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.

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 New Treason of the Clerics: Pierre Elliott Trudeau

Pierre Elliott Trudeau [1919-2000]

The New Treason
of the Clerics

English translation
by Kathleen Moore
13 April 2013

FOR The legal research purposes of Habeas Corpus Canada
The Official Legal Challenge to North American Union

http://www.habeascorpuscanada.com

MORE SITES IN THE NETWORK:

http://www.NoSnowinMoscow.com
http://www.MyTalkCanada.com
http://www.AliceinReferendumland.com
http://www.KidsCorner.brightpathwaypoems.com
http://www.nosnowinmoscow.wordpress.com

This English translation was prepared from a scan of the original article in the April 1962 issue of Cité Libre magazine. Cité Libre was founded and run by Communist Gérard Pelletier, who invited his Communist friend, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, to join him. Cité Libre also employed two men who left the magazine to launch even more radical publications, and to lead one or more cells of the F.L.Q. terrorists:  Pierre Vallières and Charles Gagnon. [KM]

Article Source: Pierre Elliott Trudeau, “La nouvelle trahison des clercs“, Cité libre, 46 (April, 1962)

The French article was scanned & PDF’d and is available here:
http://www.calameo.com/books/0001117909ba2ab905133

Pierre Elliott Trudeau, The New Treason of the Clerics, Cité Libre,April 1962April 1962
SPECIAL ISSUE DEVOTED TO

separatism

RECOMMENDED:  READ THE “RED-STARRED” QUOTES FIRST, THEN THE ARTICLE

Notable Quote

Footnotes are Trudeau’s and are boxed like this and inserted as they arise. Their placement therefore differs from that in the 1962 print article.  Memorable quotes have been highlighted with Red Stars.

 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 

Notable QuoteMen whose function is to defend eternal and impartial values, such as justice and reason, and whom I will call the clerics, have betrayed this function for practical interests… The purpose for which the clerics consummated their treason was above all the nation.

(Julien Benda, La trahison des clercs1)

FN 1  Julien Benda, La trahison des clercs, Paris, 1927 and 1946.

 
I – The Geographic Perspective

It is not the idea of the nation that is retrogressive, it is the idea that the nation must necessarily be sovereign.

To which the Quebec Independentists rejoin that an idea is not retrogressive which has permitted India, Cuba and a multitude of African states to obtain their independence.

This reasoning posits the equation: independence equals progress. Independence, they say, is good in itself. And to confound the enemy, they turn upon him the aphorism: Good government is no substitute for self-government.

The frequent recourse had to this old lampoon (which is invariably misquoted – but, must everybody know English?) indicates the extent to which our Separatists are confused in spirit. Self-government does not mean national self-determination. (This is not a question of linguistic brilliance: it is a question of knowing what one is talking about when one demands the independence of Quebec.) Let us therefore distinguish between the two notions.

That self-government is a good thing, or more precisely that the tendency toward a system of government called “responsible” is generally a trend towards progress, I wish to concede at the outset of this article. I have too often denounced the autocracy of the Union Nationale in Quebec, and the paternalism of the Liberals and the Socialists in Ottawa, to be suspect on this point. I have always maintained that the population of Quebec will never progress toward political maturity and the mastery of its own destinies, until they themselves give true responsible government a try, at the same time rejecting ideologies which preach blind submission to “the authority which comes from God”, and those who yield with confidence to Ottawa for the solution of our difficult problems.

But, I called for “freedom in the City” said G.C.2 What they are demanding today is “freedom of the City”, which is the absolute independence of the French-Canadian nation, the full and complete sovereignty of Laurentie. In short, national self-determination.2

FN 2 “Lettre d’un nationaliste”. [Letter from a nationalist] Cité Libre, Montréal, mars 1961, p. 6.

“Since the end of the Second World War,” writes Marcel Chaput, “something above thirty nations, former colonies, freed themselves from foreign tutelage and acceded to national and international sovereignty. In the course of the 1960s alone, seventeen African colonies, of which fourteen were of the French language, had thus obtained their independence. And voilà, today, it is the French-Canadian people who begin to rise up and who also now claim their place among the free nations.”3

FN 3 M. Chaput, Pourquoi je suis séparatiste, [Why I am a separatist] Montreal, 1961, p. 18.

Certainly, Mr. Chaput rushes to recognize that French Canada possesses more power than those peoples ever possessed. But it does not have total independence and “its destiny resides, in very large measure, in the hands of a nation that is foreign to it.”

The ambiguity remains total.

Because, the quasi-totality of these “thirty countries, former colonies” are States, as Canada is a State; they have acceded to full sovereignty, as Canada did in 1931. These countries in no way constitute nations in the sense in which the French-Canadians would be a nation. In consequence, the operation which consists of placing the independence of Quebec into the historical current so as to find spiritual sources within it, is pure sophistry.

The State of India is a sovereign republic. But there, 4 languages are officially recognized (which doesn’t include English or Chinese, or Tibetan, or the innumerable dialects. There exist eight principal religions, of which a number are irreducibly opposed to one another. Where is the nation? And what independence does one intend to cite here as the example?

The State of Ceylon counts three principal ethnic groups and four religions. In the Federation of Malay, there are three ethnic groups. The Burmese Union contrasts within it a half-dozen nationalities. The Indonesian Republic includes at least a dozen national groups, and there, twenty-five principal languages are spoken. In Viet-Nam, in addition to the Tonkinois, the Annamites and the Cochinchinois, eight major tribes are counted.

In Africa, the multi-ethnic character of the new States is even more striking. The borders of these sovereign countries are nothing but the former boundaries of the colonialists, the random tracings of conquests, explorations and administrative fancy. In consequence, members of one and the same tribe, speaking the same language and having the same traditions, have become citizens of different States, and these States are often hardly more than conglomerations of distinct and rival groups. We see a little of what this gives in the former Belgian Congo. But we find practically the same ethnic complexity if we look at Ghana, the Sudan, Nigeria, or almost anywhere else. In Western French Africa, for example, the population is composed of some ten sparse tribes; France found it convenient to clip it into eight territories. History transformed these territories into sovereign States. One would search in vain there for Nation-States, which is to say Nations whose borders obey ethnic or linguistic imperatives.4

FN 4 We find most of these facts in the Statesman’s Year Book, London, annually.

As to Algeria under the Provisional Government of the Algerian Republic, which our Independentists always cite as an example, it is not hard to see in what sense it wishes to be a State. In addition to inhabitants of French, Spanish, Italian, Jewish, Greek and Levantine origine, in this country there must be distinguished Berbers, Kabyles, Arabs, Maures, Negroes, the Touaregs, the Mzabites5, and several métis nations. In particular, we have not heard the last of the Kabylian-Arab confrontation.

Finally, as to Cuba, which always comes up in separatist discussions as an example to follow, this is avowedly a pure deceit. That country was sovereign under Batista and it is sovereign under Castro. It was economically dependent before, and it still is now. Self-government

FN 5 The Encyclopaedia Britannica.

did not exist there before, and it still doesn’t exist there today. Good, and what does that prove? That Castro is not Batista? Certainly; but Hydro-Quebec under René-Lévesque is not Hydro-Quebec under Daniel Johnson. Here, we are quite advanced towards separatism….

The upshot of all this is that in posing independence as a good thing in itself, an affair of dignity for every “normal people”, we launch the world on a strange war-ship. It has been claimed that any sincere anti-colonialist who wants independence for Algeria must also want it for Quebec. This reasoning contends that Quebec is a political dependency, which is to be ill informed of one’s constitutional history; but even if that were the case, to be logical one must rather say that any Quebec Separatist must advocate the independence of the Kabyles or, to give a more striking example, the independence of the some 25-million Bengalis comprised in the Indian State… If the Separatists, to confuse me, reply that they do advocate this independence for Bengal, I would ask them why stop there: in Bengal, they speak 90 different languages; and then, again, there are the Bengalis of Pakistan … And there we have a lot of prospective secessions!

To end with the original aphorism, I would thus be tempted to conclude that good government is a damned good substitute for national self-determination, if one means to invoke by this latter term the right of ethnic or linguistic groups to afford themselves absolute sovereignty. It even seems sufficiently urgent, for world peace and the wellbeing of new States, that this form of “good government” which is democratic federalism be perfected and spread, in order to resolve to some degree everywhere the problems of ethnic pluralism. To that end, as I will suggest further on, Canada could be called to play a role as mentor, provided that it knows how to opt for grandeur … John Conway wrote, concerning TRUE FEDERALISM: “Its successful adoption in Europe would go a long way towards ensuring the survival of TRADITIONAL WESTERN CIVILIZATION. It would be a pity if, in Canada, so young, so rich and vigorous, and plagued with so few really serious problems, the attempt should fail.”6

FN 6 In the Catholic Historical Review, July 1961.

Speaking of federalism, it seems well established that President Wilson – the great apostle of the “principle of nationalities”—had no intention whatsoever of advocating nationalist secessions, but that he rather wished to affirm the right of nationalities to a certain autonomy inside States.7

7 S. Wambaugh, “National Self-Determination”, Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, New York, 1950.

Moreover, it is false to affirm, as do so many of our Independentists, that this principle of nationalities is recognized at international law and sanctioned by the United Nations. Rather than borrow the ambiguous expression used by Wilson – and to find themselves – as after the first Great War, faced with a new wave of referendums and secessions — they have preferred to speak – according to Article 1 of the [UN] Charter – of the right of peoples to self-determination. “Peoples”, is quite another thing than “ethnic groups”.8

8 The obstacle-strewn political language will have been noted. The word nation, or nationality, from the Latin nasci (to be born), most often points to an ethnic community having a common language and customs. The Japanese nation. It is in this sense that one speaks of the principle of nationalities as leading to a national State or to a Nation-State. But the inverse also happens, that it is the State, originally formed of several ethnic communities, which gives birth to a nation: the word is then heard of a political society long having a territory and interests in common. The Swiss nation. In Canada, as I will explain below, there is not, nor will be, a Canadian nation unless and as long as the ethnic communities succeed in excorcizing their respective nationalities.

Notable QuoteIf a Canadian nationalism is born, it would have to be excorcised in turn, and demand that the Canadian nation abdicate a part of its sovereignty in favour of some superior order, as it is asked today of the French-Canadian and British-Canadian nations.

(For a discussion of the vocabulary, see the remarkable essay by E. H. Carr, in Carr et al. Nations ou fédéralisme, [Nations or Federalism] Paris 1946, p. 4).

 
II — The Historical Perspective

If it is difficult to base the idea of the Nation-State on the anti-colonial evolution of recent years, then what of History in general?9

FN 9 Among others, see M. H. Boehm and C. Hayes “Nationalism”, E.S.S.

From the dawn of time, there has been man, and also undoubtedly – given the nature of man – this other reality which is called the family. Then, very soon, the tribe appears, a kind of primitive community, founded on common customs and an idiom.

Now, the history of civilization is the history of the subordination of tribal “nationalism” to broader memberships. Without doubt, clan loyalties and regional attachments always existed. But thought developed, knowledge spread, inventions became known and humanity progressed wherever there was interpenetration of tribes and exchange among them, under the influence of the division of labor and of trade, in the grip of the great conquests (from Egypt and China up to the Holy Roman Empire), and beneath the dust of universalist religions from Buddhism to Islam, by way of Christianity.

Finally, after more than 65 centuries of history, with the break-up of the medieval order, the regression of Latin as the language of the well educated man, and the birth of the individualist mystique, the modern notion of the nation began to develop in Europe. The replacement of the Catholic Church by national Churches, the rise of the bourgeoisies, mercantilism the protector of territorial economies, the outrages committed against certain ethnic groups such as the Polish, the Jacobin Revolution, the Mazzini fervor, the domination of poor nations by industrialized nations such as England, were some of the factors which contributed to giving birth to national aspirations, these then leading to the setting up of successive national States. The countries of Latin America revolted against Spain. Italy and Germany had their wars of unification. The Greeks and the Slavs rebelled against the Ottoman Empire, Ireland rose up against Great Britain. In short, all Europe and a large part of America, went up in flames. The era of national wars, begun at the time of Napoleon, knew its apogee with the two World Wars. And we are ergo entering the epoc when nations pride themselves on the possession of nuclear arms, while waiting to defend themselves by using them.

Some seven thousand years of history in three paragraphs is obviously a bit short. I will speak of the rest a little longer, below. But it is enough to reflect now on three observations.

The first is that the nation is not a “biological” reality, I want to say a community which ensues from the very nature of man. Except for a small fraction of its history, humanity lived and civilization progressed without membership in a nation. This, to reassure our young people who see the least breach in the sovereignty of a nation as an apocalyptic event.

The second is that the little particle of history which is marked by the emergence of the Nation-States, is also that of the most devastating wars, the most numerous atrocities and the most degrading collective hatreds of the whole human epic. Up to the end of the XVIIIth Century, it was generally the sovereigns who made war, rather than the nations; and while their sovereigns made war, the civil populations continued to call on one another, the merchants crossed the borders, men of letters and philosophers went freely from one court to another, leaders of armies took scholars under their protection in the conquered cities. In this era, war killed the military, but she respected the civilizations. Whereas in our time, we have seen nations mobilized against Germany refuse to listen to Beethoven, others estranged from China boycott the Peking Opera, still others refuse visas or passports to scholars wishing to attend some scientific or humanitarian convention in a country of a different ideology. Pasternak could not even go to collect his Nobel Prize at Stockholm. The concept of nation, which gives so little priority to science and to culture, cannot place truth, liberty and life itself above itself on the scale of values. It is a concept which putrefies everything: in times of peace, the clerics become propagandists of the nation and the propaganda makes the lie; in times of war, democracies slide toward dictatorship, and dictatorships drag us into the world of concentration camps; and ultimately, after the massacres in Ethiopia, there were those of London and Hamburg, then those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and maybe so on until the final massacre. I well know that the idea of the Nation-State is not the sole cause of all the evils of war: modern technology is good for some of it! But the important point is that this idea has been the cause of wars becoming more and more total for two centuries: it is therefore this idea that I am fighting here. Moreover, each time the State takes as its foundation an exclusive and intolerant idea (religion, nation, ideology), this idea has been the mainspring of wars. It has happened, in times past, that religion ceased to be the foundation of the State, so as to put an end to the horrifying religious wars.

Notable QuoteInternational wars will not be finished except in similar conditions, the nation ceasing to be the basis of the State.10 As for inter-State wars, they will not cease unless the States renounce that attribute which renders them exclusive and intolerant: sovereignty.

FN 10 See Emery Reves, A Democratic Manifesto, London 1943, p. 43. Read as well, by the same author, The Anatomy of Peace, New-York 1945.

So – to get back to my intention – what troubles me in the fact that five million Canadians of French origin cannot come to share their sovereignty with seven million Canadians of British origin, beside whom they live, and who they know generally do not have fleas, it’s that this gives me little hope that some thousand million Americans, Soviets and Chinese, who have never seen each other and one of whom is not sure the other is not scabby, consent to abdicate a particle of their sovereignty over nuclear arms.

Notable QuoteThe third observation that I derive from the unfolding of history is that the very idea of the Nation-State is absurd.

To affirm that nationality must hold the plenitude of sovereign powers is to pursue a goal which which self-destructs at the moment of its achievement. Because every national minority which would be liberated will discover almost invariably within itself a new national minority which will have the same right to claim liberty. That way, the chain of revolutions must continue until the last-born in the descent of the Nation-States uses force against the same principle to which it owes its own existence. This is why the principle of nationalities has brought to the world two centuries of wars and revolutions, but not a single definitive solution. France still has its Bretons and its Alsacians, England its Scottish and its Welsh, Spain its Catalans and its Basques, Yugoslavia its Croats and its Macedonians, Finland its Swedes and its Laps, and so on for Belgium, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, the USSR, China, the United States, all the countries of Latin America, and still what do I know? With regard to States that are more or less homogeneous as to nationality, or those which have not had enough of their problems of secession, they create problems of accession: Ireland wants its six counties of Ulster, Indonesia wants New Guinea, Mussolini’s nationalist Italy, once it had finished with its irredentas, had imagined reconquering the Roman Empire. Hitler would not be satisfied with anything less than the conquest of the whole non-Aryan world – As to the Quebec Separatists, they too will have bread to slice: if their principles are just, they must push them up to the annexation of a part of Ontario, of New Brunswick, of Labrador, and of New England; but, on the other hand, they must let go certain regions at the border of Pontiac and Témiscamingue, and make of Westmount the Dantzig of the New World.

Notable QuoteSo therefore, the concept of the Nation-State, which has succeeded in delaying the march of civilization, has not even been able to resolve – if this were not absurd – the political problems that it came to create.

And when civilization nonetheless managed to get by, that is when clerics were found capable of placing faith in man above membership in a nation: Pasternak, Oppenheimer, Joliot-Curie, Russell, Einstein, Freud, Casais, and how many others who have answered: Epur si muove to the national interest.

“Man,” said Renan, “belongs neither to his language, nor to his race; he belongs only to himself, because he is a free being, which is to say, a moral being.”11

FN 11 Cited by Benda, op. cit., p. 143.

Listen as well to Father Delos: “The question is to know if man is made to abound in his historical being, if history is above man, if the human does not constitute a reserve which overflows all culture, all civilization achieved by history and carrying the name of City, if this is not to deny the value of man by reducing him to identifying with a people.”12

FN 12 J. T. Delos, La Nation, Montreal 1944, vol. I. p. 196. See also an excellent article of Professor Maurice Tremblay of Laval, “Réflexions sur le nationalisme”. Les Écrits du Canada français, vol. V, Montréal 1959.

 
III — Genesis of Nationalisms

Notable QuoteAbsurd in its principle and retrograde in its application, the idea of the Nation-State has nonetheless enjoyed and still enjoys extraordinary favour.

Where does it come from? That is what I would now like to examine.

The birth of the modern State takes place toward the end of the fourteenth Century. Up till then, the feudal structures had sufficed to maintain order in Europe where the means of communication were limited, where the economy and commerce had an essentially local base and where, as a consequence, the political administration could be greatly decentralized. But, as commerce gradually spread and diversified, as the economy required a larger and better protected plate, and as the kings were able to give free rein to their ambitions, the rising bourgeois classes allied with the reigning monarchs to replace feudal power and the free cities with a strong and unified State. In 1576, Jean Bodin understood that the new and essential characteristic of such States was “sovereignty”, and he defined it as the “supreme power” over citizens and subjects, not limited by law.

Absolute monarchy ruled for several centuries over these sovereign States. But these were not yet the Nation-States; because the borders were always family affairs, in the sense that these borders still moved at random according to marriages and wars between the diverse reigning families. Nationalities were of such little account that Louis XIV, for example, after having annexed Alsace, in no way forbade the use of the German language; only twenty years later would French language schools be introduced there. 13

FN 13 Benda, op. cit. p. 268, citing Vidal de la Blache, La France de l’Est.

Individualism, scepticism and rationalism continued, however, to undermine the traditional powers. And the moment came when the absolute monarch himself had to abdicate to the bourgeoisie, his former ally. Before the disappearance of the dynasties induced a weakening of the State, a new agent of cohesion was in the works: popular sovereignty, or democratic power.

Democracy opened first to the bourgeois classes, then much later to the popular classes, the routes by which all could participate in the exercise of political power. The State appeared then as the instrument by which eventually all the classes, which is to say the whole nation, could assure itself of peace and prosperity. And naturally, all wished this instrument to be as strong as possible vis-à-vis the other Nation-States. It is thus that nationalism is born, from the union of liberal democracy with the egalitarian mystique.

But alas! this nationalism, by a singular paradox, rapidly distanced itself from the ideas that had presided at its birth. Because, as soon as the sovereign State was placed at the service of the nation, it is the nation that became sovereign, which is to say, above the laws. It mattered little that the prosperity of some signified the ruin of others. Nations historically strong, those who were the first to industrialize, those which had inherited strategic or institutional leads, soon understood the advantages of their situation. The rulers allied with the ruled, the possessors with the dispossessed, and this whole mob -– in the name of the nationalism which bound them -– went to enrich themselves and to plume themselves at the expense of the weak nations.

National egoisms then decked themselves out in the required labels: political Darwinism, Nietzschean mystique, the white man’s burden, civilizing mission, pan-slavism, magyarization, and all this other trash which authorized the strong to oppress the weak.

But in every case, the result was the same: the nations dominated, cut off, exploited and humiliated conceived a hatred beyond measure for their oppressors; and united in this hatred, they invented against this aggressor nationalism a defensive nationalism. Thus were ignited a chain of wars which have not finished inflaming the planet.

It is inside this global nationalist phenomenon that the sub-sub-Quebec case of the Canadian sub-case must be considered. The Seven Years’ War, through a complicated system of alliances and interests, pitted against each other five great European powers. France and Russia fought beside Austria, while England aligned with Prussia. But when Louis XV came to the aid of Marie-Therese with his armies and his supplies, in the hope of expanding the French presence in Europe, Pitt sent a large sum of sterling to Frederic II but few soldiers: these boarded English fleets to go and bring defeat to France in India and in America, and to lay the foundations of the most formidable empire the world had known. We know what happened next:  by the Treaty of Paris, Canada amongst others – became English.14

FN 14 Read a passionate chapter of J. Dalberg-Acton, Lectures on Modern History, London 1906, p. 274.

At this time, the English were already the most nationalist of men. The whole country, proud of its political and economic superiority, was in accord to go and plant its flag, its commerce and its institutions in the most remote lands. This nationalism was inevitably also cultural, and the English were convinced that the countries they colonized enjoyed an absolutely unmerited blessing: that of being able to communee in the language and under the customs of the anglo-saxons. Soon enough, the English who put such ingenuity and political genius into developing at home the cult of civil liberties, never had the idea of protecting the rights of minorities.
15

FN 15 By 1759, “English public law had not worked out any theory of minority rights guaranteed by law”, writes Dean [of Law] F. R. Scott in Mason Wade ed., Canadian Dualism, Toronto 1960, p. 100.

From the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the intention to completely assimilate the French Canadians was obvious. And in 1840, Durham –all the while “far from wishing to encourage indiscriminately (these) pretentions to superiority on the part of any particular race” — still considered that assimilation was nothing more than a “question of time and mode”.16

FN 16 Reginald Coupland, ed., The Durham Report, Oxford 1945, p. 153. See also p. 179.

Throughout this whole period, Canadians of British origin had considered it to be an indignity that their race might be in an inferior position; also, they invented all sorts of stratagems thanks to which democracy came to signify government by the minority.17

FN 17 I continue the story in a chapter in Mason Wade ed., Canadian Dualism, Toronto 1960, p. 252 et seq.

Generations passed. The hope of assimilating the French Canadians finished by being sidelined (although the laws continued up to 1948 to favor immigration from the British Isles, as opposed to that coming from France). But the sentiment of superiority was never renounced and has never ceased to characterize the attitude of English-language Canadians vis-à-vis the French Canadians.

In Ottawa, and in the other provinces, this nationalism could wear the pious mask of democracy. Because, to the extent that English-language Canadians became more numerous, they set out to hide their intolerance under cover of majority rule: thanks to this rule, they could “democratically” suppress bilingualism in the legislative assembly of Manitoba, violate acquired rights in the separate schools of the sundry provinces, ferociously impose conscription in 1917, and in 1942 break their word.18

FN 18André Laurendeau recently recounted with much lucidity how, during the plebiscite of 1942, the State was placed at the service of British-Canadian nationalism and how it abused the numerical weakness of the French Canadians to renege on its promises to them. (La crise de la conscription, [The Conscription Crisis] Montreal 1962). A story of even greater dishonor could be written concerning the oppression exerted by this same State against the Japanese-Canadian minority during the same war.

In Quebec, “where they had not the numbers but they had the money, our fellow citizens (Britanno-Canadians) often yielded to the temptation to act disproportionately with the means which they had.”19

FN 19 P. E. Trudeau, “Réflexions sur la politique au Canada français” [Reflections on politics in French Canada], Cité Libre, Montreal, December, 1952, p. 61.

In politics, British-Canadian nationalism thus took the forms that André Laurendeau admirably christened with the name “theory of the nigger king “. As to economics, this nationalism essentially consisted of considering the French Canadian as “un cochon de payant” [a pig who pays:KM]; but sometimes magnanimity was pushed so far as to place straw men — whose names came “clearly from among us ” — on the boards of directors, these men were all alike in that: primo, they were never sufficiently competent and strong to be able to rise to the top, and secondo, they were always sufficiently “representative” to please the nigger king and to flatter the vanity of his tribe. Finally, in social and cultural matters, British-Canadian nationalism expressed itself quite simply by contempt: whole generations of anglophones have lived in Québec without managing to learn three sentences of French. When these audacious individuals seriously affirm that their jaw and their ears were not so made that they could adapt themselves to French, they want in fact to make you understand that they refuse to debase these organs, and their small spirits in placing them at the service of a barbaric idiom.

The British-Canadian nation will engender, as was inevitable, French-Canadian nationalism. As I write this, speaking of the genesis of our nationalism at the same time as characterizing it as a futile orientation: “For a conquered people, occupied, decapitated, evicted from the commercial arena, pent up outside the cities, reduced little by little to a minority, and diminished in influence in a country it had withal discovered, explored and colonized, there existed few other attitudes which might allow him to preserve that which had made him who he was. This people created for itself a security system, but in exaggerating it, perhaps attached a value disproportionate to all that distinguished it from others, and viewed with hostility any change (even if it was progress) which was proposed to him from outside.20 And I would add:  “Alas! It is the very idealism of the nationalists which undoes them. They loved not wisely but too well.”

FN 20 P. E. Trudeau, ed. La grève de l’amiante [The Asbestos Strike], Montreal 1956, p. 11.

 
IV— Interaction of the Nationalisms in Canada

Notable QuoteOne must take History as it is. However retrogressive and absurd may be the idea of the Nation-State, it remains that this idea inspired the essence of the policy of the British, then the British-Canadians, with respect to the Dominion of Canada.

Roughly speaking, it was a matter for them of identifying the Canadian State as much as possible with the British-Canadian nation.

Since the French-Canadians had the poor grace to refuse assimilation, this identification could never be perfect. But the British Canadians nonetheless gave themselves the illusion in isolating the French Fact as much as possible in the Quebec Ghetto – and whose powers they often trimmed through centralizing measures – and in fighting with a stunning ferocity against all the symbols which might destroy this illusion outside of Quebec: the use of French on stamps, coins, cheques, in the public service, the railways and the whole bazaar.

Against this aggressor-nationalism, what alternative – let’s say for a Century – was open to the French-Canadians? On the one hand, they might confront the idea of a British-Canadian dominatrix of a Nation-State with the idea of a sheared-off French-Canadian Nation-State;

Notable Quoteon the other hand, they could disconnect from this concept of the Nation-State and drag Canada down the road to a multi-national State.

The first choice was, and still is, that of the Separatists or Independentists. An essentially emotional and passionate option – as it is of the rest of the cause she is fighting – I could never see the wisdom in it. Because, either it is destined to succeed; and this would be proof that the nationalism of the British-Canadians was neither intransigent, nor vigorous, nor armed, nor very dangerous for us:  then I ask myself why are we afraid to confront these people within a pluralist State, and why would we renounce our rights to be at home a mari usque ad mare. Either the Independentist option is doomed to fail, and the final condition of these people will be worse than the first: not because a conquering and vindictive enemy had deported a part of the population and left to the other reduced rights and a despoiled heritage – this eventuality seems to me hardly probable; but because the French Canadians once again would have channeled all their energies into (hypothetically) futile battles which ought better to have been spent in rivaling the excellence, the audacity and the stubbornness of an (hypothetically) dangerous enemy.

Notable QuoteThe second choice (that of the multinational State) was, and remains, that of the Constitutionalists:  it consists in repudiating the warlike and self-destructive idea of the Nation-State and substituting therefor the civilizing idea of polyethnic pluralism.

– I recognize that in some countries in certain eras this option might not have been possible, and notably when the aggressor-nationalism enjoyed a crushing superiority and refused all compromise with national minorities. Was this the case at the time of Papineau and the Patriotes? I doubt it. But in any case, this independentist adventure was sealed by an Act of Union which –- on the plane of minority rights –- was a retreat compared to the Constitutional Act of 1791.

As a question of fact, this second choice was, and remains, possible for the French Canadians. The multi-national State could have been dreamed of by Lafontaine, carried out by Cartier, perfected by Laurier, and enfranchised by [Henri] Bourassa. Because British-Canadian nationalism never enjoyed a crushing superiority, nor had been in a position to refuse all compromise with the principal national minority; in consequence, it could not have followed the policy that its haughtiness might have preferred, and would have had to accept whatever events imposed upon him.

First, it was The Quebec Act, passed under threat of the American revolution. Then it was the terrible long night – some three-quarters of a century – during which the British Canadians were less numerous than the French Canadians; as Mason Wade notes with respect to the Loyalists: “They were badly scared men, who had lived through one revolution in America and dreaded another in Canada”.21 Finally, it was the perpetual threat of American domination which obliged Canadian nationalism –- willy nilly –- to take account of the French-Canadian nationality: because otherwise, it would have been practically impossible to link together the different colonies of British North America.

FN 21 Wade, The French Canadians 1760-1945, Toronto 1955, p. 93.

In sum, poor British-Canadian nationalism has never had very much to crow about. Those who were clairvoyant enough to understand this, among the French Canadians, those whom I call the Constitutionalists, naturally wagered on the multi-national State, and called upon their citizens to work on it with boldness and with hope. Those who on the contrary did not understand it have never ceased to fear an adversary largely imaginary. These are composed: Primo, of the assimilated and the “bonne-ententists” who would accept that the Nation-State be built upon the cadaver of the French-Canadian nation; but they had neither the numbers nor the weight, and I eliminate them as a factor in the problem. And, secundo, the Separatists, the Independentists and the Nationalists of every stripe, who put their courage and their talent into raising up against the British-Canadian nationalism a contrary nationalism. These people have never ceased to communicate to our people what Gérard Pelletier has quite accurately called “the siege mentality”. As I wrote one day, “the siege has long been over, the human caravan has forged a hundred leagues ahead, nonetheless, we implacably are cooking in our own juices not daring to cast a look over the walls. 22

FN 22 In (eh! oui) Notre Temps, [Our Time], Montreal, 15 Nov. 1947.

If the Canadian State gave so little room to the French-Canadian nationality, it is above all because we didn’t make ourselves indispensable to the pursuit of its destiny. Today, for example, it would seem fine that a Sévigny or a Dorion might leave the federal Cabinet, as Courtemanche left it, without causing irreparable damage to the machinery of government or the country’s prestige. And if we exempt Laurier, I don’t see a single French-Canadian for over a half a century whose presence in the federal Cabinet could be considered as indispensable to the history of Canada such as it has been made – except on the electoral plane evidently where the tribe has always had its enchanters.

Notable QuoteSimilarly, at the level of high functionaries, I doubt that one could name even one who had happily inflected the course of our administrative evolution, in the sense for example that an O.D. Skelton, a Graham Towers or a Norman Robertson had done.

[NB: Trudeau is praising suspected Communist subversive Norman Robertson; and a pretty much known agent of the Comintern, O. D. Skelton, who infiltrated Canada’s federal level a few years before the Statute of Westminster, 1931. KM]

Consequently, if one examines the few nationalist “victories” which have been won at Ottawa after long years of battle, one could probably not find even one which had not been won in one Cabinet session by one of our representatives, who had the calibre of a C.D. Howe. It must be said, all the French-Canadian ministers together have hardly ever been able to weigh as much as a bilingual check or the name of an hotel.

[NB: C.D. Howe: Rhodes secret society for world government. KM]

At bottom, the British Canadians have never been strong but in our weakness. And this was true not only in Ottawa, but in Quebec itself, a veritable charnel house where half our rights were lost through dilapidation and decrepitude, while the other half was devoured by the worm of civic dispirit and the microbe of venality. In these conditions, can one be too surprised that the British Canadians have not wished that the face of this country comprise a few French features? And why would they have wanted to learn a language or participate in a culture that we took such pains to degrade at all levels of our own system of education?

It is without a doubt true that if English-language Canadians had applied to learning the French language a quarter of the diligence that they have employed in refusing to do so, that Canada would have been effectively bilingual ages ago. Because that is one of the laws of nationalism, that it always consumes more energy to fight disagreeable realities than it takes to invent a happy solution. But those whom this law serves most are apparently those whose nationalism is the littler nationalism, in the present case, us. That is what I would now like to explain.

That is what I would now like to explain.

 
V — The Misfortunes of French-Canadian Nationalism

All the time and all the energy that we employ in proclaiming the rights of our nationality, in calling upon our providential mission, in clarioning our virtues, in bewailing our avatars, in denouncing our enemies, and in declaring our independence, has never made our workmen more adroit, a functionary more competent, a banker more wealthy, a doctor more progressive, a bishop more learnèd nor one of our politicians less of an ignoramus. However, if some gruff originals are excluded, there is probably no French-Canadian intellectual who has not discussed separatism at least four hours a week for a year; that makes how many thousands of times two hundred hours used exclusively in self-flagellation? Because who can say that he had heard before now a single argument that had not already been debated ad nauseam for twenty years, for forty years, and for sixty years? I am not even sure that we have exorcised even one of our demons: the Separatists of 1962 that I have met, believe me, are generally likeable; but on the rare occasions when I have had the honour of talking a little longer with them, I have almost always run up against the totalitarian spirit of some, the anti-semitism of others, and, among all, the generalized cult of economic incompetence.

Now, that’s what I call the new treason of the clerics: this incredible frenzy of a broad sector of our thinking population to put itself — intellectually and spiritually — on the side tracks.

A few years ago, I tried to show that the adherents of the French-Canadian nationalist school, despite their generosity and their courage, had for all practical purposes set themselves at odds with progress: for more than half a Century “they had formulated a social thought impossible of realization and which for all practical purposes left the people without effective intellectual guidance.”23

FN 23 La grève de l’amiante, [The Asbestos Strike] p. 14.

Now, I discover that a number of them who thought at that time as I do, have become separatists. Because their social thought is to the left, because they militate in favor of secular schools, because they are unionists, because their culture is open, they think that their nationalism is the way of progress. They don’t see that it is politically that they have become reactionaries.

Reactionary, firstly, because of the forces at play. Even a rough count of faithful nationalist institutions, networks and individuals, from the village notaries to the Order of Jacques Cartier, from the small employers to the Leagues of the Sacred Heart, would undoubtedly establish nothing but an alliance among nationalists of the right and those of the left would play inevitably — by the law of numbers — in favor of the former. If this left tells me that it will enter no alliance until after it has become a majority, I permit myself to tell him that it never will become, in dissipating as it does a large part of its meagre forces. All effort oriented essentially toward reinforcing the nation must renounce dividing this nation.

Such an effort is automatically lost on the social critic and tends moreover to consolidate the status quo. In this direction, alliance already plays against the left even before it is concluded.

Secondly, the nationalists — including the left — are politically reactionary because in giving very great importance to the nation idea on their scale of political values, they are unfailingly brought to define the common good in terms of the ethnic group instead of in terms of all citizens, without excluding anyone. That is why a nationalist government is in essence intolerant, discriminatory and in the final account, totalitarian. 25

FN 25 Lord Acton had already written in 1862: “The nation is here an ideal unit founded on the race … It overrules the rights and wishes of the inhabitants, absorbing their divergent interests in a fictitious unity; sacrifices their several inclinations and duties to the higher claim of nationality, and crushes all natural rights and all established liberties for the purpose of vindicating itself. Whenever a single definite object is made the supreme end of the State … the State becomes for the time being inevitably absolute.” John Dalberg-Acton, Essays on Freedom and Power, Glencoe 1948, p. 184.

A truly democratic government cannot be “nationalist”, because it must pursue the good of all the citizens, without regard to ethnic origin. The virtue which a democratic government requires and develops is thus public-spiritedness [civic-mindedness], never nationalism; without a doubt, such a government would make laws from which ethnic groups would profit, and the majority group proportionally to its number; but that comes as a consequence of the equality of all and not as a right of the strongest. In this sense, one can say that the province of Quebec has always had a rather democratic education policy than nationlist; I wouldn’t say as much of all the other provinces.

Notable QuoteOn the other hand, if Hydro-Quebec expropriated the hydroelectric industries for national rather than social reasons, we would already be embarked on the road to fascism. The right may nationalize; it is only the left that socializes and establishes state control.

Notable QuoteThirdly, all thought which tends to claim for the nation the plenitude of sovereign powers is politically reactionary because it wants to give a total and perfect political power to a community which could not constitute a total and perfect political society.

Notable QuoteIt is doubtful that in 1962, any Nation-State, or even any multi-national State, however strong, could constitute a total and perfect political society 26: the economic, military and cultural interdependencies are a sine qua non condition of the life of States in the XXth Century, such that none is truly sufficient unto itself.

FN 26 Consult Jacques Maritain, Man and the State, Chicago 1951, à la page 210.

Treaties, commercial alliances, common markets, free-trade zones, cultural and scientific accords, all this is as indispensable to the progress of States in the world as are exchanges among citizens in the State; and just as each citizen must recognize that his personal sovereignty is subjected to the law of the State — which, for example, obliges him to respect his contracts — likewise States cannot know peace and progress unless they accept to submit relations among them to a rule of law superior to the State.

Notable QuoteIn truth, it is the concept of sovereignty itself which must be overcome, and those who claim it for the French-Canadian nation are not only reactionaries, they are ludicrous.

The French-Canadians cannot constitute a perfect society, any more than can five million Sikhs of the Punjab. We are not sufficiently knowledgeable, nor rich enough, nor above all numerous enough in men to do so and to finance in money a government endowed with all the organs necessary to war and to peace.

Notable QuoteTo this third argument, on anachronistic and inapplicable sovereignty, the separatists sometimes reply that a Quebec become independent could very well renounce a part of its sovereignty, by entering into a Canadian Confederation, for example, at which time its choice would be free… —

The per-capita costs would crush us. But I decline to explain these things to people who already see without displeasure that Laurentie will open its embassies just about everywhere in the world to “shine our culture”. Above all, the same people claimed, last year, that our society was too poor to finance a second university — the Jesuit — in Montreal!

To this third argument, on anachronistic and inapplicable sovereignty, the separatists sometimes reply that a Quebec become independent could very well renounce a part of its sovereignty, by entering into a Canadian Confederation, for example, at which time its choice would be free… — That is theoretical to the tenth power. Undoubtedly, it would be serious enough to invite the French-Canadian nation to embark upon several decades of privations and sacrifices, in order that this nation might eventually treat itself to the luxury of choosing “freely” a destiny nearly analogous to that against which it would have fought. But the unforgivable tragedy would be not to see that the French-Canadian nation is too culturally anemic, too economically disadvantaged, too intellectually backward, too spiritually sclerosed, to be able to survive for one or two decades of stagnation during which it would have expended all its energies in the sewer of vanity and in national “dignity”

 
VI — The 20-Something Generation

What French-Canadians in their twenties would have a hard time, in a few years, forgiving to people of my generation, is that we would have assisted with such complacence at the rebirth of separatism and of nationalism. Because, in a few years, these young people would have understood the appalling lag which characterizes the evolution of French Canada in all domains. “What!” they will say to the intellectuals, you published and you thought so little, and you had time to ask questions about separatism?

“What!” they will say to the sociologists and to the politicos, the same year when the first men were put in orbit you replied seriously to questions of independence which, in your view, perhaps, yes, one day, without doubt, possibly… “What!” they will say to the economists, the Western world – arrived at the era of mass production –applied its wits to recreating by all sorts of economic unions the market conditions which existed in the Soviet Union and in the United States, you viewed with interest a movement which began by reducing to zero the common market of Quebec industry? “What!” they will say to the engineers, you didn’t even succeed in building roads which could have resisted two Canadian winters, and you were clever enough to raise up a dream of borders all around Quebec? “What !” they will say to the judges and to the lawyers, civil liberties had not survived in Quebec but thanks to Communists, unionists and Jehova’s Witnesses, thanks to English and Jewish lawyers, and thanks to judges of the Supreme Court in Ottawa, and you had nothing more pressing than to applaud the arrival of the sovereign French-Canadian State? 27

FN 27 In one decade alone commencing in 1951, the Supreme Court in Ottawa seven times overturned the Court of Appeal in the province of Québec which had rendered seven judgements damaging to civil liberties: the Boucher affair (seditious libel), the case of l’Alliance (loss of union certificate), the Saumur case (distribution of leaflets), the Chaput affair (religious assembly), the Birks affair (religious holidays), the Switzman affair (the padlock law), the Roncarelli affair (arbitrary administration). — As we go to press, we learn that we can add to this count an eighth case: the matter of Lady Chatterley’s Lover.

“What!” they will say finally to the men of the parties, you, the Liberals, you have for twenty-five years chiseled the sovereignty of the provinces, and you, the Conservatives, known as the Union nationale, you have endowed Quebec with two decades of retroactive, vindictive, discriminatory and backward laws, while you, of the CCF/NDP, you have – in the name of who knows what national interest of the federal State – sabotaged, with the Union of democratic forces, the only chance the left had in Quebec; and you all, all of a sudden, discovered that more independence had to be given to Quebec, a number among you even becoming renowned separatists?

I dare to predict that among these young people asking the harsh questions, there would be one named Luc Racine, who would somewhat regret having written in Cité Libre: “If the youth of today attacks the problem of separatism, it is not through indifference to the great problems of humanity, but in hoping to orient its action on that which it is able to change”. 28

FN 28 Feb. 1962, p. 24.

Because he will then understand that a given people, at a given moment in its history, never has to spare but a given quantity of intellectual energy; and that if a whole generation consecrates a large part of this energy to nonsense, this generation, for all practical purposes, will have exhibited its “indifference to the great problems of humanity”. (One piece of advice, however, to Racine: that he not think to speak of nationalist alienation in 1972, because my friend André Laurendeau will once again feel obliged to rush to the aid of his fathers and demonstrate that in 1922, Abbé Groulx was entitled to our respect).29

FN 29 An emotional allusion to an emotional reply by Laurendeau, Le Devoir, March 3rd, 1961. This refined spirit, one of the most just that I know, and who shares with Bourassa the honor of being the favorite target of the Separatists (these — quite logically, believe me! — not admitting that nationalism is not separatist), rarely come to speak of nationalism without betraying by some detail a false perspective: thus, in an otherwise excellent editorial article (Le Devoir, 30 Jan. 1962), he tosses out the far-fetched idea of an “ethical conscription of French-Canadian society.” Another draft?

That said, how explain the favor which separatism enjoys today, among the young generation? How explain, for example, that so many young readers of Cité Libre — responding to “A certain silence” with a mass of correspondence — had taken sides with separatism?

Pelletier told me that having — at the journal — tirelessly taught methodical doubt vis-à-vis the affluent power, and having also practiced it with regard to most of our traditional institutions, we should not be surprised that a new generation attacks one of the realities that we had saved:  the Canadian State.

The reply appears to me to be psychologically valid; but it remains to explain the retrogressive orientation of the revolt.

For my part, I believed in something analogous to the democratic sentiment from which were born the nationalisms in Europe one or two Centuries ago. The death of Duplessis is the end of a dynasty and of the oligarchy which it benefited. Laying the foundations of liberal democracy is the promise that from this time on all new classes may accede to power. But, in practice, these classes discovered that a number of the advance routes are blocked: the Clergy maintains its hold over education, the English dominate our finance, the Americans invade our culture. Only the State of Quebec belongs to all French-Canadians:  one thus wants for this State the plenitude of powers. Democracy having made all men equal in the nation, one now wants all nations to be equal to each other, and singularly that ours be sovereign and independent. We expect that the birth of our Nation-State will liberate a thousand unsuspected energies and that, in that way, the French-Canadians may at last enter into possession of their heritage. In short, one believes in a creative energy which will add genius to people who have none, and which will bring courage and wisdom to a lazy and ignorant nation.

Again, it’s this belief which takes the place of argument among all those who are incapable of founding on history, or the economy, or the constitution, or sociology. “Independence,” writes Chaput, is much more a matter of character than of logic… more than reason, there is a need for pride.”30

FN 30 Op. cit, p. 10.

This is also the attitude of all these adorable young girls and young women whose argument turns so short: “Independence is a matter of dignity. It isn’t discussed, it is felt.” Isn’t that also the position of a number of artists and poets? “The day,” writes Jean-Guy Pilon, “when this cultural minority which has been tolerated in this country becomes a nation within its borders, when this minority is independent, our literature will know a formidable leap forward. Because the writer, like every man of this society, will feel free. And a free man can do great things.”31

FN 31 Le Quartier Latin, Montreal, Feb. 27th, 1962.

Now, it seems that Chaput is an excellent chemist. I only want to know how, by the grace of these energies liberated by independence, he will become better:  he has nothing else to teach us in order to lead us to separatism. As to his book, it bears the mark of an honest and unbiased man, but it self-destructs in one of its own sentences:  “To hope that by some indescribable magic, the French-Canadian people will suddenly reform itself, demand en bloc the respect of its rights, become concerned about the correctness of its language, desirous of culture and of great works, without having breathed into it an exalted ideal: this is dangerous foolishness.”32

FN 32 Op. cit., p. 144.

So thusly, Chaput renounces magic, but counts on an exalted ideal as the road to salvation for our people. As if reform, the respect of rights, the correction of language, culture and great works — all things which are accessible to us under the current Canadian constitution — did not themselves constitute exalted ideals! And how is this other ideal that he proposes to us — the Nation-State — different from a magic invoked to supplement our lack of discipline in the pursuit of true ideals?

It also seems that Pilon is a good poet. I would like him to state — in prose, if he wishes — how national sovereignty will make of him “a free man”, and capable of “doing great things”. If he does not find dignity, pride, and the other resorts of the poet within himself, in the world, and in the stars, I ask myself why and how he would find them in a “free” Quebec.

Undoubtedly, bilingualism is not without difficulties. But, I do not admit that these serve as a pretext to men who represent themselves as intellectuals, especially when the language one complains of is one of the principal vehicles of civilization in the XXth Century. The era of linguistic borders is over, at least as far as science and culture are concerned; and if the Quebec clerics refuse to master a language other than their own, if they vow their faithfulness only to the nation, they may forever renounce revolving in the orbit of the world’s intellectual elites.

The argument of the energy released by national independence may seem applicable to men of spirit. Their role — above all if they belong to a people for whom sentiment is a substitute for an idea, and for whom prejudice is a substitute for knowledge — [their role] is not to stir up, it is to think, and to think again. If their intellectual efforts bring them to a dead end, they will have but one thing to do: turn back the way we came. Any attempt to escape by a shortcut is unworthy; because, as A. Miller said in l’Express: “The work of a true intellectual consists in analyzing illusions to discover their causes.”

It is true that for the people, the problem presents itself otherwise. Nationalism, as an emotive movement which addresses itself to a community, may liberate unexpected energies. History teaches us that this is often called chauvinism, racism, jingoism, and other crusades of that kind, where reason and reflection are reduced to their simplest expression. It may be that at certain historical junctures, where there was immeasurable oppression, unnamed misery and all other exits blocked, one might have had to invoke nationalism to unleash the liberating revolution. Recourse to this passion was then an inevitable last resort and one had to accept the bad with the good. The “bad” included practically always a certain despotism; because peoples “liberated” by passion, rather than by reason, are generally disappointed to find themselves as poor and as disadvantaged as before; and it takes “strong” governments to put an end to their agitation.

I was in Ghana in the months which followed its independence. The poets were not better, the chemists not more numerous, and above all, real wages had not increased. Since the intellectuals did not get the people to understand the reasons for this, they told them of I-don’t-know-what lost island in the Gulf of Guinea which had to be “reconquered”: to this end, a large part of this economically disadvantaged State’s economic budget went to the army. Which finished by being used to imprison the opposition…

A similar story took place in Indonesia. This former colony become a State, which hardly managed to govern itself, nor to enrich itself, led its people to liberate its territories from New Guinea; now, these belonged to it neither by race, nor by language, nor by geography. However, I have met in Quebec authentic men of the left who justify national sovereignty for lack of an ability to reason in other terms. The State of Quebec could count on them on the day when — incapable of improving the social situation of their citizens — it will launch them on the conquest of “their islands” in the Hudson’s Bay. The Honourable Arsenault is already preparing us for this glorious epic! And Lesage applauds him.33

FN 33 Le Devoir, January 29th and 31st, 1962.

Quite happily, the protest wing of our people entertains fewer illusions on these subjects, and it reasons more accurately than our intellectuals and our bourgeois classes. The great labor unions of the Province of Quebec have categorically spoken against separatism: they may know the energies which are given off by collective passions; but, it happens, they refuse to set a machine in motion whose direction is false and whose breaks are defective.

To sum up, those who seek through independence (or through the idea of independence) to “liberate energies” are playing at sorcerer’s apprentice. They resolve not a single problem on the basis of reason; and on the basis of passion, they unleash the unpredictable, uncontrollable, and ineffectual. (One will note that I have spoken here, above all, of the energy supposedly liberated by independence; as to the energy which is at the origin of current separatism, I said a word in the March 1961 issue of Cité libre, at page 5. — But on that, Messrs. Albert and Raymond Breton present in the current issue a study which is far and above the most serious that has been done on the subject.)

As a final argument, some young people justify their flirt with separatism for tactical considerations: “If we scare the English sufficiently, we will get what we want without going to independence.” This tactic has gained purely symbolic advantages for the French-Canadians:  a slogan (The French-Canadians deserve a New Deal), two flags (Pearson-Pickersgill), a few new names on old companies (i.e., La Compagnie d’électricité Shawinigan), a few appointments to boards of directors, and a multitude of bilingual cheques (Diefenbaker). De minimîs non curât praetor, but I swear nonetheless that the fright of the English-language politicians and businessmen is fun to see. It certainly testifies to their guilty consciences as aggressor-nationalists. But that will have its repercussions: there is nothing more petty than the poltroon with his tail between his legs. And I would like it then if French Canada could base itself on a young generation enriched by a bit of knowledge more valuable than nationalist passion.

 
VII — The Future

If, in my view, the nation was an anti-value, I would not have put myself to so much trouble denouncing an orientation which leads the French-Canadian nation to its ruin.

The nation is the bearer of certain values: a cultural heritage, common traditions, a community conscience, historical continuity, a collection of mores, all things which contribute — at the present stage of the evolution of humanity — to development of the personality. Indeed, these values are more public than private,34 more introverted than extroverted,35 more instinctive and savage than intelligent and civilized,36 more narcissistic and fanatical than reasoned and generous. They cling to a transitional stage of the history of the world. But they are here today, probably useful, and in any event conceived as indispensable by all national collectives.

FN 34 Delos, op. cit., p. 179.

FN 35 Maritain, op. cit., p. 5.

FN 36 Acton, op. cit., p. 188. Also see p. 186: “In the ancient world idolatry and nationality went together, and the same term is applied in Scripture to both.”

Notable QuoteOther than to situate us in the correct perspective, it will get us nowhere to affirm that the French-Canadian nation must probably disappear one day, and that the Canadian State itself will not last forever. Benda underscores that it is one of the grandeurs of Thucydides that he had been able to envision a world in which Athens was no more.37

FN 37 Op. cit., p. 141.

The future that must interest us here is the one we will build from day to day. The problem must thus be faced:  how — without recourse to the absurd and retrogressive idea of national sovereignty — how can we preserve the national values of the French-Canadians?

Notable QuoteAs I said above:  the concepts of State and of nation must be divorced, and make of Canada a truly pluralist and polyethnic society. Now for this, the different regions inside the Canadian State must be assured of a large measure of local autonomy, such that, by the experiment of self-government, the nationals may give themselves the laws and the institutions indispensable to the progress of their national values.

Notable QuoteAt the same time, and in a movement of retreat, English-Canadian nationalism must consent to change the image that it has made of Canada:  if it wants to protect and incarnate these specific ethnic values, it must do so by means of carving out local and regional autonomies rather than by way of pan-Canadian sovereignty.

These desideratas, it is precisely that the Canadian constitution is admirably conceived to give them A FRAMEWORK. By the British North America Act, the jurisdiction of the Canadian State (federal) relates to all those questions which do not have an ethnic incidence strictly speaking, but which are linked to the common welfare of the whole of the Canadian society: foreign affairs, macro-economic stabilization, trade with other countries, navigation, the post, currency and banks, and so on.

The provinces, on the contrary, have jurisdiction over purely local or private business, and matters which affect ethnic values more directly: education, municipal and parochial institutions, the administration of justice, the celebration of marriage, property and civil rights, and the rest; in addition, no provincial border coincides completely with ethnic or linguistic borders, and consequently no provincial government is invited by the constitution to give itself laws conceived uniquely for one ethnic group*, which would tend to develop the mentality of the nation-State at the provincial level. On this point, it would be good that the past attitude of Quebec vis-à-vis its national minorities serve as an example to those provinces where large French, German, Ukrainian or other minorities are found.

[*KM: a virtual denial of the whole point of Confederation; the whole point of multiple Legislatures, one to each majority ethnicity on its own soil.]

Notable QuoteI certainly do not hide the fact that the nationalism of British Canadians has much work to do — or rather to demolish — before the pluralist State can become a reality in Canada. But I am tempted to add that, it is “their” problem.

The die are cast in Canada: there are two ethnic and linguistic groups, each one too strong, too well rooted in the past, and too well buttressed on a mother-culture, to be able to crush the other.

Notable QuoteIf both collaborate within a really pluralist state, Canada can become a privileged place where the federalist FORM of government will be perfected, which is that of the WORLD of tomorrow.

Better than the “melting-pot” of America,

Notable QuoteCanada can be USED as an example to all these new African and Asian States, discussed at the beginning of this article, who must learn how to govern their polyethnic populations in justice and freedom.

Isn’t that enough, in itself, to discount the supposition of a Canada annexed to the United States? … Canadian federalISM is a formidable experiment, it can become a brilliant TOOL to fashion the civilization of tomorrow.

If the Anglo-Canadians do not see that, then once again, so much the worse for them: they will sink in a retrograde, limited and despotic nationalism. Lord Acton, one of the great spirits of the XIXth Century, Catholic on top of it, described with an extraordinarily prophetic acuity, the error of nationalisms and the future that was being prepared for them. Exactly a Century ago, he wrote:

A great democracy must either sacrifice self-government to unity or preserve it by federalism … The co-existence of several nations under the same State is a test, as well as the best security of its freedom. It is also one of the chief instruments of civilisation … The combination of different nations in one State is as necessary a condition of civilised life as the combination of men in society … Where political and national boundaries coincide, society ceases to advance, and nations relapse into a condition corresponding to that of men who renounce intercourse with their fellow-men … A State which is incompetent to satisfy different races condemns itself; a State which labours to neutralise, to absorb, or to expel them, destroys its own vitality; a State which does not include them is destitute of the chief basis of self-government.

Notable QuoteThe theory of nationality, therefore, is a retrograde step in history.38

FN 38 Op. cit., passîm.

It goes without saying that if the French Canadians pit their own nationalism against that of British Canada, they are committed to the same stagnation. And Canada will become a land sterile to the spirit, a steppe open to all migrations and to all conquests.

Once again, the die are cast in Canada: neither of the two linguistic groups can assimilate the other by force. But one or the other, even one and the other, may fail by default, destroy itself from within, and die from asphyxia. Thus, as just deserts, and as a pledge to the vitality of man,

Notable Quotevictory is promised to the nation which, having renounced its own nationalism, will have enjoined each of its members to employ his or her energies in pursuit of the larger and more human ideal.

By the current Canadian constitution, that of 1867,39 the French Canadians have all the powers necessary to make of Québec a political society where the national values would be respected, while at the same time, values that are properly human would experience unprecedented growth. (At pages 98-99 of his book, Mr. Chaput proposes sixteen paragraphs of economic reforms that could be undertaken by an independent Quebec. Except for the first, which would abolish taxes to Ottawa, all these reforms can be undertaken under the present constitution! At pages 123-124, in seven paragraphs, Mr. Chaput sets out the measures thanks to which an independent Quebec could assure the effective defence of French-Canadian minorities established outside of Quebec; none of these measures, except the declaration of sovereignty, would be more accessible to an independent Quebec than to Quebec as it is today.

FN 39  This is the sense in which I wrote — with regard to young separatists — a phrase which has peeved off a lot of people: “They … energetically attack problems which were solved a Century ago.” (Cité Libre, Dec. 1961, p. 3).

If Quebec became this exemplary province, if men lived there under the sign of liberty and of progress, if culture there occupied pride of place, if the universities were brilliant, and if the public administration was the most progressive in the country – and nothing in all of this presupposes a declaration of independence! – the French-Canadians would no longer have to fight to impose bilingualism: the knowledge of French would become a status symbol for the anglophone. It would even become an asset for business and for administration. Even Ottawa would be transformed, by the expertise of our politics and of our functionaries.

Such an enterprise is immensely difficult, but possible. It requires more fighting spirit than talk. It seems to me to constitute an “ideal” no less “exalting” than a certain other which has been common currency for a couple of years in Landerneau.

To those who might care to work at this enterprise, who would place their hopes on the side of universal man, and who would refuse to be complicit in the new treason of the clerics, I leave a sentence from the great Acton:

“Nationality does not aim either at liberty or prosperity, both of which it sacrifices to the imperative necessity of making the nation the mould and measure of the State. Its course will be marked with material as well as moral ruin, in order that a new invention may prevail over the works of God and the interests of mankind.”40

FN 40 Op. cit., p. 194.

– 30 –

 

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 –

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 –