AngryFrenchGuy

Quebec, Nationalists, Nazis and Adrien Arcand

with 96 comments

The great novelist Mordecai Richler forever associated the cause of Québec’s independence to proto-fascist ideology in English-reading minds when he wrote in a series of articles in the New Yorker, later published as Oh Canada! Oh Québec! Requiem for a Divided Country, that:

« From the beginning, French-Canadian nationalism has been badly tainted by racism. The patron saint of the independantists, the Abbé Lionel Groulx was not only a virulent anti-Semite but also a nascent fascist, an unabashed admirer in the thirties of Mussolini, Dollfuss and Salazar. »

Although absolutely true, Richler’s diatribe obscured the fact that Mussolini had many admirers in the 1930’s, from industrialist Henry Ford to presidents and Prime ministers.

One of the most vocal and successful proponents of North American fascism was indeed a French-Canadian, but he was not a nationalist.  From his early days as a reporter at the daily La Presse, through his internment during the war and well after the Allied victory, Adrien Arcand remained an admirer of the British Empire and a fierce opponent of an independent Québec that would have been, in his words, « at the mercy of the Jews. »

The AngryFrenchGuy spoke with Jean-François Nadeau, the author of Le Führer Canadien, the first biography of Adrien Arcand.

On the AngryFrenchGuy website the fascist past of Québec society, and the supposed roots of the nationalist movement in that past, are regularly brought up by some people.   Just how big was the fascist movement in Québec in the 1930’s?

This idea of a movement essentially concentrated in Québec is bullshit.  A thesis upheld by ignorants. In that period, it’s everywhere.  There are movements like this in Brazil, Mexico and many in the United States.  As a matter of fact, Arcand will experience a triumph of sorts in New York where there are gatherings at the Madison Square Garden—today known for hockey—and the New York hippodrome of tens of thousands members of organized groups who welcome him with the fascist salute. This is before 1939.

We tried to forget this, but in the 1920’s and 30’s, even people like Gandhi and president Roosevelt were very open to some aspects of Italian fascism.

In the case of Québec, some have tried in recent years to correlate that past with the national affirmation and indépendantiste movements. It doesn’t hold water.  Those people hate the very idea of Québec’s national affirmation.  They are the most fierce opponents of that idea. They dream about an imperial system—French or English style—but in the name of a very very strong, authoritarian and structured Canada.

Because Arcand is quite the anglophile, isn’t he?

His troops are commanded in English.  He speaks English fluently.  There are other groups like his in French-Canadian society, but he is the one who succeeded in federating other groups in English-Canada, in the West and the East.   He speaks in meetings in the Atlantic provinces and in Toronto.  He travels a lot in Canada, with the objective of founding a far right party, which he will achieve in 1938: the National Unity Party of Canada.

You’ve written that Canadian Prime Ministers encouraged his movement, at least in a underhanded way.

Prime Minister Bennett financed Adrien Arcand’s first antisemitic and virulently racist newspapers in the hope that Arcand, who is a brilliant marketer, would support him and help him elect enough Conservative candidates in Québec for him to form the government in Ottawa.  It worked.

Even after the war, after 1945, there are many federal conservative MP’s who are very close to Arcand, who go to him for counsel and try, in one way or the other, to support some aspects of his doctrine.

Québec Conservatives or Canadian Conservatives?

Mostly French-Canadian, but also English-Canadian.   He always said that the Anglo-Saxon world paid more attention to him than his own Latin world.  In fact his own models are not so much Hitler or Mussolini as they are British Lords who are proponents of a British Imperial Fascism. People like Mosley who inspire him, and with whom he corresponds.

His is a racist, antisemitic, very Hitlerian approach to the far right, but English-style. That’s peculiar.  For him, the New World will come about through the British Empire, the defence of a King and of the British monarchy. That’s why French-Canadian nationalists hate him so much, even if they defend ideas that aren’t far from his.  They reject him because he is an imperialist.

It’s fascinating to read in your book that Arcand was one of the first Holocaust deniers.

After the war, even if his newspapers have lead him into a detention camp, Arcand doesn’t change his mind.

He can’t accept the idea that there had been a massacre of Jews and of political opponents.  He doesn’t need any proof of a Jewish conspiracy, he’s already convinced.   He will be one of the first to deny, on the basis of faith in the irrational that supports all his thought, that death and concentration camps could have existed.

He will be one of the first in 1946-47 to develop those ideas, which he will maintain, to the point of enriching the thinking of those we consider today to be the pioneers of Holocaust denial—that’s not a very appropriate name, we should call them falsificators of History.   He is the one at the root of many of their ideas. In temporal terms, I see that he is writing these sorts of things before the leading theorists of denial even started to write.

One very surprising revelation in your book is that Pierre Elliot Trudeau defended Arcand.  In what way?  Was it a purely legal exercise?

When he was a student in London—but let’s be clear, when I say a young student, I mean a man of almost thirty years, with all his head and able to make a judgment—he wrote in a very conservative newspaper called Notre Temps that what was done to Adrien Arcand was horrible.  He will write that a regime that claims to be democratic but is not able to support the opposition and freedom of speech of Arcand is denying itself.

That’s a little bit odd because he will himself use that very law, the very exceptional and contested War Measures Act, in 1970, to contain the supposed insurection of the Front de Libération du Québec. Yet we could very well take everything he writes in the case of Arcand and transpose it very exactly to the situation in 1970.

It’s very peculiar because people from the far right like Arcand, who are likely to have contacts with the enemy, are a real menace to the Canadian State.  The country is at war against a formidable force.  It’s not an apprehended insurrection like in 1970, it’s a real war with real tanks and aeroplanes and a real man called Adolf Hitler.  And we have people here who wear uniforms with the swastika and are likely to help the enemy from the inside.

It’s not a coincidence if in May 1940, in England and South Africa and all over the world members of these groups are arrested on the exact same day.  In 1970 we suppose there is a menace, but there is no proof.  In 1939-40 we know that Poland has fallen, that France will be hit, that Belgium was hit, that Danzig is done and Czechoslovakia too.  It’s not an apprehended menace. It’s a real physical menace.

So Trudeau’s point of view is a little bit peculiar…

Now, in all fairness, fascist movements in that period weren’t all as anglophile as Arcand’s.  There are also nationalist French-Canadian factions with fascistic tendencies, right?

Yes, and they weren’t quite as important.

A few years ago we decided to do an ideological trial of the work of Lionel Groulx, and it is impossible to deny that there is an antisemitic variable in his thought and his brand of French-Canadian nationalism of the 1930’s.  There is some very antisemitic prose published under his name or his pseudonyms.

But there is a great difference between this thinking and that of Adrien Arcand.  First of all, it’s very latent and there isn’t much of it.  More importantly, it doesn’t support the architecture of the thought.  To use architectural language, if you remove the antisemitic variable from the discourse of people like Lionel Groulx, everything still holds.   If you remove it from Arcand’s movement, everything collapses.  The foundation of his ideology is that there is a Jewish project of world domination and that it is imperative that they be eliminated. That’s not the issue in right wing nationalist movements.

There is also Paul Bouchard’s La Nation group from Québec City, which is very strongly for independence and very antisemitic. They will strongly oppose Arcand’s ideas, even though they essentially are the same as their own: coporatism, against democracy, against representation, against traditional political systems.

But it’s Arcand who succeeded, in those networks, to structure the far right. Not that he was that successful.  In the 1930’s, he wasn’t on his way to become Prime Minister of Canada, far from it.  He was probably 3 or 4 years too late.

Add to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to TwitterDON’T BELIEVE THE HYPE

Written by angryfrenchguy

May 10, 2010 at 4:38 pm

96 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Great post and very interresting topic. Wonder if his book will be published in english.

    Anonymous

    May 10, 2010 at 5:04 pm

  2. agf,

    extremists (those that are so confident in their plans for others) have always existed and every society will produce its fair share, it is an unfortunate aspect of the human being. my introduction to this guy has only recently taken place – but i have heard enough about him already – his ideas don’t hold water and he, rightfully, should be dismissed as an aberration.

    having said that – you will need to edit a little bit and put the record straight. communism and facism are both totalitarian systems – and they do not come from the right as in classic liberalism, but rather they both come from the left. it would be a kindness and a service to your readers to inform them that both the national socialists (nazis) AND communists came from the left.

    they are both extreme left idealogies and would perish under any true democracy. both knew that hegemony was necessary for the success of their respective systems and for this reason killed off both their countrymen and each other by the millions prior to and during world war ii.

    history on this side of the atlantic will tell you that it was the intervention of the usa in world war ii that caused the tide to turn and to a large extent this is true but a great deal of credit must go to the communists who recognised the danger facism posed to communism and kicked the fascists’ asses all the way back to berlin.

    it’s no big deal – it is a common error to label fascists right wing when in reality they were garden variety left wingers in pursuit of totalitarianism.

    you’re welcome.

    johnnyonline

    May 10, 2010 at 6:57 pm

  3. johnnyonline is proposing the idiocy that is advocated by idiot blogging tories and nitwit Republicans to the South, to wit that communism and fascism are twins, not opposing worldviews situated at opposite ends of the political spectrum. It simplifies the thought process if they don’t have to give too much effort to thought and not have to argue fascism, nazism, salazarism and similar mass movements of right wing reaction, counter-revolutionary reaction, were examples of right wing extremism and not the left wing version they want to peddle on the unthinking.

    I prefer to accept the explanation and political categorization of informed writers such as George Orwell, who not only fought against the phenomenon, but understood what they were fighting against.

    dupmar

    May 10, 2010 at 11:33 pm

  4. “Although absolutely true, Richler’s diatribe obscured the fact that Mussolini had many admirers in the 1930′s, from industrialist Henry Ford to presidents and Prime ministers.”

    Henry Ford was a notorious anti-semite. Holding him up as some sort of example of mainstream support for Mussolini is disingenuous.

    Justan Alias

    May 10, 2010 at 11:49 pm

  5. I allways read stuff “about” Arcand because the writing of Arcand himself are hard to find. But now a book (the one he wrote in prison) and other documents of his hand are available on the internet.

    I read them of course and the person this Jean-François Nadeau is describing is not the one in these books.

    I found in Arcand one of the most informed person on the geostrategic and political situation of his day. It is amazing what he was aware of at that time.

    The quebec nationalists are wrong (like I was before I read his own writings) to condemn him for not being a nationalist at that time. He was very aware that the Canadiens français were not ready (mostly farmers and no statehood political culture education) for a independent state. Yes, it would have been taken over by the american jews quite rapidly.

    He was not the British imperialists lover some are trying to make him. His political choices are strictly geostrategic and not ideological.

    I think it is that Jean-François Nadeau who is full of …

    He never quotes Arcand of some phrase or say that would support his portrait of him.

    Gébé Tremblay

    May 11, 2010 at 12:20 am

  6. @johnnyonline:
    “it’s no big deal – it is a common error to label fascists right wing when in reality they were garden variety left wingers in pursuit of totalitarianism.”

    Sure. Defining the “totality” in terms of an organic nation-state to whom belong only those with the right biological origin is simply a little divergence from “workers of the world unite”.

    The idea that the role of women is “kinder, küche and kirche” (children, kitchen and church) is on a par with icons of socialist realism of strong men and women workers, and with the “opium of the masses” quote. As is the creation of the Vatican by Mussolini and the cover of the Holocaust that has alledgedly took place by the Catholic Church (see the movie “Amen”).

    The “corporatism” that is the basis of economic fascism, and that the big “heavy industries” business and the fascist state were closely tied is, I suppose, another proof of the socialism=fascism equation.

    The many “libertaires” (sorry no translations – anarchist is not quite right, and libertarian is already taken) currents in socialism, including at the First International and at the head of most now biggest mainstream French unions, is also, I suppose another form of the “strong leader” theme (libertaires trends where there from the start even in Marx writings, who consider the communist state as a mean to a stateless utopia).

    The opposition of socialists everywhere (except in the early totalitarian USSR, allied to Germany) doesn’t count for much I suppose. Neither do such things as the Spanish Revolution or the Reichstadt incident, or the many socialist resistants who died opposing the Axes (did you ever read the poem “l’Affiche Rouge”, and about its theme ?)

    Enough of this “Liberal fascism” nonsense. I suggest “Fascism: A very short introduction.” There are no very very short intro, but this one should help clear some misinformation you may have been fed.

    Tancrède

    May 11, 2010 at 12:36 am

  7. Two great capitalists giving two cheers for social darwinism (And please don’t confound Social Darwinism with darwinism…)

    “While the law [of competition] may be sometimes hard for the individual, it is best for the race, because it insures the survival of the fittest in every department. We accept and welcome, therefore, as conditions to which we must accommodate ourselves, great inequality of environment, the concentration of business, industrial and commercial, in the hands of the few, and the law of competition between these, as being not only beneficial, but essential for the future progress of the race.” (Andrew Carnegie)
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegie

    “The growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest… The American Beauty rose can be produced in the splendor and fragrance which bring cheer to its beholder only by sacrificing the early buds which grow up around it. This is not an evil tendency in business. It is merely the working-out of a law of nature and a law of God.” (John D. Rockefeller Jr.)
    http://sciphilos.info/docs_pages/docs_Hofstadter_socDawin_css.html

    Tancrède

    May 11, 2010 at 12:47 am

  8. MQC (agf),

    Fascinating! However I think Arcand for me is a little too arcane! And the arc of his thought was little noted in mainstream ROC except by, well,as you point out, Prime Minister Bennett. That other Bennett, Socred premier type dude, (W.A.C. (wacky) Bennett) out in B.C. in the 60’s was himself a bit of a populist fascist type , certainly no Arc-angel fallen or risen, and I doubt he read Arcand. He was more into hydro damns than damning Jews… Sort of an affable uncle Adolf with his own megaprojects, was William Andrew Cecil, a quincaillerier renommé à Columbie Britannique.

    So…maybe I’ll follow along relatively silently until the topic goes off trajectory.

    At least this blogue gives you anglophilic “angryfrench” separatists a chance to practice English!

    Something that the strictest application of 101 would probably deny many peoples kids. Not a problem so much for people with the money for private schools of course.

    I notice that all this practice blogging is leading to phenomenal improvements in your various English communication skills, compared with last year at any rate. Not you so much, MQC, who makes fewer English typos than yours truly, but some of your frequent contributors, for example Tancrède, — he’s positively lucid en anglais! Bravo!

    As for me I need to get back to French! I feel dismay with myself for posting too much in English. Anyhow, I don’t mind comments in either tongue. It’s all good!

    Bonne nuit à tous. Dormez bien.

    bruce

    May 11, 2010 at 2:46 am

  9. tancrede,

    thanks for the morality synopsis in regards to socialism and the difference between the evils of fascism and the evils of communism, but my point was the commonality of totalitarianism that exists in both. i detest both ideologies – probably as much as the communists detested the fascists and vice versa.

    no doubt they are two different animals (i never suggested otherwise), but neither springs from respect for the individual and freedom of thought which is the traditional territory of the classic liberal, conservative or right.

    you may not like the connection to the left but i do not see corporations calling for greater government intervention – something both the nazis and commies were especially good at.

    let’s put it this way – powerfully interventionist states work from the left and so suggesting facism is something from the “extreme right” is patently false while any business owner could tell you that socialism is just “communism light.”

    i’m not accusing you of being a communist or a facist – i’m just saying agf has his directions screwed up… and if you defend that statement then your political compass is equally screwed up.

    in any case the underlying point is that associating fascists with the right is now uderstood and seen as a transparent attempt to discredit conservatives by lumping them in with a despised group – good luck with that.

    johnnyonline

    May 11, 2010 at 3:21 am

  10. On the subject of Fascism and Communism, I think there is a little bit of truth that they share common origins. Mussolini had been an active Italian Socialist; the French Socialist, Marcel Cachin, who during WWI served as the conduit between the Quai d’Orsay and Mussolini and who helped the latter set up and finance his interventionist paper Popolo d’Italia, later became a lockstep Stalinist. The German Nazis borrowed a good deal from Stalinist practices, too, and of course even entered into a brief alliance with the USSR (during the 1939-41 Nazi-Soviet Pact).

    But I ultimately don’t buy the ideological stuff so much. I think that 20th-century ideologies were basically masks for organized nationalisms; Fascism, Nazism, and Communism being the expressions of Italian, German, and Russian nationalism respectively.

    Apropos of very little, one of the more prominent American sympathizers with the Nazi and Fascist “experiments” of the 1930s was the priest Charles Coughlin, who was born and educated in Ontario.

    littlerob

    May 11, 2010 at 6:05 am

  11. The attempt by blogging republicans to theorize on a concept of ” liberal fascism” and fascism as a left-wing movement and ideology is a perfect example of “culture war” , that is a concerted effort by our blogging tories who draw ideological inspiration, such as it is, from know-nothings to the South to redefine our culture, core beliefs, knowledge, concepts, including the sleight of hand which allowed them to redefine Social Credit/ Reform as “conservative”.

    It suits their agenda to argue all evil lies to the left of us, and therewith redefine fascism. They publish little books on the subject – but so too did Zundel and Keegstra and ilk publish little books – which have no credibility whatsoever in any Humanities faculty in any reputable university in the known world.

    But that’s not what this campaign is about. Read the comments sections of their blogs, generally frequented by nosebiters, cultural lumpens, those who scoff at funding for the arts, those who sneer at any wasting their time engaging in serious study in the humanities, when they’re not engaging in culture war against their local public library because their favoured authors, some irrelevant right wing crank, is not on the shelves.

    As for the so-called identification of Conservatives with right wing extremism, perhaps they may wish to address the problem on their own blogs, be it Blazing Cat Fur, Moose and Squirrel et al., and curb the verbal enthusiasm of their overzealous supporters who provide the general public with the impression of bigoted know-nothings, nosebiters, cultural lumpens, etc..

    dupmar

    May 11, 2010 at 6:24 am

  12. Nice point, Dupmar.
    Nazis were anti-conservative because as a dark-horse populist movement the way to gain the most support at the time was to flog the failed Weimar government. There was less of an ideological basis for their anti-conservatism or their anti-communism than there was an expediency in openly offering an alternative to a dispirited German public.

    Sounds a bit like the US right wing, which promises to be “mavericks” to change our “failed government” which in fact failed on their watch precisely because they set it up to fail.

    What, by the way, is a nosebiter?

    edward

    May 11, 2010 at 7:18 am

  13. @johnnyonline “neither springs from respect for the individual and freedom of thought which is the traditional territory of the classic liberal, conservative or right. ”

    What ? Are you suggesting that religious nuts in the US are “of the left” ? The pope would be a leftist ? And, I suppose, Voltaire, Orwell, Russell and all those who opposed power structures and the Church are “of the right” ? Freedom of thought has nothing to do with right wing (I would say it’s more left wing, but that may be a stretch too given the XXth century history).

    Communism was evil and came from the left. Fascism was evil and came from the right. Sorry if my quotes on social darwinism from capitalists from the ’20s weren’t published, but it’s just intellectual honesty to recognized that both group of thinking were associated with bad friends. And to delimitate our brands of “right” or “left” so that we make sure that it doesn’t happens again.

    I could try to say that USSR was right wing – powerful leaders, huge power structure, discipline, and what a weird communism is the one who mix with the Orthodox Church, abandon internationalism, persecute Jews (for instance Trostky himself), slaughter anarcho-communism in Spain and in Kronstadt, shut down the unions (the soviets) and makes friend with Hitler. But ultimately, there is still a connection, and we should admit it if we don’t want history to repeat itself. “Populist” movements such as the ADQ. Quebec “Xs” or the tea party are very similar with protofascist movements in the beginning of the XXth century. That’s your gang, using “freedom” in a distorted sense (the freedom of the stronger to enslave, the freedom of the mob to lynch), the same way USSR distorted “freedom” (freedom to get food but not to think).

    “you may not like the connection to the left”

    It’s not a question of what I like or not. It’s a question of truth and falsity.

    Tancrède

    May 11, 2010 at 7:19 am

  14. That is right Tancrède.
    Johnny, to use an annoying right-wing mantra, you’ve been quaffing the FOX Kool-Aid again. It dulls your normally sharp wit.

    edward

    May 11, 2010 at 7:26 am

  15. @johnnyonline:

    “i do not see corporations calling for greater government intervention”

    Is it a joke ? Because that’s what they did best in the two past years, from automobile companies to banks (even the present anti-bank regulation rhetoric is a way to ensure future bailout). And we can agree that we should not turn them down of course (we don’t want all the economy to go to hell because some fuzzy-headed CEO gambled with other people’s money) but still, there is a long story of socializing deficits and privatizing profits, to use an old slogan.

    Tancrède

    May 11, 2010 at 7:27 am

  16. A nosebiter is a lowlife brawler, generally a redneck in some pickup, although not limited to the Alberta landscape, whose cultural appreciation, such as it is, finds such forms of expression..

    dupmar

    May 11, 2010 at 7:32 am

  17. “in any case the underlying point is that associating fascists with the right is now uderstood and seen as a transparent attempt to discredit conservatives by lumping them in with a despised group – good luck with that.”

    And any attempt to pretend that the earth revolves around the sun will be seen as a transparent scheme to promote a godless liberal/communist agenda.

    Tancrède

    May 11, 2010 at 8:41 am

  18. Tancrède,

    Brillant! Une riposte à jol qui mérite une médaille d’or!

    “Is it a joke ? Because that’s what they did best in the two past years, from automobile companies to banks (even the present anti-bank regulation rhetoric is a way to ensure future bailout). And we can agree that we should not turn them down of course (we don’t want all the economy to go to hell because some fuzzy-headed CEO gambled with other people’s money) but still, there is a long story of socializing deficits and privatizing profits, to use an old slogan”

    C’est exactement ça! Tu me rends humble.

    bruce

    May 11, 2010 at 8:51 am

  19. @jol,

    Tancrède a raison! C’était la cupidité qui a suscitée la grande faillite de Wall Street il y a 2 ans. Tous de nous donc doit payer pour la grand escroquerie là.

    Alors il nous faut chercher un équilibre entre un marché totalement libre et une réglementation d’affaires trop étroite.

    À cause de la réglementation fiscale des banques canadiennes grâce à Paul Martin, (et de quoi les conservateurs Flaherty et Harper prétendent de nos jours tout le mérite sans l’avoir formulé en premier), nous n’avons pas souffert une grande faillite en ce secteur là. Mais c’est un exemple d’un projet de loi bien dessiné.

    Autrement, sans bonne gestion dans les corporations d’entreprise eux-mêmes, et sans bonne et intelligente vue d’ensemble fiscale fédérale nous serions dans la même situation qu’aux États-Unis. Mais sans la crise les conservateurs de Harper étaient prêt de laisser tomber beaucoup des garanties auxquelles l’ancienne administration libérale avait insisté.

    C’était fou d’avoir eu un renard dans le poulailler comme Henry Paulson qui était une initié de Goldman Sachs, une corporation qui a fait des transactions vraiement immorales. Et Bernie Madoff? Ce sont des débauche débordements d’un système pas assez bien géré qui a toléré un comportment d’entreprise tout à fait scandaleux qui a blessé grièvement tout le monde.

    bruce

    May 11, 2010 at 9:42 am

  20. “Cette vérité qu’on ne peut pas voir, qu’en certains cas on refuse délibérément de voir, c’est que les hécatombes de 1914 et 1939 n’ont pas été des guerres mondiales; ce furent tout simplement les deux premières phases de la Révolution Mondiale patiemment préparée depuis 1789, les deux premiers actes de la grande tragédie que rien ne peut plus arrêter et qui doit se terminer de notre temps, par un troisième et dernier acte, plus palpitant, plus compliqué plus bouleversant que les deux premiers, et dont l’issue nous présentera le communisme, le Matérialisme ou Libéralisme triomphant sur toute l’humanité subjuguée; ou bien l’Esprit vainqueur de la Matière, la Vérité planant victorieuse sur les débris de l’Erreur.

    Les auteurs les plus sérieux, tant de gauche que de droite, ont écrit que la Révolution Française avait déclenché un mouvement mondial qui devait aboutir à une Révolution Mondiale, la vraie, la grande, la désirée, dont la Révolution Française n’avait été qu’un premier essai, un début, l’impulsion initiale. Avant de déclencher cette Révolution Mondiale, que les esprits simplistes attendent toujours mais dans laquelle un monde épuisé se débat depuis déjà trente-six ans, il fallait préparer les institutions, les états, les foules, les chefs politiques, sociaux et religieux. Et comme ils l’ont été! Par le naturalisme, le matérialisme, le rationalisme, le tolérantisme, les postulats et leurs conséquences de la trilogie Liberté-Égalité-Fraternité, par les enseignements et les sophismes de la trinité des temps modernes: libéralisme-socialisme-communisme, qui n’est en somme qu’une seule et même chose, une seule et même essence à des stages de maturité différents comme le sont le pépin, le pommier et la pomme.”

    Adrien Arcand, extrait de La République Universelle 1950

    Gébé Tremblay

    May 11, 2010 at 10:47 am

  21. Adrien Arcand contre la nation canadienne française ?
    Vraiment ?

    “Sont-ce nos épiciers canadiens-français qui persécutent les immigrés Steinberg, ou si sont les Steinberg qui ruinent nos épiciers établis ici depuis 300 ans, qui les font disparaître les uns après les autres? Non seulement en bouleversant complètement les conditions du marché régulier, mais en éliminant radicalement ces petits bastions de la bourgeoisie canadienne-française? Sont-ce les fourreurs canadiens qui persécutent les marchands Juifs de fourreurs, qui en moins de trente ans et avec les capitaux de l’étranger ont accaparé le contrôle incontesté de cette industrie autrefois bien canadienne-française? Sont-ce nos petits ferronniers qui persécutent les Pascal ou si ce sont ces derniers, soutenus par les capitaux de la banque Juive de l’or, qui persécutent nos marchands canadiens-français, en vue d’éliminer cette autre section de bourgeoisie canadienne-française? Et la même question peut se poser pour les domaines de la bijouterie, de l’industrie de la chaussure, de la confection pour dames, de la confection pour hommes, de l’industrie de construction, de l’industrie laitière, de l’industrie des alcools, bref de presque toutes nos industries et tous nos commerces. Nos Canadiens peuvent à peine se trouver des logements, tandis que les réfugiés Juifs d’Europe, dès leur arrivée au pays où ils n’ont jamais fait de sacrifices, ni payé de taxes, trouvent à leur disposition des immeubles luxueux. De quel côté est la persécution? Quand des étrangers au sens national et à la foi nationale, bien accueillis, jamais molestés, peuvent eu moins d’un demi-siècle accaparer une influence indue sur la conduite de la nation, sur la vie économique du pays, s’infiltrer partout, saboter la mentalité politique, usurper des contrôle qui doivent en tout temps rester aux mains des nationaux, sont-ce ces étrangers qui sont persécutés, ou est-ce la nation qui les a accueillis?”

    Adrien Arcand, La République Universelle, 1950

    Gébé Tremblay

    May 11, 2010 at 11:12 am

  22. Adrien Arcand anglophile ?

    Vraiment ?

    “Nos chefs civils, à Ottawa, nous ont parlé plusieurs fois de la nécessité d’un super-gouvernement mondial, depuis qu’ils ont été embobinés a San Francisco, en 1945, par le texte Juif, rédigé par le Juif Harry White qui forme la charte des Nations-Unies. Et tout leur travail, depuis cette date, a surtout consisté à nous inféoder toujours plus intimement sous l’autorité de l’O. N. U. Ces chefs, pour la plupart francs-maçons, ne font que suivre la ligne de conduite dictée par les loges, elles-mêmes sous la coupe des Juifs. Cette folie de république universelle, qui semble toute nouvelle à certaines gens, a déjà été dénoncée depuis longtemps par l’Église. A la suite de Mgr Ernest Jouin, de Paris: Mgr Benigni, de Rome; Mgr Treczak, de Varsovie; Mgr Delassus, de Lille, les plus éminents experts contemporains sur la question Juive, c’est le cardinal français Andrieux qui,…”

    Adrien Arcand, La République Universelle, 1950

    Gébé Tremblay

    May 11, 2010 at 11:18 am

  23. “To use architectural language, if you remove the antisemitic variable from the discourse of people like Lionel Groulx, everything still holds. If you remove it from Arcand’s movement, everything collapses. The foundation of his ideology is that there is a Jewish project of world domination and that it is imperative that they be eliminated.”(AFG)

    This is like saying that the fight against the mafia is anti-italian because most of the mafia is composed of italians. It is absurd.

    Groulx and Arcand were strong anti-communists and were very well aware that capitalist jews were the main heads and executives of this movement. Just like a mafia, which it was and still is.

    There is no such thing as anti-italianism or anti-semitism, unless you support the notion that jews form a race ! If you support the notion of antisemitism, then you support racism.

    Gébé Tremblay

    May 11, 2010 at 12:38 pm

  24. ‘Nazi’ listed as an identifiable victim group in Toronto Police’s 2009 hate crime stats report

    http://www.mytowncrier.ca/story-15821-1-1.html

    Marvel

    May 11, 2010 at 3:33 pm

  25. Gébé–if you believe that Jewish capitalists were or are at the forefront of Communism, you must live in a fantasy world. I can think of no other explanation.

    If you concur with Adrien Arcand that Liberalism, Socialism, and Communism are one and the same phenomenon, you are naive. If you were to live under Communism even for a week you would know the difference.

    littlerob

    May 11, 2010 at 5:09 pm

  26. “I can think of no other explanation.”(Littlerob)

    I know. Keep on thinking, Litllerob, and make sure not to look for the answer, because if it is not in your head already then it’s just a fantasy.

    If there was an answer on who exactly financed the communist-bolchevik revolution, it would bee in Littlerob’s head for sure and he could tell us all.

    But keep looking in every corner of your brain, it may be hiding or something.

    Gébé Tremblay

    May 11, 2010 at 6:10 pm

  27. Gébé–If we believe Fritz Fischer in his book Germany’s Aims in the First World War, who quoted the German diplomat Richard von Kuehlmann, the German Foreign Office financed the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 for the purpose of weakening Russia so that Germany could dictate peace terms to her. The conduit for the funds was a Russian Jewish emigré banker named Alexander Helphand. Helphand seems to have been the only Jew involved in setting up the scheme; the inspiration from it came from von Kuehlmann and his fellow diplomats in the Foreign Office such as Ulrich von Brockdorff-Rantzau and Gisbert von Romberg, supported by the German High Command, Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmermann, and Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg. The money itself came from the German treasury. I hope that helps you.

    I am going to throw a theory out here on the subject of why Adrien Arcand may not have supported a separate Québec. The peak of Arcand’s influence coincided with the Spanish Civil War (1936-39), an event that polarized opinion around the world. Public opinion in the Catholic countries–Québec was no exception as far as I know–strongly supported the rightists under Francisco Franco against the leftist Popular Front government in Madrid. The Madrid government was (at least initially) supported by, among others, the Basque and Catalan autonomists. Franco vowed to crush the “separatists”–he often used the term “rojos-separatistas” to describe his enemies–and he was as good as his word after the rightists won the war. I sense that it would have looked odd if Arcand–who I assume favored Franco–had supported Québec separatism while simultaneously backing an enemy of Basque and Catalan separatism.

    littlerob

    May 11, 2010 at 7:05 pm

  28. I did not read Fritz Fischer’s 1961 book, Littlerob. You see, when a “historian” like Fischer presents Germany’s “aims” of the Frist World War between 1914 and 1918, then I know that the guy is a fraud, because the aims of wars come long before even the preparations for war and way long before even the first shot is fired.

    If Fischer says that Helphand seems to have been the only Jew involved in setting up the scheme in 1917, then this proves Fischer is a fraud or a very bad historian because this scheme, on the german side, was in preparation as early as 1900 by jews from the Tzar’s secret police the Okhranka.

    You, see, the first country to finance the bolcheviks was the Tzar’s Russia, then France, Belgium, Poland, Switzerand, and other european countries, then Germany, and finally USA. Even Britain. And in all those countries the scheme was set up by a jewish network tied to the Okhranka.

    Of course, Fischer could not write a book on Israel’s aims of the First World War because the country did not exist at the time ! :-) But it existed in the mind of those jews and existed as a shadow country spread in all european countries.

    Fisher say that “the conduit for the funds was a Russian Jewish emigré banker named Alexander Israel Helphand” ?

    That proves again that he is not serious. Alexander Helphand was intermediary number 3, while number 4 was JACOB FURSTENBERG (alias GANETSKY), the direct link to Lenin.

    Have a look at who is JACOB FURSTENBERG. He was already in Germany in 1901 and in contact with the jewish Okhranka. He will become Chief Soviet Banker in 1917.

    More “jucy” details later….

    Gébé Tremblay

    May 12, 2010 at 10:16 am

  29. Did Fischer say in his book that the Kaiser did not know anything about this scheme ? I guest not, or he would not have call it “Germany’s aims”.

    Gébé Tremblay

    May 12, 2010 at 10:23 am

  30. @Gébé–I am aware of the existence of Ganetsky/Fuerstenberg (I know of him under the name Hanecki). I don’t believe he was involved in setting up the network that financed Lenin, although there is evidence that he was an active participant (from his base in Stockholm, I believe) in distributing the money that Helphand handed out. Fischer does not mention Hanecki, probably because the latter was in Scandinavia during most of the 1914-18 period.

    As you have indicated that you know some Polish, here is the Polish-language Wikipedia page on Hanecki:

    http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakub_Hanecki

    According to that source, Hanecki was the Warsaw-born son of a German brewer named Stanislaw von Fuerstenberg.

    Fischer did not specifically identify Helphand as a Jew, although Helphand’s Jewish origins were and are pretty well known. I wish you would at least read Fischer’s book before critiquing him.

    Whether Kaiser Wilhelm II knew of the Foreign Office’s scheme to finance the Bolsheviks in 1917 is, I would argue, pretty well irrelevant, because by that time, the real rulers of Germany were the High Command (Erich Ludendorff being the most influential man there) and the civilians at the top of the bureaucracy. Ludendorff certainly knew of the Foreign Office’s financing of the Bolsheviks; he approved of it. It was a good investment for Germany, too, at least in the short term: after Berlin dictated peace terms to Bolshevik-ruled Russia at Brest-Litovsk (1918), the Germans came away with a huge booty of arms, munitions, supplies, and rolling stock, plus a large war indemnity.

    The balance of what you write (it’s “Okhrana,” btw) makes very little sense to me. The Bolsheviks didn’t even exist as such in 1900; the split in the Russian Social Democratic Workers’ Party into the Bolshevik and Menshevik factions began in 1904.

    But I’m getting away from the subject of the thread…

    littlerob

    May 12, 2010 at 4:27 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: