism and their role in the most massive violation of human rights in all of history, certainly the world could have averted their crimes in modem times.

Preventing the wars that they have orchestrated in the Middle East would have saved millions of lives.

Much of the Zionist techniques of terrorism, ethnic cleansing, torture and murder in Palestine and across the region were learned long before in their Bolshevik revolt against civilization.

Unmasking the ethnic tribalism and ethnic hatred behind the Bolshevik Holocaust may be critical to preventing a globalist tyranny and future genocides. You may ask. How so?

It is because the same ethnic tribalism that was behind the Red Terror may have ultimately lost in Russia, but they have in many ways, gained a degree of global supremacy today. So exposing them is crucial.

They are the source of Zionism and they still, for the most part, control the remnants of communism. They dominate the nexus of global media, government, and finance.

Learning the historical truth about communism and its crimes against humanity is essential to make sure that history does not repeat itself. Indeed, to make sure that these perpetrators do not repeat their crimes upon we the living and upon our children.

In the next few pages you will delve deep into The Secret Behind Communism.

— Dr. David Duke
 

Dr. Duke’s video preview concludes as follows:
 

We need your help to publish this vital book
in the fight for our freedom and heritage
in the face of Zionist Globalism

We don’t have a big, Zionist-controlled publisher that can print many tens of thousands of copies to make the price very low, so we need your help, because book publishing depends on having a larger run to get the price to be reasonable.

Plus, we want to distribute this vital book to many important opinion leaders, leaders in our society that need to get this information.

Because we all have to realize the threat of international Zionist globalism… that threatens our freedoms, our economic wellbeing, our heritage, and everything that it means in terms of human rights.

You can go to David Duke.com, and I ask you to please, right away, before you let it slip your mind, make a donation to help with the publishing of this book.
 

Give a gift to help give this book to the World

And by the way… anyone who gives a gift of $100 or more, will receive a numbered, authenticated and personally autographed book that will certainly gain much value in the years ahead.

I look forward to hearing from you, and thank you so much for your support in getting out the truth about, not just Zionism, but about the forces that have created Zioglobalism today.

To understand that, you must understand The Secret Behind Communism.
Here is the Link to Help us Publish!

Thank you for your efforts!
 

– 30 –
 

* The Holodomor (Ukrainian: ?????????, “Extermination by hunger” or “Hunger-extermination”; derived from ‘?????? ???????’, “Starving someone”) [Wikipedia]

The Last Days of the Patriarch: by Alexandre Trudeau

Foreword:

Bizarre Adoration of Castro by the Trudeau Clan

On Tuesday evening, October 12th, 2012 in his Liberal riding of Papineau in Montreal, federal member of parliament, Justin Trudeau, held a rally to announce his bid for the Liberal leadership.

Isn’t he dreamy? Justin Trudeau

Isn’t he dreamy? Justin Trudeau

Press and media, notably the Washington-based Huffington Post, appear to be aiming at another “Trudeau coronation”. Huffington is hard-selling the inexperienced and unaccomplished 41-year-old Justin the way his father was sold in 1968: as masculine. Among its disturbingly obvious political campaign offerings is a 4-part e-book and an extensive photo album of the little rich kid’s lifestyle.

And again, as in ’68, all question of the Trudeaus’ support of Communism is either stifled by ignoring it, or countered in advance by unexpected apologists (a separate post is coming on Peter Worthington, anti-communist opponent of the original Trudeau).

He’s a millionaire, you say; why would he support communism?

His father was a millionaire: he supported communism. Millionaires built communism; international banks and multinational corporations built the USSR; they financed the Bolshevik Revolution; they paid to Sovietize Russia; they looked the other way while its citizens died in slave labor camps to get it done.

I invite you to view a very different family album which neither the Huffington Post nor apparently anyone else is bringing to light.

This one illustrates the bizarre, intimate relationship of the entire Trudeau clan with a Communist dictator. Justin’s brother, Alexandre, unselfconsciously revealed the depth and effects of that relationship in 2006 in a heart-felt elegy to the dictator which he penned in English for the Toronto Sun and in French for La Presse.

The occasion was the birthday of the dictator, Fidel Castro, who had turned 80, and who had handed his responsibilities over to his own brother, Vice-President Raúl Castro. (Raúl assumed the full presidency in 2008.)

The personal friendship of Pierre Trudeau and of his wife and three sons with Fidel Castro, is politically problematic. What, precisely, was the effect on Justin Trudeau of this close personal family relationship with Castro?

One son (the late Micha) was a personal favorite of Castro’s; the other son — Alexandre — is clearly under the Castro spell. The mother who raised her sons to adore Fidel, had herself declared that Castro was the ‘sexiest man alive’. Add to this that the mother’s mental instability is well known.

Alexandre’s 2006 article is not only remarkable for its lack of normal moral discernment, but for the apparently thorough Communist brainwashing of its author that it reveals. Responsible journalists should be questioning the frame of mind of the author’s brother: Liberal leadership candidate, Justin Trudeau.

Raised in the same environment, with the same special Cuban friend, by two parents who uncritically adored Castro, Justin — a man with no particular accomplishments but his ability to spend his father’s money — would like to be Prime Minister of Canada.

While some journalists rush to absolve Justin of his father’s Communist past, none are doing what is obviously necessary.

Justin embracing Fidel Castro on the death of his father, the Communist

Justin embracing Fidel Castro on the death of his father, the Communist

Justin Trudeau should be asked what he thinks of world government, North American Union, and yes, Communism. (I could answer those questions for him, but I won’t do that in this post.)

Here is the troubling article penned by Justin Trudeau’s brother Alexandre as a monument to the Trudeau family’s beloved Fidel Castro. Fidel attended Pierre Trudeau’s funeral in Montreal in September 2000. At left, Castro is seen embracing Justin.
 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 
EXCLUSIVE: Pierre Trudeau had a friendship with Fidel Castro that went beyond politics. It was a mutual admiration between two men who put their unmatched intellects at the service of their country. On Castro’s 80th birthday, an essay by Alexandre Trudeau.

EXCLUSIVE Alexandre Trudeau; Toronto; Aug 13, 2006; pg. A.4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alexandre Trudeau

Alexandre Trudeau

I grew up knowing that Fidel Castro had a special place among my family’s friends. We had a picture of him at home: a great big man with a beard who wore military fatigues and held my baby brother Michel in his arms. When he met my little brother in 1976, he even gave him a nickname that would stick with him his whole life: “Micha-Miche.”

A few years later, when Michel was around 8 years old, I remember him complaining to my mother that my older brother and I both had more friends than he did. My mother told him that, unlike us, he had the greatest friend of all: he had Fidel.

Fidel Castro, Pierre Trudeau, Margaret Trudeau, Micha-Miche, Michel (1976)

Fidel Castro, Pierre Trudeau, Margaret Trudeau, Micha-Miche, Michel (1976)

For many years, Cuba remained Michel’s exclusive realm; whenever someone would accompany my father there, it would naturally be Michel. It wasn’t until after both my father’s and brother’s deaths that I got a chance to visit Fidel and his country, Cuba.

Fidel may have been at first a political contact of my father’s but their relationship was much more than that. It was extra-political.

Indeed, like my father, in private, Fidel is not a politician. He is more in the vein of a great adventurer or a great scientific mind. Fidel doesn’t really do politics. He is a revolutionary.

Fidel Castro, Maggie, Alexandre

Fidel Castro, Maggie, Alexandre

He lives to learn and to put his knowledge in the service of the revolution. For Fidel, revolution is really a work of reason. In his view, revolution, when rigorously adopted, cannot fail to lead humanity towards ever greater justice, towards an ever more perfect social order.

Fidel is also the most curious man that I have ever met. He wants to know all there is to be known. He is famous for not sleeping, instead spending the night studying and learning.

He also knows what he doesn’t know, and when he meets you he immediately seeks to identify what he might learn from you. Once he has ascertained an area of expertise that might be of interest, he begins with his questions. One after the other. He synthesizes information quickly and gets back to you with ever deeper and more complex questions, getting more and more excited as he illuminates, through his Socratic interrogation, new parcels of knowledge and understanding he might add to his own mental library.

His intellect is one of the most broad and complete that can be found. He is an expert on genetics, on automobile combustion engines, on stock markets. On everything.

Combined with a Herculean physique and extraordinary personal courage, this monumental intellect makes Fidel the giant that he is.

He is something of a superman. My father once told us how he had expressed to Fidel his desire to do some diving in Cuba. Fidel took him to the most enchanting spot on the island and set him up with equipment and a tank. He stood back as my father geared up and began to dive alone.

When my father had reached a depth of around 60 feet, he realized that Fidel was down there with him, that he had descended without a tank and that there he was with a knife in hand prying sea urchins off the ocean floor, grinning.

Back on the surface, they feasted on the raw sea urchins, seasoned with lime juice.

Fidel Castro, the Merman

Fidel Castro, the Merman

An anachronism

Fidel turns 80 years old today. A couple of weeks ago, he shocked the world by turning power over to his brother Raul after holding it without interruption since the 1959 revolution. In newspapers across the world, pundits solemnly declared that even giants are mortal and that no revolution is eternal. Historians even began to prepare the space that will be granted Fidel in history books.

Fidel may seem an anachronism: a visionary statesman in a world where his kind have long since been replaced by mere managers, a 20th-century icon still present in the 21st century.

There is also wild speculation about what fate awaits Cuba after Castro. It is important to note, however, that while the whole world works itself up about the matter, Cubans themselves play it cool. Some of my shrewder Cuban friends even say that this temporary withdrawal from power is another one of Castro’s clever strategies; that it is something of a test and that he will soon be back at the helm. They say that, on one hand, Castro is allowing the Cuban people, and more specifically the Cuban state apparatus, to become accustomed to the leadership of his brother Raul. On the other hand, Castro is carefully watching for hints as to how the world ? and, more importantly, the United States ? will react to his final departure.

Castro Hercules

Castro Hercules

Cubans remain very proud of Castro, even those who don’t share his vision. They know that, among the world’s many peoples, they have the most audacious and brilliant of leaders. They respect his intellectual machismo and rigour.

But Castro’s leadership can be something of a burden, too. They do occasionally complain, often as an adolescent might complain about a too strict and demanding father. The Jefe (chief) sees all and knows all, they might say.

In particular, young Cubans have told me that an outsider cannot ever really imagine what it is like to live in such a hermetic society, where everyone has an assigned spot and is watched and judged carefully. You can never really learn on your own, they might say. The Jefe always knows what is best for you. It can be suffocating, they say.

I met a young man in the small provincial town of Remedios who worked there as a cigar roller. We shared a great love for the works of Dostoyevsky. When I expressed to him my excitement at meeting a fellow aficionado of Russian literature, he flatly told me:

“Yes, Fidel has taught me to read and to think, but look what work he sets me out to do with this education: I roll cigars!”

Literate but very poor

Cuba under Castro is a remarkably literate and healthy country, but it is undeniably poor. Historians will note, however, that never in modern times has a small, peaceful country been more subjected to unfair and malicious treatment by a superpower than Cuba has by the United States.

From the very start, the United States never gave Castro’s Cuba a choice. Either Castro had to submit himself and his people to America’s will or he had to hold his ground against them.

Which is what he did, in the process drawing the Cuban people into this taxing dialectic that continues to this day. Cubans pay the price and may occasionally complain of their fate, but they rarely blame Castro. The United States never fails to make the Cuban people well aware of its spite for this small neighbouring country that dares to be independent.

Castro Superman

Castro Superman

With the possible exception of Nelson Mandela, already well into retirement, Fidel is the last of the global patriarchs. Reason, revolution and virtue are becoming more and more distant and abstract concepts. We will perhaps never see another patriarch.

We thus have to conceive of the departure of the last patriarch in psychoanalytical terms. The death of the father doesn’t signal our liberation from him ? quite the contrary. The death of a father so grand and present as Castro will, rather, immortalize him in the minds of his children.

Castro Patriarche

Castro Patriarche

It is true that Cubans may eventually cast away the communist orthodoxy of the revolution. They will become tempted by American capital and values as soon as the embargo against them is lifted, something that will surely follow in the not so distant future. They will have new opportunities for individual fulfillment and downfall. Without a doubt, Cuba without Castro will not remain unchanged.

But Cubans will continue to be subjected to Castro’s influence. Whether they like it or not, they will continue to be called out by his voice, by his questions, by his inescapable rationality, which, whether they heed its call or not, demands they defend the integrity of Cuba and urges them to seek justice and excellence in all things.

For a generation to come, they will be haunted by the vision of a society that never existed and probably never will exist, but which their once-leader, the most brilliant and obsessed of all, never stopped believing could exist and should exist.

Cubans will always feel privileged that they, and they alone, had Fidel.

– 30 –

The "New European Soviet" (Coming to North America)

Written by Vilius Brazenas

Source: The New American, Friday, 08 October 2010 15:30

This article, originally published on September 6, 2004, was written by noted Lithuanina-American journalist and author Vilius Brazenas for The New American. A recipient of Lithuania’s highest civilian honor, The Order of the Vytis Cross, Mr. Brazenas was well known as a political analyst, writer, and speaker not only in Lithuania, but also in the United States, Europe, and many other parts of the world. Mr. Brazenas passed away in Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, on October 3rd. He was 97 years old. This article, which is as relevant today as when it was published, is being republished here in his honor.

Vilius Brazenas, The New European Soviet
I am going to tell you a story about Europe and America. It is a true story about tyranny and freedom, about hope, folly, deception and betrayal. It is also a warning about grave danger. Alarmed at the trends I see, I feel obliged to tell this story. Now in my 91st year, I am one of the few living souls who have experienced the major events of the last century. Being both European and American, I have witnessed and studied these events from opposite sides of the Atlantic.

I am Lithuanian by birth and saw my small country suffer under both Nazi and Communist brands of totalitarianism. My family was trapped in Russia when the Bolshevik Revolution brought the Communists to power. As a young boy in Moscow, in 1922, I was forced to march with my classmates in the Communist May Day parade in front of Vladimir Lenin himself.Like much of Europe, Lithuania was overrun in the 1940s by the Soviet Red Army, then by the Nazis, and then again by the Soviets. In 1944, as the Soviet Red Army was reinvading Lithuania, and after facing Soviet tanks, I was able to escape with my wife and daughter. In 1949, we were able to come to America and, later, thank God, to become U.S. citizens.

In January 2003 I came back to live in Lithuania. As an author, speaker and newspaper columnist, I am attempting to use my talents and opportunities in the time that I have left to warn my countrymen — both American and Lithuanian — about the very real and present danger to freedom posed by the evolving European Union (EU) and the very similar project proposed for North and South America called the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

Most Americans have only a very hazy understanding about what the EU is and an even foggier notion of how it came about. Unfortunately, most Europeans also have a very poor understanding of these things. They have only recently begun to recognize how blind they have been to the very real threats that the growing centralization of power in the EU poses to their national independence and their freedoms.

However, it must be said that the main reason why Europeans and Americans both have such foggy notions about the EU is that the EU architects and promoters have purposely kept the real origins and objectives of the EU shrouded in deception. They had to do this, in order to foist this scheme on the peoples of Europe. If they had openly proclaimed their true objective — to end national sovereignty and create an unaccountable, socialist suprastate — the entire scheme would have been rejected overwhelmingly, right from the start.

When former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev visited Britain in 2000, he accurately described the European Union as “the new European Soviet.” He said this with obvious approval, since he sees the evolving EU as fulfilling his vision of a “common European home” stretching “from the Atlantic to the Urals,” as he described it in his 1987 book Perestroika. Mr. Gorbachev is a lifelong Communist overlord who has steadfastly refused to renounce Communism.

In fact, he defiantly remains a Communist. On December 23, 1989, Gorbachev declared to his fellow Soviets, “I am a communist. For some that may be a fantasy. But for me it is my main goal.” On February 26, 1991, Gorbachev said, “I am not ashamed to say that I am a communist and adhere to the communist idea, and with this I will leave for the other world.” He has repeated these sentiments many times. In his book he also stated: “I frankly admit that we are glad that the idea of a ‘common European home’ finds understanding among prominent political and public figures of not only Eastern, but also Western Europe….”

It is highly significant that a top-level Marxist-Leninist such as Mikhail Gorbachev could find such affinity with Western leaders about a “common European home” and then, 13 years later, approvingly note that that common home was moving ever closer to the Soviet model. After all, hadn’t the Soviet model collapsed and died? But Mr. Gorbachev was, at least in this instance, telling the truth; the EU has been, and is now, moving steadily toward Soviet-style tyranny.

The European Parliament, the European Commission and other EU institutions in Brussels, Strasbourg, Frankfurt and The Hague are dominated by radical socialists and dedicated one-worlders who are bent on smashing the individual, once-independent nation states of Europe into Soviet-style conformity with the oppressive dictates of the new EU Politburo.

A Revolutionary Coup d’Etat

In their powerful expose, The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union (2003), British journalist Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North, formerly a researcher inside the EU bureaucracy, aptly describe the EU as “a slow-motion coup d’etat: the most spectacular coup d’etat in history.” In what remains of this article, I will attempt to explain why that description by Mr. Booker and Dr. North is no exaggeration and how this spectacular coup has come about.

It is also my intent to show how the deceptive NAFTAFTAA process is directly related to the EU and patterned after it to achieve the same kind of coup d’etat in the Americas.

The “European project,” as the EU designers refer to their ongoing revolution, was launched with the Treaty of Rome in 1957. The Common Market was born the following December when Italy became the sixth nation to ratify the treaty (joining France, Belgium, West Germany, the Netherlands and Luxembourg). It was sold to the peoples of Europe as a “free trade” agreement that would bring prosperity by removing barriers to the movement of people, goods, services and capital across borders.

In fact, it was a program for national suicide, for gradual, “slow-motion” political and economic merger of the member nations. Booker and North write that Belgian Prime Minister Paul-Henri Spaak, known in Europe as “Mr. Socialist,” was responsible for convincing his fellow EU founding fathers that “the most effective way to disguise their project’s political purpose was to conceal it behind a pretense that it was concerned only with economic co-operation, based on dismantling trade barriers: a ‘common market.'”

The Treaty of Rome was, in truth, a constitution for a new government disguised as a treaty. Traditionally, a treaty is an agreement between sovereign states, concerning borders, military alliances, trade relations, extradition, etc. The parties to the treaty remain sovereign states; their form of government is not altered and their citizens are not directly bound with new laws or obligations. The Treaty of Rome, however, created a new, over-arching “community” independent of its member states and claiming the power to create laws that are binding not only on the member nations but on their individual citizens as well.

This was not noticed by the people at first, because the EU founders were careful only to show their citizens the benign features of their project. It had been designed to be implemented incrementally, as an ongoing process, so that no single phase of the project would arouse sufficient opposition as to stop or derail it.

The original Treaty of Rome has been repeatedly modified by subsequent treaties and legislation, all of which have greatly enhanced the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the central EU government. The European Communities Act (1972), the Single European Act (1986), the Schengen Agreement (1990), the Maastricht Treaty (1992), the Amsterdam Treaty (1998), and the Treaty of Nice (2000) are some of the most important benchmarks that have transferred vast powers piecemeal to Brussels, where the EU is headquartered.

The eurofederalists cloak this destructive, revolutionary process under such code words as “integration,” “harmonization,” and “convergence.” In 1991, the Single European Act was coming into force and beginning to show the very ugly teeth that had been built into it. At that time, Sir Peregrine Worsthorne of the Sunday Telegraph, one of Britain’s major newspapers, expressed in a column the sense of betrayal and outrage felt by many in Europe. “Twenty years ago, when the process began,” he wrote, “there was no question of losing sovereignty. That was a lie, or at any rate, a dishonest obfuscation.”

It was actually a multitude of lies. The EU founders and their successors have been carrying forward nothing less than a brazen scheme of treason dressed up as economic trade policy. And treason is not too harsh a word, for many of the key leaders of this operation are government officials who are betraying a sacred trust and have been lying outright to their constituents. As Sir Worsthorne pointed out, for decades the EU advocates had explicitly lied, insisting that the developing EU would not affect national sovereignty, and that EU laws and regulations would not override national laws and constitutions. These were wild, paranoid fantasies, they said.

Warnings about the true nature of the EU were routinely smothered by the globalist controlled, pro-EU press — which includes nearly all the major media organs. Now that the project is entering its final stages, however, the eurofederalists are dropping all pretenses and admitting openly what they previously denied. They can hardly help it now, since the EU established a constitutional convention in 2002 to draw up a formal constitution for a United States of Europe. At nearly 300 pages, the document is an open-ended power grab, with none of the checks and balances and means of accountability that we enjoy in our U.S. Constitution.

Many Americans, no doubt, tend to consider the Common Market and the EU as positive steps toward greater freedom. After all, it certainly is more convenient to have only one currency, the euro, when touring the continent. But whatever conveniences it may offer are offset by far more important concerns. Consider:

  • Regulatory nightmare. British grocers have been arrested and fined for continuing to sell bananas and other produce by the pound instead of by the EU’s newly mandated metric weights. Similarly, the EU dictates on the shape and size of cucumbers, the consistency of marmalade, the texture and taste of chocolate, and thousands of other consumer items.
  • Acquis communautaire. The EU already operates under the doctrine of acquis communautaire, which holds that all members must adopt EU law in its entirety, and further, that once the EU usurps the right to legislate in a new area, its authority in that area is guaranteed in perpetuity. Thus, power is guaranteed to flow in one direction – from the member states to the central government.
  • Corpus juris. The corpus juris is the new legal code initiated by the Amsterdam Treaty that will, among other things, set up a European Public Prosecutor with over-riding criminal law jurisdiction throughout Europe. Habeas corpus, trial by jury and other important protections will be swept away.
  • Unlimited migration. Signatory countries of the EU Schengen Agreement have given up their right to police their borders, thus allowing illegal aliens – including terrorists – to travel freely between countries. With Russia and other former Soviet states, along with Turkey, scheduled for membership, we will soon have millions of new migrants, including many Communists and militant Muslims migrating at will throughout Europe – much like what could happen to the U.S. if the FTAA is implemented.
  • Economic control. With the establishment of the euro currency and the European Central Bank, the EU countries have lost control of their fiscal and monetary policy as well as their currencies.
  • Destroying agriculture. The EU’s Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) has taken control of nearly all agriculture and has nearly destroyed British agriculture.
  • Power to tax. The EU already claims the authority to dictate indirect tax policies such as the VAT (value added tax) on clothes, food, public transport, fuel, construction, homes, etc. The Treaty of European Union declares that EU decisions to “impose pecuniary obligation on persons other than States shall be enforceable.” That means direct taxes on individuals.
  • Coercive military and police power. If the Eurocrats have their way, they will soon have European military and police forces to enforce their increasingly dictatorial edicts.

The architects of NAFTA and the FTAA openly cite the EU as the model for their proposed regional “common market” for the Western Hemisphere. For example, Mexican President Vicente Fox acknowledged on May 16, 2002: “Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish … an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union.” At the time Fox was referring specifically to the three NAFTA countries (the U.S., Canada, and Mexico); the proposed FTAA would further develop the “ensemble of connections” while extending them throughout the Americas.

President Bush, President Fox and the “new world order” Power Elite at the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and Council of the Americas have all adopted the deceptive terminology of the EU – “integration,” “harmonization,” “convergence” — to describe their “American project.” They have adopted an aggressive schedule, intending to do in a few years what it has taken the eurocrats decades to accomplish.

We can and must stop this treasonous plan — or Mr. Gorbachev and his ilk will soon be able to gloat about the “new American Soviet.”

– 30 –

How The West Built the USSR

Source:  Antony Sutton: The Secret World Order & the Soviet Union (audio track, date unknown)

Foreword by NoSnowinMoscow:

In this important audio tape, transcribed exclusively for www.NoSnowinMoscow.com, Professor Antony Sutton points out that Wall Street actively financed the development of three kinds of socialism in different parts of the world at the same time.

In the early 1930s, the super-rich bankrolled socialism in America with Roosevelt, in Germany with Hitler, and in the Soviet Union with a succession of totalitarian governments from the time of the Bolshevik Revolution.

A list of publications by Professor Sutton follows after this transcript, with links to many of them as free downloads.

/ TRANSCRIPT OF AN AUDIO RECORDING OF PROFESSOR ANTONY C. SUTTON:

Host’s Introduction:

Our initial speaker this morning has attracted considerable attention, both here in the United States and abroad by virtue of his meticulous and detailed study of the history of Western aid to the Soviet Union.

As a research fellow at the Hoover Institute on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University, he researched, wrote, and had published a three-volume series entitled Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development. A shocking, irrefutable history of American and other Western-nation aid in the creation of what we identify today as our adversary super-power, the Soviet Union.

Within the last two years, he has written the books, National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union, and Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. Two weeks ago, his newest book, Wall Street and FDR was published and is now available.

And on the front burner today, which he is exhaustively working on, is another volume called Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler.

With all of this work, which has encompassed better than a decade, he has also found time to write articles for Review of the News, Human Events, and National Review.

Born in London, educated in England, Germany and the United States, he became a citizen of the United States in 1962. He was a Professor of Economics at California State University before joining the Hoover Institute. He now resides in northern California with his wife, Betty, and their family.

It is a privilege for me, and an honor for all of us to have with us today Professor Antony C. Sutton. Tony —

[ Applause ]

Antony Sutton Speaks:

Thank you very much. My assignment this morning is a virtually impossible task. I have 50 minutes to summarize 15 years of research, half a dozen books.

What I propose to do is outline the story of our construction of the Soviet Union. I will start the outline in 1917, and bring you down to the present day, chronologically.

But, this outline is a quick work, it’s a mere skeleton of the whole story.

Professor Antony C. SuttonBut, what I will do is draw your attention to the nature of the published evidence, and I hope you will excuse me if I rely mostly on my own books, because that’s the evidence I know best.

This, of course, is in the true nature of a seminar, it’s my job to point the way; and it’s yours — if you wish — to pick up the threads and assemble the facts into a Mosaic.

From time to time this morning, I will refer to unpublished evidence, and research yet to be undertaken. We do not yet have the full story. In other words, I will point out the gaps. This is important because if you push the argument beyond the limits of the evidence at hand, the inevitable result is a loss of credibility.

Now, the best way to introduce my topic is to make a point about information in a socialist society.

This is a sophisticated audience. You know about distortion, and suppression, and elimination of the facts.

We live in a socialist society and suppression of information is typical of such societies. To eliminate freedom, one must first eliminate widespread knowledge of the truth.

So, I submit to you that today in the United States there are three levels of information.

The first level — we could call the Establishment version. It’s what most people have believed in the past to be true about events and history. The difference today, compared with say a decade ago, is that the credibility of the Establishment has been shattered. People in general no longer believe in Washington or anything that comes out of Washington.

[ Applause ]

So, this first level is what the government or the Establishment wants you to know. Only coincidentally is it the truth.

The criteria they use are two, I suggest. One, they say: “What do we want them to know?” And secondly, they say: “Is it consistent with what we told them last time?”

And sometimes, they slip up, and then the statements become inoperable.

Then, we have the second level of information, sometimes called the revisionist level. It challenges the first level, but it’s still based on documents and information released by the bureaucrats and politicians in Washington. It does not get to the root of the problem. [Controlled opposition. KM/NoSnow]

It doesn’t get to the root of the problem because it relies mainly on facts which they decide can be released.

I would suggest — and I hope you won’t take this unduly critically — that the critics of the Kennedy assassination probably fall within this category. There’s no question they’re onto something, but they’re still at the second level because they rely on information which it has been decided, can be released. They will not get to the third level until they get all the information within government files, and that, I understand, may take 75 or 100 years.

The Third LevelThen, we get to the third level. And I suggest that, presumably, almost everybody or everybody in this room is operating, or wants to operate, on the third level. It is based on new documentary evidence that has to be rooted out. From the research viewpoint, you have to know where to look. You have to know about its existence, you have to demand it, you have to get it declassified.

You must accept, when you are in my position, that when you initially publish it, most people will not believe you.

They will not believe you because the Establishment version got in there first, and the mass of the media — and I’m not blaming the media for this — got behind it and publicized what they believed to be the truth. But, we’re now getting a number of very solid, substantial books written on this third level. I’ll give you some quick examples.

Colin Simpson, The Lusitania – An Attempt to Bring the United States into World War I. Documented.

Julius Epstein, Operation Keyhole.

A very new book by Guy Richards, The Rescue of the Romanoffs. The Czar was not murdered, as the Establishment would like you to believe.

From the Liberal side of things, I would suggest Jules Archer, The Plot to Seize the White House.

So, I’ve emphasized this morning that my outline is going to be at the third level.

It’s based on authentic and original documentation, mostly from government files. It is directly and verifiable evidence. I always make the citations and the references. Up to a few weeks ago, I could always say that the facts had never been openly challenged.

There was a recent exception in London — because I’m getting somewhat more publicity in Europe than I am here — the Soviet Weekly decided to counter some of my arguments; it was probably forced to do so. Unfortunately, they picked the wrong example. They said I was wrong about the Soviet marine– merchant marine and the origin of its diesel engines. They said that my figures and facts were wild.

Unfortunately for Soviet Weekly, this is one case where all my evidence came from Russian sources. So, I pointed out to the Soviet Weekly, it’s quite obvious that the Soviet right hand doesn’t know what the Soviet left hand is doing.

So, let’s get to the point. How did the Soviet Union become a world power?

Let’s go back to the revolutions, the two revolutions in 1917. The first revolution in March of 1917 overthrew the Czar and replaced the Czar with a — what could — would well have been a constitutional government. These were the first shaky steps taken in March 1917 towards a constitutional government in Russia.

This constitutional government was overthrown by the Bolsheviks in November of 1917. There is major evidence, which I have published, of U.S. involvement. Not on the side of the formation of a constitutional government, but on the side of the Bolsheviks. Not the March revolution, but the November revolution.

Now, I’ve not got the whole story. I’ve published what I have been able to unearth. And these are roughly the key points.

In March, 1917, at the time of the first revolution, Lenin was in Switzerland and Trotsky was in New York. They were the two major operators in the Bolshevik revolution. Lenin returned to Russia with the aid of the German high command. I recently suspect that the Kaiser did not know; the highest German official who knew about this was Chancellor Von Bethmann-Holweig from the well known — perhaps in Germany — the Bethmann-Holweig banking family.

Trotsky was in New York — a penniless immigrant, apparently — he acquired $10,000 in gold, he acquired an American passport, he was put on a boat for Russia.

The Canadian authorities pulled the boat in to Halifax, Nova Scotia. They took off Trotsky, and his party, locked them up as prisoners of war. There was immediate intervention from both London and Washington — and these documents are in the files. He was put back on the boat for Russia, with apologies.

Also on the boat were Lincoln Steffens — quite a well known leftist in the United States, and Charles Crane of the Westinghouse Company. And Charles Crane was chairman of the Democratic finance committee at that time, and a friend of Woodrow Wilson. And the book tells you what happened; how they met and talked on the boat.

Also, in July 1917, a Colonel William Boyce Thomson, who was the first permanent director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, formed a Red Cross mission to Russia. Now, Russia didn’t want a Red Cross mission. And the Red Cross in Washington didn’t want the mission going to Russia.

But Thomson was a very influential gentleman, he financed it and organized it himself.

The mission had nothing to do with either medicine or Red Cross. I’ve listed the members of the mission. Out of thirty, only six were doctors, the rest were Wall Street lawyers and financiers. There were representatives from Chase Bank, National City Bank and the rest of it.

The mission was a political vehicle to give assistance to the Bolshevik revolution in November. What was the assistance? Very briefly, Colonel Thomson himself said — and it was published in The Washington Post, which was an authoritative source at the time — that he gave one million dollars to the Bolsheviks to help their revolution. That’s Colonel Thomson, not me.

There was intervention by American International Corporation, which was another vehicle based on Wall Street.

In Washington, to forestall any possible assistance to the enemies of Bolshevism.

Further, you can find in the British Foreign Office files the fact that Thomson and Lamont of the Morgans went to see Prime Minister Lloyd George in England, and changed, in one meeting, British policy from being anti-Bolshevik to being pro-Bolsheviks. This information, I would point out, comes from the British War Cabinet papers, Thomson’s own papers, and the State Department files.  The documents are quite genuine.

Now, in early 1918, the Bolsheviks held only a very small part of Russia. They held really just Moscow and Petrograd. They were fighting both the Whites and the Greens. Now, the history books don’t tell you about the Greens. They only tell you about the Reds and the Whites. There were 700,000 Greens. And the Greens were Bolsheviks who saw that Lenin and Trotsky had betrayed the revolution to capitalists — and this was pointed out in Russian newspapers at the time — and the Greens, 700,000 strong, were fighting against the Bolsheviks with the Whites.

But, what happened is that the Wall Street Mission and its allies in the United States, gave the Bolsheviks enough breathing space to be able to occupy Russia.

Another point that fits in here is Guy Richard’s latest book on The Rescue of the Romanoffs, in which he, I think, proves that the Czar was not killed. There was– this is a myth perpetuated by Britain and the United States in collusion with the Soviet Union, for reasons which he will point out.

And so, this high-level collusion between the Soviet Union, the United States and other countries [Britain, etc.] has gone on since 1917.

Now, also according to the history books, at the time of the revolution and civil war in Russia, Russian industry was in ruins. This is nonsense.

Russian industry was not destroyed, except perhaps at Petrograd. It was idle. It was in what the Soviets call a state of “technical preservation”.

What happened was that the middle class, the technicians and the managers, left Russia; they weren’t Bolshevik. And the plants and the equipment were standing there idle. And the Bolshevik Revolution had no means to get into action.

What happened was, in the 1920s, foreign companies, mainly American or German — and the German companies were affiliated with major American corporations mostly, these companies went into — these companies went into Russia and they gave technical assistance, or they took the foreign concessions — and there were some three or four hundred of them — and this got the Soviet Union up in economic development.

This, of course, I’ve covered in the very first book I put out back in 1968: the period from 1917 to 1930. How very prominent firms like Westinghouse, General Electric, Ford Motor Company, Standard Oil — these firms, through concessions and technical assistance agreements, enabled the idle Russian industry to get re-started under the Soviets.

There are two names which should not be forgotten from the 1920s. Avril Harriman,* who was operating a Georgian manganese concession, and Armand Hammer, whose father, of course, Julius Hammer, was executive secretary of the Communist Party USA. That is something the Los Angeles Times never prints; but it’s quite verifiable.

So, the Soviet Union, in that first decade, was enabled to survive and recuperate with the assistance of German and American firms.

I would point out, to keep the text straight, that the State Department was not at fault, as I see it. It’s quite clear from the files, as I have written, that State Department officials could look ahead; they saw the possibility of a war — like Korea and Viet Nam — where the Soviets would supply the other side. They looked ahead, and they say no, stay out of the Soviet Union, let it– let it find its own feet, and we should not help to build it up.

By 1928, the Soviet Union — with Western assistance — had restored a 1913 output. And the Soviet planners began to think about the 5-year plans. Maybe a few of you will remember that back in 1930 in the United States that there was great publicity about the “Great Experiment” in the Soviet Union. “Pulling up by the bootstraps”, a model for Roosevelt’s New Deal to copy, how a socialist society could do all kinds of wonderful things that a free-enterprise society could not do*. How free enterprise was outmoded.

Who was saying this? Well, we find socialist Norman Thomas, and we find Roosevelt*. But we also find for example, a Gerard Swope, President of General Electric Corporation; and we find Bernard [garbled – Yugovich? ]. But those men that I call the corporate socialists, who run large corporations — then and now, I submit — are betraying a free enterprise society.

Now, the Soviets suddenly acquired a massive capacity in the first and second 5-year plan sets, during the late 1920s and the whole decade of the 1930s. What has not been said, historically, is how they acquired this massive capacity.

Simple common sense would tell you that a backward country just does not start to modern build steel mills and automobile plants. That’s just common sense.

The first 5-year plan was almost entirely built by foreign corporations: General Electric, Ford, Dupont, [Hoppers?], Badger, Foster-Wheeler, Universal Oil, Douglas Aircraft, Radio Corporation of America, Pratte and Whitney, Hercules Powder, United Engineering, [Fentock?] and Marshall, Macdonald Engineering, The [Matee?] Corporation, you name it.

Amongst the large U.S. construction corporations, they were there in Russia between 1928 and the beginning of 1933.

The plants they built in the first 5-year plan were far larger in capacity and far more technically advanced than they were building elsewhere in the world.

And the second 5-year plan in Russia — although this does not come out, of course, in the official documents, was really bringing into production the tremendous capacity built by these firms in the early 1930s.

The first 5-year plan, itself, was not laid out by Gosplan. The Gosplan — which is not workable — the final, technical plan that was utilized, was actually drawn up by a firm of industrial architects, Arthur Kahn of Detroit.

United Engineering, to give you a few examples, built a plant in the Soviet Union in the early 1930s, to produce the longest aluminum sheets in the world. And these, of course, are essential for aircraft manufacture. This was the time when all-metal aircraft were just beginning, even in the West.

General Electric built at Krakow, a turbine plant which was two and a half times greater in capacity than its own plant in New York at Schenectady.

There were three gigantic tractor plants built in the Soviet Union, and the Soviets built more Internationals and more Caterpillars than those two companies built in the United States.

Now, go back to my introduction — the three levels of information. The whole world largely still believes that the Soviets did it themselves. That’s the official Establishment version. In reality, the Soviets didn’t do it. It was done by Western free enterprise.

The cost? The cost in Russia — the millions of Russians who died in labor camps. I’d point out Solzhenitsyn’s arguments, Julius Epstein: Operation Keyhole.

Did the American firms know about this? Yes. They did.

They lied in their public announcements when they said there was no forced labor in the Soviet Union. And they knew they were lying. I know they were lying because I’ve seen the reports in the State Department files. The engineers on-site in Russia were protesting — it was the time of the Depression, they had to have a job — and the firms told them to do nothing: say nothing, keep quiet.

I submit that our larger corporations — the corporate socialists, were no more interested in Russians dying in the early 1930s than they were in Americans dying in Korea and Viet Nam with technology that they had installed in the Soviet Union.

And yet, the way this world is put together, it’s the Harrimans and the Hammers and the Morgans and the Rockefellers who are admired and lauded. And those who plead for human decency and state the facts of DICTATORSHIP are slandered and insulted.

And we find, regrettably, academics fall over themselves to perpetuate the myths.

So, back in the early 1930s, Gerard Swope of General Electric and Bernard Baruch and their friends, were building the 5-year plans in Russia. But they weren’t inactive elsewhere in the world. And this is one period where I’ve been able to develop most of the story.

Roosevelt’s New Deal, the NRA, National Recovery Administration, was not drawn up by the brain trust or Roosevelt’s advisors. It was drawn up by Gerard Swope of General Electric. And I’ve published the whole thing in the book I’ve just produced. I call it Swope’s Plan. It wasn’t FDR’s plan at all. And Herbert Hoover was quite correct when he called it Fascism. Because Roosevelt’s New Deal was nothing else but Fascism along the lines of the Mussolini corporate state.

And our friends, Bernard Baruch, General Electric, building up the Soviet Union, were also very active in [garbled], promoting, and writing for Roosevelt in the early 1930s. But, also, they were active behind Hitler. It’s interesting that both Hitler and Roosevelt came to power in early 1933.

Now, the story of the promotion of Hitler by our own corporate socialists is yet unpublished. But, I’ll tell you this much; it’ll give you the flavor of the book. I have the bank transfer slips — which is about the hardest kind of evidence you can get — of funds going from large corporations to the Nazi party and particularly, a political slush fund operated by Rudolf [Hess?] This was very important in the early 1930s when the Nazis needed all the money they could get to finance their gangs of goons going around the streets beating up people, and the various payoffs and this kind of thing.

One of these transfer slips refers to German General Electric, sixty thousand Reichmarks. And two directors of German General Electric will interest you, or should interest you. One is Gerard Swope, General Electric, and one is Owen Young of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

So, what we find is — when we begin to probe behind the scenes of history — is that we have the gentlemen promoting three brands of socialism all at the same time.

  • [1] They’re building the first 5-year plan in the Soviet Union.
  • [2] They’re writing Roosevelt’s New Deal for him.
  • [3] And they’re trying to get Hitler into power in Germany.

All at the same time.

So, let’s go back to the building of the Soviet Union.

During World War II, you will remember, was the massive land-lease program. This pretty much replaced any capacity the Soviet Union might have lost in World War II. But, more importantly, it brought the Soviet Union to a fundamentally new technological horizon.

I’ve covered the whole story of this build-up in the Hoover series of books. By 1946, the Soviets had a capacity to do certain things themselves. They could manufacture the shells of factories, that is, the buildings, not too difficult; and they could duplicate the simple equipment, simple lathes, this kind of thing.

But they still needed — and still need today — foreign technology to advance the technological horizon for a quite simple reason: that a socialist planned society cannot advance technologically by itself. Once again, our Western businessmen were only too happy to oblige, and, once again, they went into the Soviet Union in the 1950s, certainly the 1960s, and you see the peak of this in the last few years under Kissinger.

And, to give you, again, some examples, from the development in these 20 years, you will find mining equipment firms like Joint Manufacturing. Non-ferrous metals, you’ll find they’re using for example the International Nickel process for nickel smelting, refining.

Iron and steel is an exception. The Soviets adopted the classical blast furnace back in the 1930s, their plans were largely laid out by the Frame Corporation of Chicago. It’s a very simple process; what they did was build bigger units, what I call scaling up; and for the classical blast furnace technology, they have not come back to the West. What they have done, particularly in rolling techniques, and what you might call the high technology forms of steel or metals.

In petroleum processes, you can see the copying of the land-lease refineries, all the way up to today. I think, just a few weeks ago, there were recent agreements to transfer more petroleum technology to the Soviet Union.

In chemicals, Armand Hammer, Occidental Petroleum, of course has always played a key role.

Textiles: we find Soviet nylon — all their synthetic fabrics are Western fabrics, but of course with different specifi– with different model numbers; categories.

Motor vehicles. All the motor vehicle plants I can identify in the Soviet Union have equipment from the West. They have been able to reproduce simple transfer lines, but, as you know, with the Karma plant, still today, the Soviets require equipment from– mainly from the United States.

Soviet atomic energy. Their first reactor was a copy of the Henford Reactor. But, more importantly, they couldn’t have achieved their atomic energy program without United States’ help. I’m very skeptical today about the Rosenberg spy story. What is much more important is how did the Soviets get the industrial technology, the equipment — very specialized kind of equipment which is needed for an atomic energy program. This could only come from one of three countries: United States, Switzerland, or Great Britain.

Locomotives. For example, we find General Electric, Business Standard.

In aircraft, we find all the Rolls Royce engines, [garbled] that make the silver [garbled].  The door, for example, on some of the aircraft is a Boeing door. You go right down the line, it’s there.

Merchant marine, I calculated that exactly, because the Soviets had published a very exhaustive catalogue [–ing] of their Soviet ships. every Soviet ship is there, catalogued with its technical specifications. And I can tell you exactly 67% of the hulls were built in the West, and 80% of the engines were built in the West. The 20% that were not built in the West were built in the Soviet Union, mainly at Briansk [plant?] in Leningrad, under technical assistance agreements. There’s no such thing as a Soviet marine diesel engine. That’s what got the Soviet Weekly upset in London and said I was “wild”. And, of course, I pointed to their own catalogue. It’s right there, if they bothered to get a calculating machine, which, of course, will have to be Western.

And uh–

[ Laughter. ]

they can– they can repeat what I did.

Their computer technology is courtesy of IBM and Radio Corporation of America. But, there’s an English corporation, International Computers, which has transferred the most advanced of its own computer technology. I did happen to meet a director of this particular company last April when I was in England and I pointed this out to him that it was his own suicide. He had more to lose than I had. And, his argument was, well the Americans do it, why shouldn’t the British do it?

And he was actually unable to see that it was his own suicide. But I did also meet a gentleman from the Dunlop Rubber Company — and Dunlop has been very important, transferring rubber tire technology to the Soviet Union — who admitted that so far as that area was concerned, I was exactly correct; in fact, I hadn’t got all of it. But he said, well, even if it is my own suicide, I will continue to do it because it’s business. And I had no answer for that one.

So, what I’m saying is, that in brief, all Western technol– excuse me– all Soviet technology, from 1917 right down to the present day, comes from the West. And this is based on a very precise technical analysis; it’s technical: I look at engines and machines, and I look at specifications — it’s not something I imagined — so, I’ve been at this thing over a decade and a half, but no one yet has proven me wrong on a technical factor.

And, this is approximately the position today; except that under Kissinger, the Soviets had been able to achieve a fundamentally new technological horizon — of course, with a financial subsidy — because they’re getting loans at 6% when we have to pay 10% or 12% — with a financial subsidy from the United States.

Now, the big problem that I had in the early 1970s was that this was not the whole story. There were at least two remaining problems.

One, we were building up the Soviet military capacity; capability. And there were indications — and I was a little unsure about this in 1970 — that this was a deliberate policy on the part of the United States.

I called it the “X Factor“. I spotted it perhaps as early as the late 1960s that there was something operating there to enable these massive transfers to continue over periods of decades. And any time you pointed it out, you were immediately slapped down. There was some kind of behind-the-scenes pressure making for these massive transfers.

Now, the most important problem that I saw was the military transfer problem. So, as I’m sure some of you know, I went to Miami Beach in 1972; I attempted to point this out to the Republican Party, and what I got was outright hostility. These are things we just don’t talk about.

Looking at The Wall Street Journal last week and noting that Armand Hammer gave the Republicans $100,000.00 in 1972, I can see that I wasn’t quite the right game. I certainly didn’t give them anything like $100,000.00.

Now, to summarize the National Suicide book, there is no question in my mind that Soviet military capability essentially depends on Western technology. But there is one exception I would point out: that you do not need a free-enterprise system to develop military technology. Because the military work in a rather different way to an industrialist. The military say, well, this is the next specification we want; they set up a specification and they work towards it, and cost is no object,

But, within of course, industry, cost is very much part of your objective; you’ve got to be competitive.

And so what the Soviets have been very successful in doing is setting up a very adequate, a very sensible, design — military design specifications — and using Western technology to work towards it, and do it quite it quite capably. So, I’m quite sure that aircraft with our systems, and their ships and their guns, are quite effective.

To give you some examples, American pilots were coming back during the Viet Nam war, and they were saying, “Well, that’s funny, because those trucks on the Ho Chi Minh Trail looked like Ford trucks.” Well, they were Ford trucks, because half of them were coming from the Gorky plant which was built by Ford Motor Company.

And you got the [Migs?] Silver Career, which I pointed out earlier had Rolls Royce engines. And Rolls Royce and some of the German designs, BMW, have been the basis of Russian jet development.

So, that is part of the story.

What we need today is research to fill out the gaps in our knowledge of the loss of American independence. And there are two major areas which I suggest need study in-depth.

One is the Federal Reserve System. Particularly the political role of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from 1913 up to today.

Currently, the Federal Reserve System controls money supply, and therefore is a very important, if not a dominant factor, in what happens in the economy.

This whole attempt to replace gold with artificial fiat money is part of this whole problem that I think has to be investigated. But, up to the moment, we can’t even get an audit of the Federal Reserve System.

The second area which I think needs to be investigated is the COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. I don’t have that much evidence myself, but a number of people I respect — well, a great number of people I respect have pointed out that members of this particular COUNCIL turn up in a number of key places on a very regular basis.

I suspect that one can dismiss 90% of them as being academic hangers-on or social climbers, but there’s a core in there which probably well warrants investigation.

I can tell you this much: certainly, in the 1920s, where the State Department files are open, there is very clear evidence that members of the COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS were fundamental in achieving a pro-Soviet policy and building up the Soviet Union: Gerard Swope, for example, was most certainly a member.

So, given the state of our knowledge today, I think we can say the following:

The constitutional independence of the United States has been abandoned.

Further, there has been a knowledgeable and deliberate effort to build the Soviet Union into a formidable enemy. In spite of the fact of two Wars in which 100,000 Americans and countless allies have been killed.

I suspect, or I suggest — that there is a knowledgeable and deliberate effort to submerge U.S. independence into a web of economic and financial relationships with a totalitarian dictatorship*.

And this is in large part concealed from the American public. In fact, my earlier example, the truth is at the third level, and the statements coming out are all on the first level.

On the other hand, these policies — from where I stand — are not too well thought out in detail. There was a Foreign Affairs article in April 1974 entitled The Hard Road to a New World Order and it pointed out the problems with using the United Nations as a vehicle to achieve a socialist world state.

And I suspect that the problems of creating a socialist world order are increasing and are somewhat greater than anticipated by the world planners.

Some of the more important problems that I can glean from sources like Foreign Affairs would certainly be the United Nations.

I suggest that the concept of the United Nations as “the” global authority may have been abandoned. And the emphasis is going to be on regional planning, on regional management.

The vehicles will be such things as world environment, commodities, food supply, population, that kind of thing; it’s a more round-about way to get the same objectives. What I suggest the process would be, would be to build larger pieces first, and then WELD these larger pieces together.

We can observe a major effort to substitute SDRs — Special Drawing Rights — (paper money) for gold. These are going to be an engine of international inflation in the same way that the Federal Reserve System has been an engine of domestic inflation.

But, historically, these attempts to use paper money have always collapsed.

And I see no reason, technically, why the SDR effort should succeed.

On the other hand, you cannot achieve a world order, with hard gold currency. Because the politicians cannot print numbers on gold; they can print all the numbers they want on pieces of paper.

So, as I see it — from my viewpoint — the world planners have got to impose a paper-money system as part of their move towards what they call the “new world order”.

The third problem, which may not sound too much, but may in fact be the biggest stumbling block, is that, as I see society — the natural order of events is for people to group themselves together in small contiguous units, not in big regional groupings. People voluntarily associate in small groups, not in large groups.

But, on the other hand, the whole trend of a world order is toward unification and regional groupings. In other words, you’re going in two different directions. The planners are trying to impose large regional units, but the natural trend-order within society is toward small groups. And I suspect that as more people begin to see what is happening — it’s antagonistic to their own interests — that the resistance will also increase.

So, let me emphasize — I’m getting near the end — one point.

That the battle for American independence can only be won with facts; and they have to be accurate facts.

I do not believe that the American people want to abandon the Constitution; or free enterprise; or individual freedom.

I don’t believe the American people want such things as internal passports, hundred-billion-dollar energy programs, [cross-bussing?], back-breaking taxation. I don’t think they want it.

Further, the Establishment no longer has credibility. They’ve lost it because it’s ignored too many facts; it’s lied; it’s distorted. That is your opportunity. To present the facts at the third level.

But let me warn you; to retain credibility, you’ve got to be 100% accurate 100% of the time.

You get it wrong once, you’ve lost your audience, your enemies will never let you forget it.

Make one mistake, it’s instant loss of credibility.

Sometimes, it’s very tempting, I think, to overstate the case. Don’t do it. Because you can’t do it and win.

Let me leave you this morning with, I think, the moral of my story.

What I’ve tried to write over the last decade — we tend to emphasize the obvious; we can recognize the planners and their socialist friends, they’re directly identifiable. Give you one example: Attorney General Levi says he’s going to introduce internal passports, and he knows it’s unconstitutional. He says so. Now, that, to me, is an obvious enemy. I don’t sleep wondering what he’s going to dream up for me next.

But more important, perhaps, are those behind the scenes. What I call “the subsidizers“. Those who provide the technology, the financing, the political power, the political thrust for world dictatorship. Look at the subsidizers. Look. for example. at Big Business.

Big Business supplied technology both to Hitler’s Germany and to Soviet Russia. In fact, both at the same time, and Roosevelt for good measure.

Look at the academics, who are more interested in promoting a New World Order than in promoting freedom. That’s what they should be doing.

Look at those organizations who promote anti-Communism but always stop short at identifying and pointing out those who subsidize and make possible the onset of a world socialism.

And my moral today is — the moral I would like to leave with you — the planners could not exist without the subsidizers, and both are equally dangerous to what you hold to be true.

– 30 –

/

KM/NoSnow: To complete this lecture by Professor Sutton, I would look to his own Chapter 12, in his book Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, and the segment entitled “The Pervasive Influence of International Bankers”, quote:

“Looking at the broad array of facts presented in the three volumes of the Wall Street series, we find persistent recurrence of the same names: Owen Young, Gerard Swope, Hjalmar Schacht, Bernard Baruch, etc.; the same international banks: J.P. Morgan, Guaranty Trust, Chase Bank; and the same location in New York: usually 120 Broadway.

This group of international bankers backed the Bolshevik Revolution and subsequently profited from the establishment of a Soviet Russia. This group backed Roosevelt and profited from New Deal socialism. This group also backed Hitler and certainly profited from German armament in the 1930s.

When Big Business should have been running its business operations at Ford Motor, Standard of New Jersey, and so on, we find it actively and deeply involved in political upheavals, war, and revolutions in three major countries.

The version of history presented here is that the financial elite knowingly and with premeditation assisted the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 in concert with German bankers. After profiting handsomely from the German hyper-inflationary distress of 1923, and planning to place the German reparations burden onto the backs of American investors, Wall Street found it had brought about the 1929 financial crisis.

Two men were then backed as leaders for major Western countries: Franklin D. Roosevelt in the United States and Adolf Hitler in Germany.

The Roosevelt New Deal* and Hitler’s Four Year Plan had great similarities. The Roosevelt and Hitler plans were plans for fascist takeovers of their respective countries.

While Roosevelt’s NRA failed, due to then-operating constitutional constraints, Hitler’s Plan succeeded.

Why did the Wall Street elite, the international bankers, want Roosevelt and Hitler in power? This is an aspect we have not explored. According to the “myth of Sidney Warburg,'” Wall Street wanted a policy of revenge; that is, it wanted war in Europe between France and Germany. We know even from Establishment history that both Hitler and Roosevelt acted out policies leading to war.

The link-ups between persons and events in this three-book series would require another book. But a single example will perhaps indicate the remarkable concentration of power within a relatively few organizations, and the use of this power.

On May 1st, 1918, when the Bolsheviks controlled only a small fraction of Russia (and were to come near to losing even that fraction in the summer of 1918), the American League to Aid and Cooperate with Russia was organized in Washington, D.C. to support the Bolsheviks. This was not a “Hands off Russia” type of committee formed by the Communist Party U.S.A. or its allies. It was a committee created by Wall Street with George P. Whalen of Vacuum Oil Company as Treasurer and Coffin and Oudin of General Electric, along with Thomson of the Federal Reserve System, Willard of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, and assorted socialists.

When we look at the rise of Hitler and Naziism we find Vacuum Oil and General Electric well represented. Ambassador Dodd in Germany was by the monetary and technical contribution by the Rockefeller-controlled Vacuum Oil Company in building up military gasoline facilities for the Nazis.

The Ambassador tried to warn Roosevelt. Dodd believed, in his apparent naiveté of world affairs, that Roosevelt would intervene, but Roosevelt himself was backed by these same oil interests and Walter Teagle of Standard Oil of New Jersey and the NRA was on the board of Roosevelt’s Warm Springs Foundation. So, in but one of many examples, we find the Rockefeller-controlled Vacuum Oil Company prominently assisting in the creation of Bolshevik Russia, the military build-up of Nazi Germany, and backing Roosevelt’s New Deal.

– 30 –

/

[FN1] In Canada, RENE LEVESQUE — a so-called “separatist” who was actually raised as a Communist by his father, championed Roosevelt-style policies. He took Roosevelt as his personal role model; and he admired Avril Harriman. Once installed as Premier in Quebec by the 15 November 1976 provincial elections, Lévesque began to unroll his own policies — for all of Canada. (Which is illegal, as no Proviince has legal power to make law for any other province, let alone the country.)

Lévesque entitled his English-language white paper: “Quebec-Canada: A NEW DEAL…” — a new system which he hoped to impose by distributing to every household in the Province, at taxpayers’ expense, of course, a copy of it containing a yellow-journalistic tabloid “history” of Quebec’s misfortunes in Canada as the basis for rejecting Confederation for his own Roosevelt-style “NEW DEAL”.

[FN2] William Z. Foster, in Toward Soviet America (1932), makes these claims precisely. That it was “socialism” that had allowed the Soviet Union to work miracles.

[FN3] “that a socialist planned society cannot advance technologically by itself” — If that is true, could it be one reason why “sustainable development” has been invented: because we are being forced into a backwards society that cannot advance any more of its own momentum, so the “environment” becomes the excuse to freeze and even roll back development?

KM/NoSnow

– 30 –

/

Publication Titles by Professor Antony C. Sutton

>> Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development 1917 to 1930, Antony C. Sutton, Hoover Institution Publications

>> Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development 1930 to 1945, Antony C. Sutton, Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University.

>> Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development 1945 to 1965, Antony C. Sutton, Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University.

>> Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Antony C. Sutton.

>> Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, Antony C. Sutton.

>> Wall Street and FDR, Antony C. Sutton.

>> The Best Enemy Money Can Buy, Antony C. Sutton.

>> National Suicide – Military Aid to the Soviet Union, Antony C. Sutton.

>> The Federal Reserve Conspiracy, Antony C. Sutton.

>> Le complot de la Réserve Fédérale, Antony C. Sutton, Editions Nouvelle Terre.

>> Trilaterals Over America, Antony C. Sutton and Patrick M. Wood.

>> America’s Secret Establishment – An Introduction to the Order of Skull and Bones, Antony C. Sutton.

>> How the Order Creates War and Revolution, Antony C. Sutton.

>> How the Order Controls Education, Antony C. Sutton.

>> The War on Gold, Antony C. Sutton.

>> Gold for Survival, by Antony Sutton.

>> Gold vs. Paper, A Cartoon History of Inflation.

>> Energy, The Created Crisis, Antony C. Sutton.

>> Platinum, Antony C. Sutton.

– 30 –

The Plan for Quebec: Communist State?

The Plan for Quebec: Communist State? By Otto Kretzmer, Sunday, 16 April 2006, is originally a French post entitled “Le plan pour le Québec” at the blogspot “Le Complot Contre Le Québec” (The Plot Against Quebec).

English translation by Kathleen Moore for Habeas Corpus Canada, together with brief additions from other articles of Mr. Kretzmer, for a fuller picture.

In translating this article, I take no position on religion, except to attempt to convey the concerns of the article’s original author, Otto Kretzmer; and except to acknowledge absolutely the Constitutional nature for French Canadians of their entrenched right to their historic Catholic religion.
______________________________________________________

Separate Quebec from Canada? No!
Separate All of Canada from High Finance? Yes!

The idea of separatism in Quebec has been part of a communist plan to overthrow Quebec and Canada. With a foothold in Quebec, communism could take all of Canada as well. Independence is a communist-Marxist strategy to take power in a country. We have this example in a number of countries: separations in Vietnam, in Algeria, in Biafra, in Korea, in Bengla-Desh, in Pakistan, etc.

The Canadian Council of Protestant Churches, with its headquarters in Toronto, published a small brochure in 1969 entitled “Quebec’s Impending Fate Communist State?” (Le Québec deviendra-t-il un Etat communiste?) It is quite useful to re-read these extracts in 2005; we will therefore quote a few paragraphs from that brochure.

[Re-translating into English, for lack of a copy of the brochure:]

“The most militant Zone in Canada for communist activity is the Province of Quebec. The first goal adopted at the convention of the Communist Party of Quebec held in Montreal in 1967, was: “The establishment in Quebec, in Canada, and in the entire world, of a socialist society, and finally of a communist society.

Noting that their goals accord with the efforts of other revolutionary communist groups throughout the world, the convention proclaimed:

“This is an institution of the internationalism of the international proletariat, a science that the Communist Party of Quebec adopts proudly and which will guide us in our battle.”

The December 1967 Communist Manifesto of Quebec is an appeal to militants to establish first, a socialist state, by armed revolution if necessary, so as to finally arrive at communist dictatorship.

The Communist Party of Quebec declares in its Manifesto:

“The Communist Party of Quebec is the Marxist-Leninist Worker’s Party.”

This declaration has great significance. It identifies the Communist Party of Quebec with a tentacle of the World Communist Party, guilty of massacres, and the worst criminal atrocities against the peoples it has subjected to slavery. It represents the butchery of a hundred million persons whose only crime was to express their confidence in our democratic way of life, or who questioned the right of a small minority to impose their absolute will on the great majority.

This communist Quebec Manifesto sets out a plan of political and social action. This plan includes a new federal constitution, and a new constitution for Quebec, the right to self-determination for Quebec, and the privilege to separate from Canada if necessary.”

The Plan for Quebec – Communist State

The Plan for Quebec – Communist State

Separating Quebec from the rest of Canada is thus a plan of the Communist Party of Quebec, a plan announced in their Manifesto, a communist plan of conquest for Quebec and for the whole of Canada. Do not think that communism is dead and buried, even if some countries have succeeded in liberating themselves from this infernal slavery. Communism seeks to foment revolutions in countries to weaken the strength of their peoples, and to finally arrive at a world communist government. The Parti Québécois enters into the plans of the Communist Party of Quebec.

False Patriotism

The separatists say they are ardent defenders of the French language, of our culture, of our Quebec identity. However, they dissociate our culture from our Catholic faith transmitted by our ancestors. They are hardly concerned with the safeguard of Catholicism in Quebec. Their goal is to permanently annihilate it. These ardent “independentists” preach patriotism to us in every key, but they themselves work to achieve an atheistic and anticlerical communist plan, whether they know it or not.

In the name of false patriotism, they carry the Quebec people toward separation, which will spawn a bloody revolution, a civil war. Separatism flows from socialist-Marxist ideology. Those who fight the battle for separation in Quebec are not patriots, but veiled communists.

Marxist Constitutions

A great deal is heard about the preparation of a new federal constitution and a new constitution for Quebec*, about the “right to self-determination for Quebec”, a certain “sovereignty”. These changes correspond strangely with the 1967 Manifesto of the Communist Party of Quebec. Will Ottawa itself contribute to separating Quebec from Canada? Is the provocation of a civil war a part of the plot? Is the desire to establish atheistic, Marxist and communist constitutions in Quebec and in Canada to lead us into a tyrannical world government?

Canada and all the Provinces are the slaves of Big Business. This is the real problem. Our governments, from the biggest to the smallest, are weighted down with public debt. When will they break loose these chains of banker dictatorship and stop genuflecting at the feet of the money men to borrow numbers? The thing to be changed in the federal and provincial constitutions is to detach Canada and the Provinces from High Finance, our common enemy. The law which empowers banks and private institutions to create money must be abolished.

It is also important to realize that the concept or the word “communism” is employed as a mask for the New World Order, which was begun by the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and continues unabated up to the present.

The energies and the idealism of the working people are used by the protectors of such revolutions – the Big Bankers – to demolish what has been created methodically by generations before us. At the price of blood and destruction, the power of the Bankers is expanded and consolidated, whereas, the proletariates increasingly find themselves worse off than they were at the start. They face the prospect of nothing less than slavery.

In my first article, (says Kretzmer) I described without proving it, that it [communism] is the separatist movement, whether in Quebec or in any other part of the world. As for Quebec separatists, I personally knew a member of the FLQ, Charles Gagnon, who had always been a communist. I don’t know what has become of him, because I lost touch with him ages ago.

There have been various separatist movements in Quebec, but I am going to focus above all, at first, on the RIN and its former President, the now deceased Pierre Bourgault. The anglophone reader or anyone who doesn’t know the history of Quebec will indeed be surprised by certain facts and certain declarations. That is expected, it’s normal.

All those organizations that mobilized the “Parti-Pris” and the “Révolution Québécoise” magazines as the front line of their advance, used the nationalism (including the respectable nationalism) of the French Canadians to launch the communist revolution in Quebec.

For these organizations, separatism – one should more properly say: “the tactic of independence” is only a means to their ends, a “Trojan horse” at the service of the aspirations of Moscow (or of Peking!) to a world hegemony. By way of illustration, let’s see what we can read on this subject in the September, 1964 issue of “Révolution Québécoise“:

“Just as every imperialist war must be transformed into a civil war to overthrow the power of the culpable ruling classes, in the same way EVERY nationalist movement must be transformed into a socialist movement to liberate the working classes” (page 35)

We know that excellent Christians have been deceived by the RIN-PQ-BQ* and their false gloss of patriotism. However, other than Mister Bourgault who repeated to all who would listen that an “independent” Quebec would be socialist, the apologia that one reads in the Marxist magazine “Révolution Québécoise,” as made by the RIN’s official publication, L’Indépendance (November 1964, p. 7), must provide sufficient reason to all true patriots and Christians of Quebec to oppose the PQ-BQ-RIN by total refusal, in both words and acts. Here is an excerpt from the official mouthpiece of the RIN, L’Indépendance (November 1964):

A new magazine just came out: “Révolution Québécoise,” run by Pierre Vallières (a former Felquist {FLQ terrorist), who left the team of “Cité Libre” – Pierre Elliot Trudeau was part of the team at Cité Libre – to participate in the building of a free city up to the measure of our era: the one that a (liberated!) Quebec will form tomorrow in which all property will be absolutely redistributed (!!). This magazine (Révolution Québécoise) is an addition to the several avant-garde magazines born in Québec the past few years, and must take its place on the bookshelf of every independentist whose heartfelt desire is to be informed on the economic and cultural problems of Québec.”

The official magazine of the RIN-PQ-BQ* thus suggests that every independentist read a review which is self-identified as communist-Leninist. It therefore seems futile to insist on pointing out, when it’s so easy to recognize, the ideology which has inspired the RIN-PQ-BQ each in its turn. However, it is necessary to return to the subject in order to examine, more closely this time, the RIN, the “Rassemblement Pour l’Indépendance Nationale” (the Rally for National Independence).

Pierre Bourgault, the former President of the RIN, toured Quebec. He was received officially in some towns, in some Catholic seminairies, and he even held public meetings in a well known Dominican monastery in Montreal. Here, then, is the gist of it.

The RIN and the Revolution

In its October 10th, 1964 edition, the Montreal daily newspaper “Le Devoir” published a long article on page 4 under “Reader’s Opinion” entitled: “The Independence of Quebec” (“L’indépendance du Québec”). This article permits us to trace the goals pursued by the RIN-PQ-BQ. To be clear, and to keep it short, we have taken the liberty of extracting only the most significant passages from this article. Here they are:

“Independentist parties and movements, which are proliferating in Québec, endorse opposing theories, according to which they describe themselves as left or right. Some of them claim to be the champions of independence; but in studying their writings we perceive that their real ultimate goal is revolution via the scientific socialism of Karl Marx. To drive us to this goal, they use as “research themes and as battle cries: socialism, secularism and independence”. I refer in particular to the magazines Parti-Pris and L’Indépendance, the latter being the official organ of the RIN.

In support of this grave accusation, here are a few typical excerpts, which are merely a fraction of those we could cite. A special edition of Parti-Pris was published on September 1st, 1964. The “manifesto” begins with a report of Marx on the Revolution; then, at page 12, we read:

“Independence, which was a goal, becomes a preliminary, a necessary step in the revolutionary conflict which exceeds it and amplifies it”.

We will see that the realness, the authenticity of the independentist idea resides in the political thought and practise of the Left.” (page 23)

IT WAS AT THE RIN THAT THE WORD “REVOLUTION” WAS FIRST DECLARED ITSELF”. (page 25)

“Trained in the school of Sartre, which is that of Marxism-Leninism, we are agreed upon the necessity to use, as research and battle themes, socialism, secularism and independence.” (p. 36).

“The recognition of the RIGHT to believe that religion is an evil” both follows and precedes the tirades of the priests.” (p. 30).

L’Indépendance – the magazine of the RIN, and Parti-Pris (2) get along very well, even if, for public consumption, they keep a certain distance between them. For example, in Parti-Pris the current President of the RIN, Mister Pierre Bourgault, published his political and electoral program on December 3rd, 1963. But, it is in the July 1964 issue of L’Indépendance at page 2, 2nd column, that we read:

“It is time to recall that independence is a means that must bring us to social and working-class revolution. The revolutionary party that achieves independence will, for example, abolish the two-party system…” (p. 6).

Then we will publicly recommend, and above all accomplish, the separation – the great work – of the spiritual from the temporal, of the Church from the State” (p. 2).”

This extract may seem long to some readers, but it was necessary. It reveals the communist parentage of the separatist movement in Québec and the place occupied within it by the RIN-PQ-BQ.

Tactics of the RIN

In December of 1964, Mr. Bourgault returned from a “thrilling tour” of Québec. That’s even the title of the article he wrote in RIN’s magazine that same month. In that article, he declared, most notably:

“Past violence is detrimental to our present action, and it is not in the name of principles that we denounce it, but in the name of efficiency.”

How do we interpret this? An about-face? A conversion?

No: because “past violence” is not denounced “in the name of principles”, which is to say in the name of the immutable commandments that come from God, or by reference to genuine ethics, but solely “in the name of efficiency.” Yesterday, violence might have been useful, today, No!! Because we [I mean, the RIN] ]have perceived that the Quebec people still have a solid ethical sense in this era, and that, accordingly, recourse to the mere idea of “violence” is unpopular. And on account of this, it undermines the work of the RIN. But tomorrow? Tomorrow, maybe, violence could be used. All depends on the greatest efficacy.

And then the bombs flew just about everywhere and we had the tragic murder of Pierre Laporte.

To show how well anchored was the thought of Mister Bourgault in the realm of the communist dialectic, it would be useful to quote two extracts from an article on “The True Nature of Communism” by Jean Daujat:

Jean Daujat

Jean Daujat

“Most of our contemporaries,” writes Mr. Daujat, “have no idea how to react to communism because they don’t know it, which leads them into it, or allows them to be used by it. They are especially totally led astray by the perpetual contradictions of the communists, who often say and do the opposite today of what they said and and did the day before, which induces one and another to marvel at how they have changed their ways. This non-comprehension of Marxism has grave consequences …

” … Because, for such a philosophy (Marxist), the only consideration that counts is material power, efficacity; the only rule is to say or to do whatever the moment requires, more efficacious and more powerful. There is no place for truth, for good, or for justice to intervene.

Whatever a true communist says or writes is never the teaching of a truth, which is something that makes no sense to him, but propaganda to carry off an action: it will consist not in saying what is true, but whatever more efficiently serves the action to be exercised.

It is therefore absurd to say, as some do, that one can collaborate in an action practised by communists without adopting Marxist doctrine. Because communism is not at all the teaching of a doctrine, but the action exerted by the communist himself.” (Jean Daujat: The True Nature of Communism)

“Past violence is detrimental to our present action,” writes Mr. Bourgault, “and it is not in the name of principles that we denounce it, but in the name of efficiency.” This simple phrase can tell us a great deal about the philosophy of the separatist movement. Did not Lenin write: Marxism must take account of living reality, precise facts, and not cling to a theory of yesterday. Our doctrine is not a dogma, but a rule of action (Lenin, Works XXIV).

Who Was Pierre Bourgault?

In May of 1964, Mister Pierre Bourgault publicly confessed his agnosticism in MacLean’s Magazine (p. 44). He renewed this public confession on television networks; he reaffirmed it at Alma in Lake Saint-Jean to the regional press; and finally at Valleyfield over the airwaves of the local radio station.

During this interview granted to the Valleyfield press on November 17th, 1964, a journalist read to Mister Bourgault what the Vatican Council had ruled in respect to agnosticism:

“If someone says that the only true God, our Lord and Creator, is unknowable in the light of reason through the things he has made, that he be excommunicated.”

To which Mister Bourgault replied:

“I could be wicked and answer you like Jean-Paul Sartre: Je ne communias déjà plus!” [Literal translation: I will no longer take communion]

Let us not forget that one day or another, every man, every ideology, every social institution or human society must speak for or against the Church. The separatist movement chose its side and it has never sidetracked. Let’s re-read attentively the extract reported in L’Iindépendance (July 1964). The official mouthpiece of the RIN writes:

“Then we will publicly recommend, and above all accomplish, the separation – the great work – of the spiritual from the temporal, of the Church from the State” (p. 2) What are we to think?

The Christian citizen naturally knows that it is not society, but man, which has an immortal soul. It follows from that fact that society (along with its government) is made for man, and, that man is made for God. In this light, the suggestion of the separatist movement which says “publicly recommend, and above all accomplish, the separation – the great work – of the spiritual from the temporal, of the Church from the State” cannot but recall the famous statement of Lenin: “God is the personal enemy of communist society.”

To impose “the separation – the great work – of the spiritual from the temporal, of the Church from the State” upon a human society is at basis to compel a man practically to separate his body from his soul, because one is temporal and the other is spiritual! And it is not because they want to establish a simple distinction between the spiritual and the temporal, but they demand a great separation, a break, and “above all,” “to accomplish this” does not go without violence nor terrorism. Lenin made no effort to hide it when he said:

“Millions of excrements, defilements, violences, sicknesses, pestilences, are much less to be feared than the most subtle, the most refined, and the most invisible idea of God! God is the most personal enemy of Communist Society.”

The vehement opposition of Holy Pope Pius Xth to this doctrine is well explained thus:

“[translation of Kretzmer’s French:] that it is necessary to separate the Church from the State”, he wrote, “is an absolutely false thesis, a very pernicious error. Based, in effect, on this principle, that the State must recognize no religious practice, it is first of all gravely injurious for God; because the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and he maintains them in existence just as he does us. We owe him not only our private worship, but public and social honor.”

One thing must be clarified: secularism – or secular humanism – is a recognized religion according to a judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States. When the Liberals and the free-thinkers gild the pill for us, in speaking to us of pseudo-neutrality, they knowingly lie. Neutrality exists nowhere in the universe. These are the refrains of the Quebec Secular Movement which have given the order to the Governments of Quebec and of Canada to remove ancestral rights, rights conferred by the Constitution, concerning the teaching of Catholicism and Protestantism in Quebec schools.

The Quebec Secular Movement is also behind homosexual marriage or civil union. The Quebec Secular Movement is the true gouvernement du Québec, not the useless Quebec Legislature, stuffed with hypocrites who love to shake hands, appear in public and fly around in limousines.

The RIN, to give to its position the semblance of orthodoxy, readily spreads the idea among its members that it is necessary to liberate religion from politics; in fact, it proposed exactly the opposite: to “liberate” politics from religion! And that’s called secularism. But, secularism is a religion called Freemasonry.

“In the lives of states themselves,” writes Pope Pius XII in this regard, “the strength and the weakness of men, sin and grace, play a capital role. The politics of the 20th Century can’t ignore it, nor admit that one persists in the error of wanting to separate the state from religion in the name of a secularism that the facts have not been able to justify” (Christmas, 1956).

No! “The Catholic Church will never allow itself to be enclosed within the four walls of the temple! The separation of religion from life, and of the Church from the world, is contrary to Christian and Catholic doctrine!” (Pius XII).

It is therefore easy to see that the revolutionary doctrine of the separatist movement is “contrary to Christian and Catholic doctrine”; which is, because of this fact, “an absolutely false thesis, very gravely injurious for God, Creator of Man and founder of human societies”. And, it is rigorously logical to conclude that every devoted Catholic must make it his business to put his hatred for error and his love for truth into open battle in full light of day, against such an ideology!

I will conclude by reporting the public declaration (just one among many) of Mr. Bourgault, published in La Presse, of which he was then an Editor, on February 3rd, 1964 (page 17). It’s a report of a meeting held the previous evening of February 2nd at the Champagnat school.

“These cryptic zones proliferate, cryptics of centralization, of bilingualism, but also cryptics of betrayal, of intermediate bodies, of bishops and of embezzlers of public funds.”

Mister Bourgault thus quite simply lumps together the bishops and the embezzlers of public funds, which has nonetheless not prevented him from being received by certain of our Catholic colleges. The former president of the RIN was a man who disliked – as he readily admitted – mixing religion with politics, nor with his own life, yet he never shied away from vilifying the Church in its own public assemblies!

What is the real goal of the separatist movement?

Pierre Bourgault (RIN)

Pierre Bourgault (RIN)

We have seen clearly, despite the distance these two movements prudently kept between them, (to assure the efficacy of their action upon the public) that the RIN closely pursued the same goals as the Marxist team of the Parti Pris.

“Seeking means capable of achieving the Revolution, Marx found misery”, wrote Rosenberg. Without a doubt, had he lived in Quebec in 1965, Marx would have found “independentism”. And the question returns: What is the real goal of the separatist movement?

The answer: “It is time to recall” as written in the July 1964 issue of L’Indépendance, “that independence is a means that must bring us to social and working-class revolution”.

And there it is. The real, the only, goal of the separatist movement! And it is not by chance that this is the goal of the World Communist Party: Stalin declared to the 7th world congress of the Comintern:

“All the detours, all the zigzags of our policy have but one goal and one goal only: world Revolution!”

Once again, it is clear that a true Catholic must not join the ranks of the separatist movement, if he really wishes to remain Catholic.

[Summarizing]: A Few Statements from the President of the RIN

With respect to the Quebec people:

“Give me 5% of the Quebec population, and I’ll take it where I want because the other 95% are sleeping.”

– Pierre Bourgault at Alma, in the church basement of St-Sacrement on November 2nd, 1964

“Despite history, despite English, despite the noteworthies, and a little bit also despite ourselves, alas!, the Quebecois people have stayed French. I had violently returned. This people had no need of directives to affirm its French pride in the face of the whole world”.

– Pierre Bourgault

Concerning terrorism:

“But, if Michelle Duclos preferred the cause of the blacks, I understand her. As for me, if I were a black, I would have long ago made them all jump”

– Pierre Bourgault, February 21st, 1965, Paul Sauvé Arena

Concerning social ethics:

“Past violence is detrimental to our present action, and it is not in the name of principles that we denounce it, but in the name of efficiency.”

– Pierre Bourgault in L’Indépendance December 1964

Concerning religion:

“I could be wicked and answer you like Jean-Paul Sartre: Je ne communias déjà plus!

– Pierre Bourgault in an interview taped on November 17th, 1964 at Valleyfield at the local radio station

Concerning his adversaries:

“These cryptic zones proliferate, cryptics of centralization, of bilingualism, but also cryptics of betrayal, of intermediate bodies, of bishops and of embezzlers of public funds.”

– Pierre Bourgault, 2 February 1964, Ecole Champagnat

“Because the truly socialist parties have never been able to seize power in any country whatsoever except in the course of a civil war”

– said “Parti-Pris“, coming to the point.

Let me say it again, clearly. “Parti-Pris” was a communist magazine. Moreover, they did not hide this and they wrote openly of it in their September 1964 edition:

“Marxism, to which we ascribe, is not a catechism, but above all, a method of analysis and of work required for us put it into operation in Québec.”

Which is why Mister Bourgault, past president of the RIN, published his “political and electoral programme” in a magazine which openly advertised itself as Marxist-Leninist.

This ideal of a break between the spiritual and the temporal is the core of the Revolution (with a capital “R”). It is very instructive to read what Stalin had to say in this regard:

In realizing such a separation (of Church and State) and in proclaiming freedom of religion, we have at the same time reserved to every citizen (read: to the Communist Party) the “right” to fight for this conviction through propaganda and through unrest… against all religion” (Voprosy, Leninism, Leningrad 1932, pp- 285-286).*

We are seeing it ever more clearly, the secessionist movement and the Communist Party are converging toward one and the same goal: the Revolution.

– 30 –
____________________

TRANSLATOR’S FOOTNOTES:

* Dr. John Laughland considers that the European Union essentially embodies Marxist ideology (“The European Union: a Marxist Utopia?“. Quebec “separatist” parties have, for decades, attempted not to “secede” by referendum, but to extract a mandate to negotiate the imposition on Quebec and on all of Canada of the EU system. The EU system therefore appears to be the veiled communist system, emerging progressively. The use of Quebec to force the system onto all of Canada would then result in a new Marxist “federal constitution, and a new Marxist constitution for Quebec”. See my blog post of 14 October 2009: “Sarkozy Scamming Quebec’s Hoodwinked Separatists“. KM/HCC.

* “PQ” is the acronym for Parti Québécois, a Quebec provincial “party” founded formally in 1968 by communist, René Lévesque (it was actually planned by others), and typically labeled “separatist” by press and media. However, “separatist” is a misnomer. The platform of the Parti Québécois has always been to impose the European system on all of Canada in place of Confederation. “Separatism” is merely a threat of UDI (unilateral declaration of independence) to destroy Canada, as blackmail to force the rest of Canada to accept the European system. Therefore, Mr. Kretzmer’s understanding of the Quebec Communist Party Manifesto appears to be on the right track: the attempt by Lévesque in 1980, and then by Jacques Parizeau in 1995 is to impose a new, ultimately “Marxist” Constitution on Quebec, and on all of Canada: the European Union system. A 1991 interview with Parizeau and then-Premier of Quebec Robert Bourassa shows that both are already quite conversant with the notion of a common North American Parliament. Bourassa, a “Liberal,” a label Canadians have been trained to identify as “fighting against separatists”, actually passed a law in 1991, Bill 150, compelling a referendum for Quebec to secede by a fixed date in 1992. That law, however, was blackmail to attempt to force all Canadians to accept so-called “amendments” to the federal Constitution presented as the Charlottetown Accord to “keep Quebec in Canada”. But, in reality, the proposed amendments were a ruse to appear to harmonize Canada with “international law” that emerged from the Badinter Commission during the overthrow and breakup of Yugoslavia. Had Charlottetown passed, Quebec would have “seceded” and used UDI to force the EU system on Canada. I wrote about this in my 2008 Federal Elections newsletter: “NO ONE TO VOTE FOR Federal Elections – Canada

When former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev visited Britain in 2000, he described the European Union as “the new European Soviet.” Others, including former Russian dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, American Charlotte Iserbyt and Lithuanian-American Vilius Brazenas, equate the EU system with the basis of a nascent world Soviet system. Still others identify the EU as being essentially Marxist in ideology (“The European Union: a Marxist Utopia?” by Dr. John Laughland, Online publication date: 2011-04-20).

* “BQ” is the acronym for Bloc Québécois, a so-called ‘federal’ ‘separatist’ party founded in approximately 1990 when a handful of mostly former Liberals and former Conservatives who had crossed the floor two to five months earlier to sit as independents, crossed the floor again inside Parliament to sit — we are told — as ‘separatists’. However, the agitations of this party since its founding have been designed to help get Quebec out of Confederation by intimidating Canadians into accepting the European system in lieu of threatened “break-up”. Again, it is a misnomer and thus misleading to call these parties “separatist”. They are not “separatist”. They are communist parties hiding behind separatist ideology.

Like the Parti Québécois, the Bloc Québécois wants a European-style union. Their recent past leader, Gilles Duceppe, admitted on camera on 30 April 2011 that he wants “a good constitution, like they have in Europe”. He wants a North American Union including a “sovereign” Quebec. In other words, the communists have targeted all of North America, and apparently they have counterparts in the U.S.A. who are ready and willing to give it to them, though this would necessitate the overthrow of the U.S. Constitution, Congress and the White House.

In this respect, it is worth noticing that there is a “secession” movement in the USA at precisely the same time that Duceppe is making this declaration. It is called the “Tenth Amendment Movement” by which 38+ States have filed formal declarations intending to ‘secede’ from their federal government and destroy the USA because of federal encroachment on States’ constitutional rights. I wrote about this in my blog post of 27 June 2011, “Taking America Down for Globalism in the Name of Patriotism

* “The official magazine of the RIN-PQ-BQ” — I now don’t know what Mr. Kretzmer means. “BQ” appears to refer to the Bloc Québécois which arrived on the scene as of 1990. The Bloc could therefore not have been involved in the 1960s with the RIN and the PQ. Was it a typographical error to have included the BQ in the Kretzmer article? Or does BQ stand for still something else that I’m not yet aware of?

Gilles Duceppe, recent former leader for over 20 years of the “separatist” Bloc Québécois (an illegal party in the federal Parliament) was a colleague of FLQ terrorist leader Charles Gagnon. Duceppe wrote for Gagnon’s communist magazine En Lutte ! (Struggle!). See my translation “Has the Far Left Hijacked the Quebec Sovereignty Movement?” under my general title: “Communist Links of the NDP and the Bloc Québécois”.

As Mr. Kretzmer notes above, Pierre Elliott Trudeau was part of the team at the magazine, Cité Libre. In fact, he was a co-founder of it with fellow Communist Gérard Pelletier. More importantly, Trudeau and other important federal figures in the “Quebec secession” scheme, including Gérard Pelletier, Jean Marchand, and René Lévesque, were also a part of the in-crowd at Cité Libre and, thereby, all were colleagues of BOTH of two major FLQ terrorist leaders, Pierre Vallières, who acted as Director of Cité Libre in the early 1960s around the time Vallières met Gagnon, who also worked at Cité Libre for Trudeau and Pelletier, and the FLQ bombings began in Quebec.

René Lévesque set up rather than founded the Parti Québécois, a fake “separatist” party designed to impose the EU system on Canada disguised as Quebec “sovereignty”, upon advice to do so from Trudeau, Pelletier, Marchand, and other federal ministers in the Lester Pearson Cabinet on a “secret committee” hosted in Montreal in the 1960s by Power Corporation of Canada. Power Corporation has a penchant for hiring communists, and I shall write a post on that another day.

René Lévesque, Fidel Castro, lawyer Raymond Daoust (1959) Montreal

René Lévesque, Fidel Castro, lawyer Raymond Daoust (1959) Montreal

The FLQ had been set up by Fidel Castro, who met Belgian immigrant to Montreal, Georges Schoeters during Castro’s visit to Canada on 26 April 1959. Castro later brought Schoeters to Cuba where he trained him to organize the FLQ. Castro also trained some of the terrorists handpicked by Schoeters. In the photo at left, we see René Lévesque, the year before he entered politics with the Liberals, interviewing Castro on the very same day that Castro linked up with Schoeters. FLQ terror would be the springboard and the pretext for a “political” settlement of the “complaints” of the FLQ about conditions in Quebec.

Had it been Lévesque who originated the idea of the “separatist” party which would fight it out with the rest of Canada in negotiations after a referendum, that would be sufficiently odd, given Lévesque’s link to the man who set up the FLQ in the first place: Castro. However, it was a group of mostly Liberals, federal ministers from Quebec in the government of Lester Pearson, who decreed that a “separatist” party should be erected. Those men included, notably, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Gérard Pelletier and Jean Marchand, all three recruited by Pearson to “fight separatism”. But, strangely, the “separatist” party they decided should be set up to “fight separatism” in a referendum, actually had as its platform the “negotiation” of the European Economic Community (EU) system to replace Confederation. This is the very system viewed today as increasingly Soviet, and as Marxist in nature. Who would decree that a “separatist” party be set up so that “separatism” could be “fought” in a referendum? A secret committee of Power Corporation of Canada would, and did, in 1967, led by Claude Frenette, then-President of the Liberal Party, with close ties to Trudeau, and a Power Corp. executive and right-had man to Paul Desmarais, Sr. Power Corporation in 2010 is headquarters of the Rhodes Scholarships for Quebec (a free education in the pushing of world government). And more importantly, Power Corporation is a founding member of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives which authored the Building A North American Community report of 2005 outlining the creation of a North American Community on the pretext of the September 11th, 2001 “terrorist attacks”, and published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the U.S. branch of the network involved in the Cecil Rhodes society, and whose “sister institute” in Canada is the Canadian International Council (CIC), on whose Board and Senate we find Power Corporation.

Again, despite the steadfast complicity of press and media pretending that Quebec, led by “separatists,” was attempting to “secede,” the real subject of the referendum was not secession, but the imposition on all of Canada of the EU system. René Lévesque ultimately “founded” that “separatist” party, the Parti Québécois, which has been used ever since to attempt to force the European Union system onto Canada in place of Confederation.

Castro’s trip to Montreal on 26 April 1959 (when he connected with Schoeters) was organized by Raymond Daoust, a criminal lawyer, according to the caption under the same photo (above) in a biography entitled René Lévesque – Un enfant du siècle 1922-1960, by Pierre Godin. It is unclear whether Daoust was working for the mafia at that time; however, Daoust is ultimately identified as a lawyer for the Vic Cotroni mafia family and also in circumstances suggesting that he, himself, was a part of the mob. In 1963, when twenty-three FLQ terrorists were picked up and charged, some of them, including Raymond Villeneuve, hired criminal lawyer Daoust to conduct their defense. It is therefore quite odd that Daoust should have organized Castro’s trip to Montreal on the very day in 1959 when Castro connected with Schoeters, who was used to set up the Front de Libération du Québec (FLQ) terrorists; and that Daoust himself, three or four years later – at which date he is known as a lawyer for Cotroni – would end up defending some of the terrorists, one of whose leaders – Pierre Vallières, is a colleague of Trudeau, and of the two other man recruited by Lester Pearson to join the Liberals to “fight” these same terrorists whom they call “separatists” …. although, they are clearly not “separatists” but communists. And in the process of “fighting” them, he, Trudeau, the defender of Canada, will facilitate their attempted imposition of what is apparently the economic basis of a world-wide communist system: for the 1980 referendum proposes to replace Confederation with the European Economic Community system, which today we see as the European Union with special status at the U.N.

KM/HCC
Saturday, 3 September 2011 9:42 a.m.
Republished on Sunday, 22 April 2012 in “No Snow in Moscow”, WordPress.