“Singing tomorrows?” or “Grinding tomorrows?” The Soviet Union is not yet Dead (Quebec, 1996)

“The pragmatic basis for a revised US response to ‘perestroika’ is the need to protect and preserve the American system from ‘restructuring’ preparatory to ‘convergence’ with the ‘reformed’ Soviet system, and to save the American people from the blood baths and re-education camps which such ‘conver­gence’ will eventually bring about, of which the West currently has no conception.”

— Anatoliy Golitsyn, writing in his “Post-script, the long-range deception strategy”, in The Perestroika DeceptionThe World’s Slide Towards the Second October Revolution (1995), p. 209

 
I have just found a document from 1996, the title of which strongly suggests that the 1995 Quebec referendum to “secede” (i.e., force all of Canada to “negotiate” a regional union) just missed the Soviet boat.

I’ve written this article in the order in which known information came to mind, topped off with the final research toward the end, which confirmed my intuition.

Had there really been a Cold War …

had there really been a post -Cold War …

had the Soviet Union indeed “collapsed” …

were Perestroika and democratisation of the USSR genuine …

then why would the Quebec Left in 1996 associate the very object of the 1995 Quebec referendum to “secede” with an ultimate triumph of the old Soviet Union?

I think the Left slipped up in a major way when certain exponents of it conferred a particular book title on a collection of essays on the 1995 Quebec referendum.

That book title inadvertently exposed the fact that Quebec’s referendums to “secede”, led by the veiled Communist Parti Québécois, are a Soviet tactic for restructuring Canada and North America.

The Soviet Union therefore necessarily did not “collapse”.

KGB defector, Anatoliy Golitsyn, in his 1995 book The Perestroika Deception, points out that the USSR undertook a superficial or “cosmetic” transformation to facilitate its own “convergence” with a “restructured” West.

After years of historical and constitutional research, it is my view that the Quebec referendums are undoubtedly one tool of that restructuring.

Middle-class French-Canadians unknowingly wave North American Union banners during 1995 Quebec “secession” rally.

Middle-class French-Canadians unknowingly wave North American Union banners during 1995 Quebec “secession” rally.

Moreover, as basic investigation will indicate — from the 1964 video footage of Communist Lévesque sweeping his arm across a map of Canada calling for its “profound” “restructuring”, to the questions on the 1980 and 1995 referendum ballots — the real goal is not for Quebec to become “sovereign”.

The goal is for Quebec to use a threat of dismantling Canada by secession, to force the “rest of Canada” to negotiate its complete restructuring to match whatever then-current stage of development is found in the European region.

In 1980, that stage was the European Economic Community (EEC). In 1995, it was the European Union (EU). Whatever the stage, for the clear purpose of deception, the desired restructuring is always called: “Canadian unity“.

René Lévesque, in English-language video footage, declares that the powers gained by Quebec in “seceding” will eventually be relinquished to unidentified recipients. These can only be regional authorities, municipal authorities and world government in a world state where nations have ceased to exist, and only cities and regions are on the signposts.

The title of the 1996 anthology in which Communists lament the 1995 Quebec Referendum loss is this:

Le goût du Québec.
L’après référendum 1995.
Des lendemains qui grincent…
ou qui chantent?

The title translates as follows:

The Taste of Quebec.
After the 1995 Referendum.
Singing tomorrows…
or grinding tomorrows?

The book (hereafter, “Lendemains“) (published at Montreal in 1996 by Les Éditions Hurtubise HMH, ltée, 260 pages) is divided into two sections of articles, one under the title “Des lendemains qui grincent…” (Grinding tomorrows?) and the other under the title: “Des lendemains qui chantent?” (Singing tomorrows?)

Le goût du Québec. L’après référendum 1995. Des lendemains qui grincent… ou qui chantent?

Le goût du Québec. L’après référendum 1995. Des lendemains qui grincent… ou qui chantent?


The part entitled “Des lendemains qui grincent” (“Grinding tomorrows”), has been written under a single name, the pseudonym “Jean du Pays“. “Jean du Pays” is a French pun on the title of a famous French-Canadian patriotic song, “Gens du pays” by Gilles Vigneault with music co-written by Gaston Rochon, and first performed by Vigneault on June 24, 1975.

In contrast to “Des lendemains qui grincent“, we have a cluster of authors unified under the necessarily (as we shall see) militant Red theme of “Singing tomorrows” — “Des lendemains qui chantent“, the ultimate triumph of the apparently not really reformed Soviet Union.

We have Myra Cree, Henry Mintzberg, Julien Bauer, Peter G. White, Claude Corbo, René Boudreault, Marco Micone, James O’Reilly, Robin Philpot, Bernard Cleary, Joseph Rabinovitch, Louis Cornellier, Isabelle Guinard, and Naïm Kattan, with Philippe Resnick in annex and labor commissioner, Marc Brière (aka the class-conscious Marxist “judge”) doing a post-script. A veritable “multicultural” plea for a new, essentially “territorial” common “nation” and new “people-hood” in order to re-engineer the vote next  time for the desired outcome.

The expression, “singing tomorrows” is a well known paean to the eventual triumph of the Soviet Union, as will be more clear further below.

The editor of the volume, an anthology published in 1996, is Marc Brière. Brière, born in 1929, calls himself an “Attorney, judge and Québécois essayist” (“Avocat, juge et essayiste québécois). (He is actually not a judge, but a commissioner of an administrative board. Who says Marxists are not class-conscious?)

Brière, who claims credit for the idea of the post-referendum anthology, calls himself a “member of Cité Libre“, the magazine founded by card-carrying Communist Gérard Pelletier and his pro-Soviet friend Pierre Elliott Trudeau. (“Lendemains” p. 257) Here is the full statement:

FRENCH ORIGINAL:

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

Ancien élève du collège Stanislas de Montréal, il [Brière] passa deux ans à l’école navale de Royal Roads, en Colombie britannique, et devint officier de la Marine Royale du Canada, pour entreprendre ensuite des études de droit aux universités de Montréal et de Paris. Membre de Cité libre et de la Fédération libérale du Québec, il participa activement à la Révolution tranquille aux côtés de Paul Gérin-Lajoie et de René Lévesque. Il contribua à la fondation du Mouvement souveraineté-association, en 1967, puis à celle du Parti québécois. Robert Bourassa le nomma au Tribunal du travail en 1975.

A former student of Stanislas College in Montreal, he [Brière] spent two years at the Royal Roads naval college in British Columbia, and became a Royal naval officer of Canada, to then take up the study of law at the universities of Montreal and Paris. A member of Cité libre and the Liberal Federation of Quebec, he took an active part in the Quiet Revolution at the side of Paul Gérin-Lajoie and René Lévesque. He contributed to the founding of the Mouvement souveraineté-association in 1967, and to that of the Parti Québécois. Robert Bourassa appointed him to the Labor Board in 1975.

So, Brière has a personal interest and investment to vindicate in this book. He is a founding member of the MSA which was organized to become the veiled Communist PQ. He is a “member” of Cité libre  run by and for the goals of Communists in Canada. He is thus close to secret committee men from Cité libre who ordered the Parti Québécois  to be set up in the first place. He helped to set it up by contributing to the founding of the MSA which led to it. Brière then worked for the Parti Québécois  for four years “in government”. Brière is thus an insider. His 1996 book is necessarily a Communist tactic. He even got himself a little military training at the expense of Canada; and so he was possibly in a command chain at the time of the 1995 referendum. The implications of his book’s title, discussed below, should be taken seriously.

Alan Stang in “CANADA” (April 1971) identified Cité Libre as harboring Communists. Robert Rumilly (The Leftist Infiltration in French Canada, 1956 / L’Infiltration Gau­chiste au Canada Français) identified Cité Libre as the self-described “little sister” of Esprit, a crypto-Communist magazine in France founded in October 1931. Esprit’s  first issue featured a favorable travel journal of a voyage behind the Iron Curtain.

We later find the principal figures of Esprit linked to UNESCO at the founding of the UN. You can search the UNESCO web site today for the names of Emmanuel Mounier and Jacques Maritaine, both leading lights of the crypto-Communist Esprit.

(For stunning information on the Communist nature of the UN’s origins, G. Edward Griffin has narrated a superb exposé entitled The Subversion Factor. It is absolutely essential viewing. If you have never looked into Communism, this is the one film you must see. If you are familiar with Communism but haven’t seen it, you need to see it.)

With Marc Brière, we are thus firmly on territory of the far left associated by “former” Marxist-Leninist leader, Jean-François Lisée,* with Power Corporation of Canada, whose “secret committee” of Communist-infested “Liberals” in the federal cabinet of Soviet agent and (de facto) prime minister, Lester Bowles (aka “Mike”) Pearson, appointed René Lévesque to set up the “separatist” Parti Québécois and the referendums.

However, the Parti Québécois is a veiled Communist party, according to the terms of its own 1972 manifesto, which proposed a totalitarian government to run the economy, centralized production, the virtual obliteration of private business, and a self-managed work-force, all on the model of what Charles Perrault, then of the Conseil du patronat (Quebec Employers Council) and Narciso Pizarro, a Marxist socialist, both identified as the kind found in “socialist countries” such as Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Poland.

Given the title of this 1996 post-referendum book of Brière’s, “Singing tomorrows”, one may reasonably infer that not only has the purpose of the Parti Québécois not changed since 1972, but in some as yet unknown way, it is a direct creation of the Soviet agenda for the overthrow of North America. In a future post, I will explain the links discovered between international covert intelligence operations, the “secret committee” of Power Corporation, UNESCO, the creation of the Parti Québécois, and North American Union.

All this merely underscores the interpretation to be made of the book’s French title, explained in detail below, as implying that the failure of the 1995 referendum narrowly averted a Soviet overthrow of Canada.

Thus, the clear allusion in the title, in effect the banner under which the small host of writers has come to collaborate, is that the failure of the 1995 Quebec referendum was a near-miss to a Soviet takeover.

Moreover, the authors are writing in 1995-1996, well past the alleged “collapse of the Soviet Union” at the hands of Mr. Glasnost, or Mr. Perestroika, as you will, Mikhail Gorbachev.

“Collapse” Backup @ Calameo: http://en.calameo.com/read/00011179071a3fc0eb0c5

Keep in mind the name of KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn and his important books, New Lies for Old and The Perestroika Deception, in which Golitsyn only feigned “collapse” as a tactic in its “long-term strategy”.

Anatoliy Golitsyn was born in the Ukraine in 1926. He became a member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union at the age of nineteen, when he also joined the KGB. In 1959, he graduated with a law degree from a four-year course at the KGB Institute in Moscow. He “graduated from the Moscow School of Military Counter-espionage, the counterintelligence faculty of the High Intelligence School, and the University of Marxism-Leninism” according to his profile in the foreword to his 1995 book (paperback 1997), The Perestroika Deception.

From 1959 to 1960, Golitsyn served as a senior analyst in the NATO section of the Information Department of the Soviet intelligence service. He repeatedly served in Vienna and Helsinki on counterintelligence assignments.

He defected to the USA in (1961??)

According to the late Christopher Story, who edited The Perestroika Deception, the book

“reveals how the largely unseen Soviet collective lead­ership, borrowing the mind-control ideas of Gramsci, implemented their long-pre­pared shift from Lenin’s ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ to his ‘state of the whole people’, the primary characteristic of which is a theatrical display of ‘democratism’ designed to convince the West that a decisive ‘Break with the Past has taken place, in order to encourage Western Governments to abandon caution and to embark upon an open-ended programme of collaboration with the ‘former’ Soviet Bloc.”

In the chapter entitled, “The Fourth Key: Lenin’s ‘Forging of New and Old Forms’ for Developing Socialism, and Chicherin’s idea of False Representative Institutions through the Admission of Non-Communists (p. 86), Golitsyn writes:

One key to understanding this basis lies in Lenin’s advice to Communist Parties ‘to study, to search for, to find and to grasp the one particular powerful, specifically national tactic which will solve our international task… until the final victory of Communism’. All parties, advised Lenin, must rid themselves of the radical phrase­ology of the Left Wing. They must be ready to use a variety of tactics, old and new, legal and illegal. ‘International Communism’, he went on, ‘must subordinate to itself not only new, but old forms too — not simply to reconcile the new with the old, but to forge all forms, new and old, into a single weapon which will bring full, complete and decisive victory for Communism’. Following Lenin’s advice, the Soviet strat­egists and Arbatov’s Institute for the Study of the USA and Canada have studied Western democracy, its political processes and its media. …

“It is also likely”, Golitsyn says:

“that prominent agents of influence in the West with knowl­edge of American conditions will have suggested that, to conquer the United States, Communism would have to be Americanised and dressed in ‘democratic’ garb.”

Given the title of Marc Brière’s 1996 socialist lament for the failure of the 1995 Quebec referendum (no “singing tomorrows”), then mutatis mutandis, I would ask, is Arbatov’s Institute for the Study of the USA and Canada involved in “Canadianising” Communism and dressing it up in the ‘democratic garb’ of Quebec referendums under the Communist-infested Parti Québécois which is a “false representative institution”? The referendums to “secede” (translation: to force the rest of Canada to “negotiate” the new regional system unfolding in Europe) are not only unconstitutional, they are forbidden by it.

I can explain this quickly in a way that Americans in particular will understand, because they understand the political and legal purposes of their own constitutional division of powers. I am referring to the distribution of legislative and political power between the federal and State levels. In America, the central or federal government has “enumerated” powers, a legal term meaning that its hands are tied; it can do only those things on the list of powers that constitutionally it is given to do.

In Canada, the reverse is true. The “state” or provincial powers are enumerated, with a small “general” or “residual” power confined to “local purposes” only. (See Section 92 of the British North America Act, 1867 — still the only lawful Constitution for Canada.)

As a result of this Canadian division of powers, a province literally has no power to take any steps outside the list, including holding referendums to “secede”; or drafting “laws” with preambles containing a unilateral declaration of independence, etc. There is no power on the list under which it can be done.

The Canadian division of powers was designed specifically to prevent them doing it. A province has no power to “secede”, and therefore no power to take a step in that direction, intended to facilitate “seceding”.

The 1998 opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada pretending the constitution (the current one, part of a coup d’etat imposed by Trudeau in 1982, with much of the language of the 1867 original) is “silent on the ability of a province to secede”. They lied. They ignored the division of powers deliberately, as well as every other feature designed to deny a provincial power to secede, or a federal power to annex Canada… to the USA or (ejusdem generis rule) into a regional union.

Therefore, since the time of the secret committee of Power Corporation (circa 1967), the referendums to “secede” — recommended by Trudeau and his Communist friends to René Lévesque — are entirely outside the lawful Constitution. They are unconstitutional and void. This is more clear from the words of the Hon. Justice John Wellington Gwynne of the Supreme Court of Canada (in better days), writing in Citizens’ and The Queen Insurance Cos. v. Parsons, (1880), 4 S.C.R. 215, pp. 347-348:

“To enjoy the supremacy so conferred by the B.N.A Act, these local legislatures must be careful to confine the assumption of exercise of the powers so conferred upon them, to the particular subjects expressly placed under their jurisdiction […]”

“True it may be, that the Acts of the local legislatures affecting the particularly enumerated subjects placed by the B.N.A. Act under their exclusive control, if not disallowed by the Dominion Government, are supreme in the sense that they cannot be called in question in any court, but this supremacy is attributable solely to the authority of the B.N.A. Act, which has placed those subjects under the exclusive control of the local legislatures, and is not, in any respect, enjoyed as an incident to national sovereignty.”

There is no power in the lawful Constitution for a Province to “secede” or to do anything “in relation to” (legal term) seceding. The provincial powers reserved to a Province in Canada are enumerated, i.e., confined to the list of constitutional subject matters. A Province can do nothing that is “in relation to” “secession”, which includes conducting referendums “in relation to” “seceding”.

Gilles Duceppe (“former” Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) of the veiled Communist Bloc Québécois (at the federal level) has suggested that Quebec has a parliamentary “privilege” to conduct the referendums and to ask the public any question it pleases. This is untrue. Parliamentary privilege is confined to the exercise of existing legal powers essential to the conduct by the Legislature of its affairs as such a Legislature. There is no “parliamentary privilege” to act as a putsch, or in any way outside the existing legal powers of a Province. Privilege ceases to exist when the Legislature clearly shows by deliberate unconstitutional behavior that it is not acting as a Legislature, but as the perpetrator of a coup: i.e., as a usurper.

Further, Provincial powers are confined to their local territory. No Province can take any action which substantially affects any other Province or all of Canada. In other words, a Province has no such “extra-territorial” power. Therefore, referendums in Quebec as a pretext to “negotiate” the restructuring of all of Canada are fundamentally extra-territorial in character (legal term), and therefore unconstitutional.

Trudeau, a constitutional lawyer, and a law professor, knew that a Province has no power to “secede”. He thus used a ploy to conceal the illegality: he tabled a federal Bill  to conduct a Canada-wide referendum on “national unity”, while declaring that the referendum might be done instead only in Quebec (under his Communist friend, Lévesque). The federal Bill was never passed (which saved it from judicial review and thus from exposure as unlawful: — the federal government, also, has no constitutional power to dismantle Canada). But the public fell for it: the illegal Quebec referendums have proceeded since that time on a blind assumption derived from Trudeau’s unlawful public statement.

The entire operation is an exercise in mass mind-control, which depends in turn upon media control. The latter has been achieved, for example, through creation of the State-controlled CBC-Radio Canada which underpins the sedition, subversion and propaganda of the Left, wrongly conveying these to the public as normal events; while planting fifth-columnists (such as Rhodes Scholar Rex Murphy and Bilderberger Peter Mansbridge) in editorial news positions to help engineer public compliance with illegality until Canada is done and disposed of.

It can be no coincidence that Pearson retired suddenly while in office, the same year the secret committee decided to create the veiled Communist Parti Québécois  (PQ). Pearson’s retirement allowed Trudeau to rise from  that secret committee to the Prime Minister’s Office, precisely in time to seem to “fight” “Lévesque’s” new “separatist” party to “save” Canadian “unity” by “negotiating” the European system to replace Confederation. The very system Mikhail Gorbachev has called “the New European Soviet”.

The Parti Québécois  which is running these referendums therefore certainly fits the label of a “false representative institution”. The Soviet ploy for convergence thus obviously includes not only the creation of false (merely cosmetic) “democratic” agencies in Communist countries to encourage convergence, but the concocting of false “political” parties and other “dummy” entities in target countries to guide their dismantling, ostensibly by their own citizens under the guise of “democratic” procedure.

Now, let me get back to the sinister title of Brière’s 1996 anthology.

I am reading that anthology now. So far, its appearance immediately after the failed 1995 referendum seems to be an aggressive tactic to keep the “secession” ball in the air.

However, I will not discuss the various articles in the book right now. I will stick to the title of the book, which is fundamental. In particular since it also serves to divide the book into two sections, “Singing tomorrows” (implied Soviet victory) and “Grinding tomorrows” (misery until the day of victory).

I would not have recognized the allusion to ultimate Soviet victory in the title of the 1996 book on the 1995 Quebec referendum, but for Alan Stang.

Jean-Louis Gagnon at the Microphone

Jean-Louis Gagnon at the Microphone

The 1971 offprint by American Opinion of Stang’s CANADA How The Communists Took Control features a reproduction at p. 14 of a telegram sent by a known Soviet agent (exposed by Igor Gouzenko): one Jean-Louis Gagnon. Gagnon used the expression “singing tomorrows” in connection with an eventual triumph of “the great Soviet Union”.

Remarking on Gouzenko’s naming of Gagnon (among many other agents in Canada for Soviet espionage), Alan Stang says:

“The papers brought by Igor Gouzenko to the Canadians from the Soviet Embassy in Ottawa revealed that it was Jean-Louis Gagnon who had supplied Soviet Colonel Zabotin with the information that the exact date of D-Day was June 6, 1944.”

D-Day was the date of the Allied landing in France, in World War II.

To enhance that picture, anticommunist author Eric D. Butler (an Australian) wrote as follows in his important article “The Real Communist Menace”:

“Colonel Zabotin, for whom Gouzenko worked, and who figures prominently in the [Canadian] Commissioner’s Report, suddenly departed from Ottawa in December, 1945, without notifying the Canadian authorities, to whom he was accredited. He sailed from New York in a Soviet ship which left secretly at night without complying with port regulations. Just after the publication of the Canadian Report, a newspaper item said that Colonel Zabotin “died from heart failure four days after his return to Russia from Canada.”

Source url: http://en.calameo.com/books/00011179074d7854a29cc
The Real Communist Menace

In his 1982 article, “Inside the ‘Featherbed File’? Canada’s Watergate — The story of treason in Ottawa”, former RCMP undercover agent, Patrick Walsh, further describes the fact that Jean-Louis Gagnon was a member of Soviet spy rings operating in Canada exposed by Igor Gouzenko:

“The almost incredible story of Soviet penetration into the Canadian civil service has never been written, with the exception of the Gouzenko expose of the ’40s which uncovered one branch of Soviet spying: the GRU military intelligence network masterminded by Col. Zabotin. However, the Royal Commission Report dealing with Soviet espionage in the ’40s revealed that other Soviet spies active in the External Affairs Department had either fled the country (Jean-Louis Gagnon fled to Brazil, with the cooperation of Mitchell Sharp, then a director of Brazilian Traction Corporation) or could not be positively identified because only their code names were known.”

Mitchell Sharp deserves further mention. Sharp — who helped to protect the Soviet infiltration of Canada that Gouzenko had begun to expose — would become a future Trudeau advisor, and a future member of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission.

Sharp is seen here whispering in Trudeau’s ear at the Liberal convention which elects Trudeau as de facto Prime Minister (Alan Stang has generally described this event in his chapter “The Big Switch”).

Mitchell Sharp whispering in the ear of Pierre Elliott Trudeau at the 1967 Liberal Leadership Convention

Mitchell Sharp whispering in the ear of Pierre Elliott Trudeau at the 1967 Liberal Leadership Convention

The Rockefellers’ Chase Manhattan was among those banks (Kuehn Loeb of the Warburgs was another) which deliberately and consciously financed the 1917 Bolshevik revolution.

That so-called “revolution” was in fact the aggressive invasion of Russia by radical Communists. The so-called “revolution” resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of innocents, mostly Christian Russians. It created the most brutal tyranny the world has ever seen, whose butchers have never been brought to justice despite the alleged “fall” of the now “former” Soviet Union.

Mitchell Sharp is thus an associate of these same Rockefellers and their Trilateral Commission, whose literature, by the way, includes an article by Peter Sutherland in which he extols the French crypto-communists of Esprit as “Catholic socialists”. The mire expands. Esprit is linked to Trudeau’s Cité libre, to UNESCO (arm of the UNO as world government), and to the Trilateral Commission.)

After a “cooling off” period, Jean-Louis Gagnon returned from Brazil only to be employed by the federal government of Canada! Most notably, he found protection with “pilgrim of Moscow” Pierre Elliott Trudeau, as Quebec historian Rumilly calls him.

Stang points out that Gagnon’s telegram, sent from Washington to a Communist May-day rally in Montreal on May 1st, 1946 conveys the adoration of Gagnon for “the great Soviet Union”.

Here is the English translation published by Alan Stang along with the French telegram in the John Birch Society’s offprint of Stang’s April 1st, 1971 “CANADA” article in American Opinion:

“On this first post-war victorious May Day we
can foresee the victory of the working
class STOP Fraternal greetings to all trade
union leaders STOP Let us go forward to Peace STOP
Long live the glorious Soviet Union STOP Long live
singing tomorrows
STOP”

Stang was not alone in publishing a copy of the telegram. In the same month of April, 1971, the journal Straight Talk! of the Edmund Burke Society (EBS) (based in Scarborough, Ontario), also featured an image of the telegram. Its unsigned article said that Jean-Louis Gagnon had been “a member of the Communist Party” at the time he sent the telegram to a Communist May Day rally.

Telegram sent by Soviet agent and Communist Party member Jean-Louis Gagnon to a Montreal Communist May-Day Rally on May 1st, 1946: “Singing Tomorrows” (“les lendemains qui chantent“), published in the April 1971 issue of Straight Talk!, journal of The Edmund Burke Society (EBS); and by the John Birch Society in the April 1971 article in American Opinion by Alan Stang entitled “CANADA How The Communists Took Control”.

 
Here is my transcript of the original French telegram:

“Ce premier mai victorieuse d’après-guerre laisse
prévoir l’avènement de la victoire [de la] classe
ouvrière STOP Saluts fraternels aux chefs
unionistes STOP En avant pour la paix STOP Vive
la grande Union soviétique STOP Vive les
lendemains qui chantent
STOP.”

 

Militant Communist origin of the term
les lendemains qui chantent“.

The phrase “les lendemains qui chantent” originates in a 1937 “song of the Left” entitled “Jeunesse” (Youth) with lyrics by Paul Vaillant-Couturier, and music by Arthur Honegger. It appears, in the singular, in the last line of the first six-line stanza of the song, which celebrates the history of Communism while anticipating its ultimate triumph. That ultimate triumph is embodied in the last line of the first verse, which reads:

“Nous bâtirons un lendemain qui chante
(We will build a singing tomorrow)
 

Here’s the first stanza:

FRENCH ORIGINAL:

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

JEUNESSE
Paroles de Paul Vaillant-Couturier
Musique d’Arthur Honegger – 1937

YOUTH
Lyrics by Paul Vaillant-Couturier
Music by Arthur Honegger – 1937

Nous sommes la jeunesse ardente
Qui vient escalader le ciel
Dans un cortège fraternel
Unissons nos mains frémissantes
Sachons protéger notre pain
Nous bâtirons un lendemain qui chante

We are the passionate youth
Who come to scale the heights
In fraternal procession
Unite our trembling hands
We know the way to defend our bread
We will build a singing tomorrow

Source: “Les chansons de GaucheCentenaire du Parti socialiste (1905-2005)

Backup @ Calameo: http://en.calameo.com/read/00011179026db4b7638cd

The explanation provided in the footer to the song at the web site of the Parti socialiste, in the section “Centenaire du Parti socialiste” (Centenary of the Socialist Party) describes the fifth and final stanza of the same song as an allusion to the Communist war-cry of the French Front. The French Front was the enlargement of the Front Populaire (Popular Front) to include Catholics and former members of the “Croix de Feu” (Cross of Fire).

The theme of “we will build a singing tomorrow” is taken up again by the militant Communist, Gabriel Péri, in his final letter, before being executed at Mount Valérien in December 1941: “je meurs pour des lendemains qui chantent” (“I die for singing tomorrows”).

Péri’s 59-page autobiographical letter was published posthumously in Paris in 1947 by Éditions sociales under the title, Les lendemains qui chantent. This was one year after Soviet agent Jean-Louis Gagnon’s May 1st telegram to the Communist May-Day rally in 1946.

However, the phrase was already current from Paul Vaillant-Couturier’s Communist battle hymn of 1937, Jeunesse.

See: SearchWorks catalog at Stanford University Libraries.
Les Lendemains qui chantent : autobiographie, Péri, Gabriel, 1902-1941. Paris : Éditions sociales, 1947.

Backup @ Calameo: http://en.calameo.com/read/00011179040bc00a0b84f

Paul Vaillant-Couturier (1892-1937) was a journalist, writer, member of the French parliament, and editor-in-Chief of the Communist review, l’Humanité.
 

Conclusion:

To sum up, the very title of this 1996 anthology — “Le goût du Québec. L’après référendum 1995. Des lendemains qui grincent… ou qui chantent?” — by a raft of socialists lamenting the 1995 Quebec referendum loss, appears to imply that the Left expected a Soviet conquest of Canada in 1995 by means of the ballot box.

International state recognition of Quebec and the other dismantled Provinces would have conferred a “treaty power” so that all might sign “treaties of accession to the European system”. A system that Mikhail Gorbachev has called “the new European Soviet”.

The phrase “les lendemains qui chantent” in the title of the 1996 book therefore suggests that Jean-Louis Gagnon’s “great Soviet Union” indeed has not collapsed: the Quebec referendums are a “specifically national tactic” — a part of its “Long Term Strategy” for complete Communist conquest.

Anatoliy Golitsyn warned in his books New Lies For Old, and The Perestroika Deception, that the Soviet Union did not collapse. It went “underground” in execution of a long-range strategy of “convergence” with and “restructuring” of Western countries.

The Quebec referendums under the Parti Québécois in 1980 and in 1995 were attempts to fundamentally restructure all of Canada for Communism. The referendums (for both political dismantling and horizontal east-west restructuring on the heels of socialist policies), are interspersed with “trade deals” for vertical north-south integration, restructuring and convergence.

The so-called “trade deals” are a pretext for the vertical integration of Canada, USA and Mexico into a Communist regional union.

So far, the power centers of the existing nation-state framework — although controlled from without — remain within their original countries. It is absolutely essential to recover constitutional control of these power centers — our national governments — before they are used to dismantle us. It may or may not be possible to do this politically; but it must be done, legally.

It is vital to launch constitutional challenges to unconstitutional action and to hammer our respective rogue governments with a torrent of constitutional lawsuits. The people must not be presumed to accept or to obey our unconstitutional regimes. Above all, we must not allow ourselves to be manipulated into cooperating or even seeming to cooperate with our nations’ demise. The international community views non-revolt as passive compliance.

A Final Closing Note

Looking over the list of writers who contributed to the 1996 anthology, most are not yet familiar to me. However, a couple stand out.

Peter G. White is President of the Canadian branch of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the world-government crowd, i.e., the Canadian Institute of International Affairs (CIIA) now called Canadian International Institute (CIC) and simply “Open Canada”. The CIC named billionaire Communism-promoter, George Soros, “Globalist of the Year” in 2010.

White is also Vice-president of the phony Council for Canadian Unity, which keeps the “secession” ball up in the air so Quebec can be used to dissolve what remains of the constitution of Canada for regional “union”, that being the real meaning of “unity”.

Also at the time of publishing the 1996 book, White is an associate of Conrad Black and is President and administrator of the Quebec branch of Black’s Hollinger Inc., which owns a slew of French-language Quebec daily newspapers, including Le Droit in Ottawa-Hull. Le Droit is known to have been involved in manipulating political affairs in Ontario linked to the 1998 Supreme Court of Canada “Quebec secession” Reference. (Well, it’s known to me, anyway, in addition to being known to the “secession” conspirators; I’ve done my homework. The case in question is Lalonde v. Ontario (Commission de restructuration des services de santé), 2001 CanLII 21164 (ON C.A.) [56 O.R. (3d) 577].

In addition, White was sitting on the Boards of Directors of Téléglobe, Télésystème Inc., and Southam Inc., all bastions of communications and media control. Through the CIIA and Southam, White is therefore linked to Power Corporation of Canada, which sits on the Board and Senate of the CIIA (world government), and which purchased the money-losing Southam chain of newspapers in 1994. Power Corp. thus acquired control of Quebec’s one and only English-language daily newspaper, The Montreal Gazette, the year before the 1995 Quebec referendum subject of the 1996 anthology.

Power Corp. appointed a new publisher, Michael Goldbloom to run The Gazette. Goldbloom, along with other Gazette figures including Editor, Sheila Fraser, published signed editorials urging English-speaking Canadians in Quebec to vote “Yes” in the upcoming 1995 referendum. Fraser was later appointed to Canada’s Senate where she led a Senate committee to unlawfully adopt the 1998 Secession opinion of the non-judicial advisory board of the Supreme Court of Canada as the so-called “Clarity Act”, a federal “law” purporting to authorize Quebec “secession”.

White moreover was principal Secretary to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney (Mr. NAFTA, i.e. Mr. Continental Union) from 1983 to 1986. From 1986 to 1988 White was chairman of Domgroup Ltd. and editor of Saturday Night Magazine: more media control.

White is linked to Maurice Sauvé, who sat on the secret committee of socialist-infested “Liberals” at Power Corporation of Canada. That secret committee of mostly Ministers from Quebec in the federal cabinet of Soviet agent Lester Bowles Pearson instructed Communist René Lévesque to create and lead the Parti Québécois (PQ) in 1967. The PQ ran both Quebec referendums to “secede” in 1995 and 1980. The PQ’s political manifesto is Communist; that’s the one I’ve been translating. Look for it in the sidebar: Quand nous serons vraiment chez nous.

Charles Taylor is a Rhodes Scholar with a PhD in philosophy from Oxford; and is President of the Quebec Section of the New Democratic Party (NDP), as well as leftist “guru” to the late Jack Layton, the former leader of Canada’s federal NDP, which is a full member of the Socialist International (SI) and signed up to world government. The NDP’s party constitution intends to abolish private property.

In the back of the 1996 anthology, Taylor is declared to be a “world recognized authority”, having published, amongst others, Explanation of Behaviour  (1964), Pattern of Politics  (1970), Hegel  (1975), Hegel and Modern Society  (1979), Philosophical Papers  (1985), Sources of the Self  (1989), and The Malaise of Modernity  (1991). Taylor is a member of the Royal Society of Canada and of the British Academy. As a Rhodes Scholar, he himself is undoubtedly one of the chief causes of the “malaise of modernity”.

Charles Taylor is perhaps best known in Quebec for his cheer-leading of the French Canadians in an attempt to destroy their racial and cultural homogeneity through a process of endless “reasonable accommodation” of the 200+ cultures of incoming mass-immigrated foreign races imported for the purpose of anti-national unconstitutional “multiculturalism”…. apparently the intended format of the upcoming multicultural regional North American Union.

______
* Lisée is counted among “former” “(translation:) leaders of Marxist-Leninist organizations in the 1970s, who joined the upper spheres of the bourgeois political class after having atoned for their “crimes” and expressed their repentance”. That quote is from issue No. 71 (20-11-2005) of the Drapeau Rouge Express (Red Flag Express), the online journal of the Parti Communiste Revolutionnaire (Revolutionary Communist Party). Also see the book: Ils voulaient changer le monde. Le militantisme Marxiste-Léniniste au Québec (They wanted to change the world. Marxist-Leninist militancy in Quebec) by sociologist, Jean-Philippe Warren. Lisée himself addresses the history in that book during a radio broadcast by the French-language CBC (Radio-Canada) entitled “Le marxisme-léninisme, une utopie?” aired on Monday, October 22nd, 2007. The thing is, Lisée is not a “former” Marxist-Leninist. He’s doing the regional union now, under protection of the so-called “bourgeoisie”, the super-capitalists. Lisée crafted the strategy for the 1995 Quebec referendum and wrote the question on the ballot.

In a review of the Warren book at http://www.revueargument.ca (Vol. 11, No. 1, Autumn 08 — Winter 09), both Lisée and Gilles Duceppe are introduced as coming from the “extreme left”: “… But as long as one is satisfied to grasp the adventure of the extreme-left by its most delirious and most disastrous end […] one will not be able to understand the reasons which led a number of educated and politicized young people — today occupying eminent positions in the media, the universities and the political parties (Jean-François Lisée, Gilles Duceppe, Robert Comeau, Alain Saulnier) — to give body and soul to the construction of a communist society from coast to coast.”

We are supposed to believe that these “former” Marxist-Leninists “repented” of their “crimes” and joined the “Establishment” in politics. I think that is as much of a myth as the Cold War and the fall of Communism. These men are conducting their revolution, right now, under protection of the so-called “bourgeoisie”, the bankers and the supercapitalists, without whose money the first Bolshevik Revolution could not have been done.

The Communist revolution is underway. They are replacing our populations with mass immigration, they are changing the form of government, eliminating international borders, they are forming the regional unions. Everything they are doing now in Establishment “politics” is what the Marxist-Leninists always wanted to do. Could it be that the Establishment has fooled the Marxist-Leninists? Or have the Marxist-Leninists fooled the Establishment?

Marxism and the Problem of a World State

FOREWORD:

The quotations below, taken from the work of Professor Grigoriĭ Ivanovich Tunkin, are offered in contemplation of the North American regional (Soviet) Union, extrapolated from the progressive “association” of nations in regional blocs first seen in Europe, emulated in South America and in Africa, and emerging now through deceptive “trade deals” in North America.

The ongoing mass immigration toward that end, the end of “Sovietism” or “communism”, also eradicates national borders while “amalgamating” and eliminating racial nations to whom “sovereignty” has heretofore been ascribed in the context of the “nation state”.

North American Soviet UnionBritannica has this to say about Professor Tunkin:

Grigory Ivanovich Tunkin, (born Sept. 30 [Oct. 13, New Style], 1906, Chamovo, Russia—died Aug. 23, 1993, Moscow), Soviet legal scholar and diplomat who played a major role in formulating Soviet foreign policy as a key adviser to Soviet leaders Nikita Khrushchev and Mikhail Gorbachev.

Tunkin graduated from the Moscow Law Institute in 1935 and received a doctorate from Moscow State University in 1938. He began his diplomatic career in 1939, with postings in such countries as Canada and Korea. From 1952 to 1965 he was head of the Treaties and Legal Division of the Soviet foreign ministry and was involved in both treaty drafting and treaty negotiation. He also taught law at Moscow State University during this period. Tunkin exerted considerable influence in the de-Stalinization movement that prevailed until Khrushchev’s political demise in 1964, and he is credited with initiating the theory of peaceful coexistence between the Soviets and the West.

Specializing in maritime and Antarctic law, Tunkin participated in several significant international law conferences. His published works include Foundations of Modern International Law (1956), Problems of the Theory of International Law (1962), Ideological Struggle and International Law (1967), Theory of International Law (1970), and International Law in the International System (1975). Tunkin also served as a delegate to the United Nations General Assembly. From 1964 to 1988 he was the head of the department of international law at Moscow State University.

A succinct but informative biography of Professor Grigoriĭ Ivanovich Tunkin appears under a mint copy of William E. Butler and Vladimir G. Tunkin’s The Tunkin Diary and Lectures, being The Diary and Collected Lectures of G. I. Tunkin at The Hague Academy of International Law published by Eleven International Publishing, 2012 (ISBN 10: 9490947539 / ISBN 13: 9789490947538) offered for sale by Abe Books.

“Grigoriĭ Ivanovich Tunkin was a Soviet jurist and diplomat who became a leading international lawyer in the Soviet Union. His interests were always multi-dimensional. From 1957 to 1966, Tunkin led the Soviet Union’s Legal Department of the Foreign Ministry. In 1961, he was President of the United Nations International Law Commission. Tunkin was professor and Chief of the Chair of International Law at Moscow State University’s Faculty of Law. He also served as President of the Soviet Association of International Law, from its founding in 1957 until his death. Tunkin’s textbooks on international law formed the core of the international law curriculum in the USSR for over 40 years. His works continued to have a lasting influence following the dissolution [sic! — so-called] of the USSR. The present volume brings together a set of materials unique to the Tunkin family and of considerable interest to historians of international law, legal doctrine, and international diplomacy. The book opens with recollections of Tunkin by his youngest son, Vladimir Grigorevich Tunkin, prompted by the discovery that Tunkin kept a diary when he traveled abroad. These are followed by the texts of Tunkin’s lectures at The Hague Academy of International Law, delivered on four occasions between 1958 and 1986.”

We are further informed by translator William E. Butler in his Introduction to his own English edition of Professor Grigoriĭ Ivanovich Tunkin’s Theory of International Law (Harvard University Press, 1974. ISBN 0-674-88001-3), that:

“From 1942 to 1944, Professor Grigoriĭ Ivanovich Tunkin was posted in Canada as counselor of the Soviet Embassy.”

That should suffice to establish the credibility of the quotations below as a reliable mirror of Soviet ideology. These are taken from Tunkin’s own Theory of International Law (supra), in the chapter entitled “The Legal Nature of International Organizations” in the section “Marxism and the Problem of a World State“.

Professor Grigoriĭ Ivanovich Tunkin

Professor Grigoriĭ Ivanovich Tunkin:

“Marxism-Leninism links the possibility of a world association of nations first and foremost with the liquidation of capitalism as the last exploitative socioeconomic formation and with the creation of a socialist society.” — p. 374

“The purpose of socialism,” wrote V. I. Lenin, “is not only to eliminate the splintering of mankind into petty states and any isolation of nations; is not only the rapprochement of nations, but also their amalgamation.”31 But in order to create the conditions for this, more than just the liquidation of private ownership and the creation of a socialist state is needed. Lenin pointed out that national and state differences among peoples and countries will last “for a very, very long time even after realization of the dictatorship of the proletariat on a world-wide scale.” — p. 374

“Even on the domestic plane in a number of instances socialism inherits from capitalism such deep roots of national discord and economic, political, and cultural inequality that a considerable time is required to liquidate them. In international relations, naturally, the matter is far more complex. Each state represents both a political and an economic unit. With the various historical strata of contradictions between states and between nationalities are associated a number of economic, political, cultural, and other problems.” — p. 374

“Within the framework of the world socialist system, however, these differences and contradictions gradually are being overcome on the basis of a new socialist social structure and Marxist-Leninist ideology. Various forms of state unions of socialist states are possible on the path to a classless, stateless communist society.” — p. 374

The creation of a world federation or another form of uniting free states and nations is conceivable, therefore, only on the path of liquidating private ownership, exploitation, class and national contradictions, on the path of constructing socialism and communism.” — p. 374

“A United States of the World (and not of Europe),” wrote V. I. Lenin, “is that state form of union and freedom of nations which we link with socialism, as the complete victory of communism does not lead to the final disappearance of any state, including a democratic state.” — p. 374-75

“The causes of war, whose liquidation is the leitmotif of all plans for a world state, bourgeois scholars misrepresent as state sovereignty, whereas the very existence of sovereign states is a natural consequence of the economic structure of society, and both sovereignty and the state will disappear only when this structure is changed.” — p. 375

“The deep roots of wars are found in the economic system and in the specific class structure of society which it determines. Moreover, bourgeois concepts of a world stale originate, and by their class nature can not but originate, from the possibility of creating a world state and liquidating wars without affecting the economic system of capitalism.” — p. 375

AFTERWORD:

The Canadian Yearbook of International Law, Volume 41; Volume 2003 edited by D.M. McRae offers a memorable statement ofn Tunkin’s legal value as an expositor of Soviet ideology in the framework of international law.

/ 619

Tunkin’s standing among Soviet international jurists of his vin­tage alone suffices to impart more than passing interest to this edi­tion. From the mid-1950s until he died in 1993, he bestrode Russian

/ 620

international legal scholarship as no jurist since F.F. Martens (1845-1909) had done.3 He outstripped contemporary Soviet jurists by combining distinguished academic appointments at home and abroad with a prominent role in formulating Soviet foreign policy in the post-Stalin era. His scholarly works underwent translation into various languages, including English, French, Spanish, Ger­man, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese. More than any other contemporary Soviet international jurist, he could expound authoritatively a theory of international law mirroring Marxist-Leninist ideology and Soviet geopolitical relations from the early 1950s onwards. Most likely, his exposition in the present edition will remain that era’s foremost exposition of Soviet thinking on international law — if not the foremost exposition of Soviet inter­national legal thought generally.

A central pillar of Tunkin’s theory of international law was his conviction that capitalist and socialist countries could coexist under norms of general international law. From 1956, he advanced a theory of “peaceful coexistence,” in which general international legal norms arose through agreement between states.4 As Butler has correctly remarked, this theory underpinned cooperation between capitalist and socialist countries at least until the Soviet Union col­lapsed in 1991.5

More immediately, Tunkin’s theory of “peaceful coexistence” informed his exposition of the international legal issues treated in the present edition.

More on Willy Brandt, René Lévesque and the Socialist International

René Lévesque - Attendez que je me rappelle...

In my post of January 4th, 2015, I published the first English translation of a 1982 letter of René Lévesque to the Socialist International (SI), scooped from the unpublished files of the Parti Québécois by the Fédération des Québécois de souche (FQS).

Let’s take another look at that letter.

The New American (Tuesday, 01 March 2011 15:40) in its article by Christian Gomez (“Involvement of Socialist International in 2011 Protests”), describes the origins of the Socialist International:

“Initially founded in Paris in 1889, the Second (or Socialist) International was led by Friedrich Engels — until his death in 1895 — in conjunction with other leaders. After being dissolved on the eve of the First World War, the SI, although by then committed to the ideals of Leon Trotsky*, reorganized in 1951, serving as an ally to the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact communist satellite republics.”

Source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/africa-mainmenu-27/6516-involvement-of-socialist-international-in-2011-protests

Backup @ Calameo: http://en.calameo.com/read/000747447955ecbba25a9

Friedrich Engels was a Socialist who wrote the Communist Manifesto with Karl Marx in 1848.

The New American goes on:

“During its 1962 Congress in Oslo, Norway, the Socialist International officially publicized its aims abroad, declaring, ‘The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government,’ adding, “Membership of the United Nations must be made universal.”

The text of the Declaration of the Socialist International endorsed at the Council Conference held in Oslo on 2-4 June 1962, is online at the web site of the SI, itself.

Source: http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=2133

Backup @ Calameo: http://en.calameo.com/books/000747447c87ba69f7cac

It says:

“SOCIALISM AND WORLD PEACE

“The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government. As a first step towards it, they seek to strengthen the United Nations so that it may become more and more effective as an instrument for maintaining peace.”

Again, The New American:

“Several years later, in 1976, Willy Brandt — the former Chancellor of West Germany who was forced to resign in 1974 after he was exposed as an agent of the Stasi, the KGB-backed secret police of communist East Germany — became the President of the SI, serving as its longest-running leader from 1976 to 1992….”

 

The Parti Québécois Adheres To The Goal
Of World Government:

With respect to both SI congresses, and in particular to the SI’s “1962 Congress in Oslo, Norway”, we note that René Lévesque, at page 1 of his 1982 letter to SI president Willy Brandt, requesting PQ membership in the Socialist International, specifically states, in the second to last paragraph on that page:

“… le Parti Québécois adhère sans aucune restriction aux principes énoncés dans les déclarations de Frankfort (1951) et d’Oslo (1962).”

“… the Parti Québécois adheres without any restriction to the principles enunciated in the declarations of Frankfort (1951) and Oslo (1962).”

Therefore, in 1982 when René Lévesque attempted to admit the Parti Québécois to the Socialist International, he was expressly assuring them of his support for their plan of world government.

Flattr this

 

But this is no surprise. In his Memoirs published in 1986, René Lévesque entitles a brief sub-chapter, “I Am a Federalist”. In that sub-chapter, he explains that he is a federalist “in world terms“. Here is a compressed extract:

KEY EXCERPT: 17. I Am a Federalist [ … ]

“All of this means that on two or three absolutely essential levels, the nation-state has had its day. It must give up part of its powers and resources to an authority that would be a Security Council for humanity at large. It’s not for tomorrow, of course. But if we want to count on a tomorrow, no other solution is in sight. There, at any rate, is what I think, and what I repeat every time I get a chance, and what I’ll risk saying again here: to put an end to the massacre of innocents, to give children everywhere a minimum of equal opportunities, one cannot be anything but federalist… at least in world terms.”

The chapter section can be viewed online, English edition, as published:

“I Am a Federalist” – chapter section in the Memoirs of René Lévesque (published 1986):
http://en.calameo.com/books/000111790e51d4555c0f5

The original chapter section in French, entitled “Je Suis Fédéraliste” – being a section of a chapter in the Memoirs entitled Attendez que je me rappelle… les Mémoires de René Lévesque (also published in 1986), is online here:

http://en.calameo.com/books/0001117901d697922e1af

The pertinent extract in the French-language Mémoires reads as follows (again, compressed to the point):

“Cela signifie que, sur deux ou trois plans absolument existentiels, l’État-nation a fait son temps. Il lui faudra céder cette portion de ses pouvoirs et de ses ressources à une autorité qui soit un Conseil de Sécurité pour l’humanité tout entière. Ce n’est pas demain la veille, bien sûr. Mais si l’on veut compter sur un demain, quelle autre issue ?

Pour ma part, en tout cas, ce que je pense et que je répète à chaque occasion, et que je me risque à écrire ici : pour mettre un vrai holà au massacre des innocents, pour donner aux enfants de partout un minimum d’égalité des chances, on ne peut qu’être fédéraliste. Mondialement parlant…”

René Lévesque was not a nationalist, a sovereignist or a patriot. He was a known Communist and a globalist.

As René Lévesque asserted in his 1982 letter to Willy Brandt, attempting admission of the Parti Québécois to the Socialist International, “… the Parti Québécois adheres without any restriction to the principles enunciated in the declarations of Frankfort (1951) and Oslo (1962).”

However, the Frankfurt Declaration of 1951, at its article 5, states as follows:

“5. In many countries uncontrolled capitalism is giving place to an economy in which state intervention and collective ownership limit the scope of private capitalists. More people are coming to recognise the need for planning. Social security, free trade unionism and industrial democracy are winning ground. This development is largely a result of long years of struggle by Socialists and trade unionists. Wherever Socialism is strong, important steps have been taken towards the creation of a new social order.”

A moderator of the May 9th, 1972 radio broadcast discussing the Parti Québécois manifesto, online at CBC Archives, (transcribed and translated into English here), quoted then-President of Bell Canada, Mr. Robert Scrivener, as characterizing

“this program as ‘dangerous’, ‘unrealistic’, and who envisioned a kind of ‘Apocalypse of Business’, if ever this program, if ever one attempted to apply this program.”

While the radio hosts and others attempted to link the manifesto to Swedish-style socialism, seasoned businessman and President of the Quebec Employers’ Council, Charles Perreault, declared:

“For all practical purposes here, they are going to give to the Government the role it plays in socialist countries in Eastern Europe. They are going to centralize production, they are going to construct plans – uh – coercive plans – and for all practical purposes, as I said – uh – give to the Government total control. And one must expect that the, the, the economy will progress pretty much like that of the Poles or the Czechs or the East Germans.” (11 min. 01 sec.)

Perreault continued:

“This is clearly a coercive – uh – which ref – uh, which represents the kind of, of – of, uh – of system known in socialist countries.

But surely not, surely not (the kind one finds in) Sweden, and surely not in France, either.” (12 min. 34 sec.)

Narciso Pizarro, a Marxist sociologist interviewed in the same broadcast, and who specializes in trade-unionism, admitted that the Parti Québécois manifesto took its inspiration from “the Yugoslav model“. (2 min. 26 sec.) The former Yugoslavia, of course, was a Communist state under Marshal Tito until his death in 1980. Thus, in 1972, at the time of the Parti Québécois manifesto, the plan for Quebec is admittedly Communist.

The Parti Québécois is therefore obviously Communist.

The referendums in Quebec to “secede” are an obvious device to acquire temporary sovereignty sufficient to sign “treaties” undertaking to destroy that same sovereignty in Communist regionalism subject to world government.

That regionalism, intended to stretch horizontally, East-West, with the “rest of Canada” signing on to the “partnership”, is moreover modeled on the regionalism now unfolded in Europe. At the time of the 1980 Quebec referendum it was called the European Economic Community; at the time of the 1995 Quebec referendum, it had become the European Union. By 2001, Mikhail Gorbachev was calling it “The New European Soviet“.

Both referendums failed — despite attempts to rig the outcome — thus the regionalization of North America was pursued vertically, North-South, by means of so-called “trade” deals to incorporate Canada, the USA and Mexico into a single unit. When NAFTA stalled, 9/11 occurred, conveniently kick-starting the final leg of the forced march to North American…. Soviet Union.

Building A North American CommunityIt should be no surprise that René Lévesque himself called his plan for the re-federation of Canada with a (temporarily) sovereign Quebec both a new “Canadian Union” and a new “Canadian Community.” These designations must be familiar…. they are clearly echoed in the Council on Foreign Relations’ 2005 blueprint for “Building A North American Community,” commonly known as the North American Union. They were also based on the European Economic Community, and the European Union.

Moreover, one of the signatories to the 2005 “Building A North American Community” plan is Pierre-Marc Johnson, leader of the Parti Québécois after Lévesque, and therefore the Communist Premier of Quebec. The North American Union, modeled on the European Union — the “New European Soviet” — must therefore be Communist.

As to who really founded the Parti Québécois — because René Lévesque is just the front man — I’ll give you that in another post another day.
______
* Leon Trotsky, also known as “Lev Bronstein”.

– 30 –

Flattr this

 

UPDATE: FREE DOWNLOAD now available for researchers:

Download a FREE 18-MB copy of QUAND NOUS SERONS VRAIMENT CHEZ NOUS

The 7zip folder contains: (1) the AUDIO TAPE of the French CBC radio show discussing the Manifesto; (2) The Table of Contents of the Manifesto (Translated); (3) an 18-MB PDF file of the manifesto (scanned at the law library of the French University of Montreal; (4) an OCR of the manifesto.

QUAND – The PQ Manifesto – PDF file & OCR.zip

OR:

QUAND – The PQ Manifesto – PDF file & OCR.zip

 

 

 

 

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 –