This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
The world walks out of 2012 and into the new year balancing upon the edge of a razor blade. Global tension amongst nations has reached a breaking point and only a profound and immediate introduction of principled remedies founded upon natural law stand a chance of reversing the collapse which has gripped society since the assassination of John F. Kennedy, its cover-up and the post 1968 «counter culture» paradigm shift. Those remedies hang upon a tree of life ripe for anyone with hope for the future and understanding of those past dynamics which shaped the present. It is tragically the case, that due to the general lack of the latter within the leadership of our society, the former is also lacking. It is the purpose thus, of this first issue of the Canadian Patriot in 2013 to provide the reader with several historical studies which unveil the hidden struggles of recent Canadian history that preceded the 1968 paradigm shift. Since Canada’s right to sovereignty, progress and development has been halted for so many decades, this issue will feature those stories of those misunderstood patriots who stood up for the ideals of humanity, in the face of an imperial machine that was committed to crushing them. The legacy of establishment historians who have been assigned the role of gatekeepers to Canadian history such as Peter C. Newman, Richard Gwyn, Pierre Berton, and Conrad Black must now come to an end. It is in this spirit that our issue begins with a report on Canada’s British Constitution and the need to abolish the evil of party politics, followed by an investigation into the fight of B.C.’s Premier W.A.C. Bennett (1952-72) and the battle for the development of the North West. This takes us into the germ seed of the great NAWAPA program for continental development. We follow this up with a study of John Diefenbaker’s failed Northern Vision and finish with two studies that introduce the reader to the true systems set in place by the British Empire to wage cultural warfare on the notion of progress. Both articles expose the methods used to recruit their «gatekeepers » for the imperial agenda, and will take you through the evil origins of the Rhodes Trust, the Roundtable group as well as the evil roots of environmentalism as the new eugenics based religion of the new world order. With insight into the past, so may the future become subject to our creative will. If ignorance of those causes of our present world tension continue to cloud our minds, then the future will only direct our will and acts. Freedom in the highest sense would tragically remain little more than an illusion.
Matthew Ehret-Kump Jean-Philippe Lebleu
Avneet Thapar Pascal Chevrier David Gosselin François Lépine Robert Hux, Ph.D. Ilko Dimov Birgit Henker Pierre Beaudry
For more information visit: www.committeerepubliccanada.ca To know more about our associates in the USA through our Political Action Committee or Intelligence Magazine (Executive Intelligence Review), visit: www.larouchepac.com www.larouchepub.com To contact the Committee for the Republic of Canada, write to email@example.com or call (514)-461-7209
The Canadian Patriot
In this issue .................................................................................................................................2 Towards a World of Sovereign Republics: Why the Evil of Party Politics Must be Overcome......................................................................4 W.A.C. Bennett: Canada’s Spiritual Father of NAWAPA.....................................................................................13 NAFTA vs. NAWAPA [Box].......................................................................................................23 The Paradoxical Case of Canada’s British Constitution...........................................................26 A Lesson in Universal History Friederick Schiller on the Appropriate Method for Judging Laws and Constitutions............26 John Diefenbaker and the Sabotage of the Northern Vision...................................................28 ICBMs and the Death of the Avro Arrow [Box]........................................................................38 Canadian Exceptionalism and the Manifest Destiny of Canada in a Post Imperial World.....42 Cecil Rhodes, the Roundtable Movement and Eugenics..........................................................45
Towards a World of Sovereign Republics.
Why the Evils of Party Politics Must be Overcome
By Matthew Ehret-Kump Our current society has the choice of either collapsing into a long dark age, or renewing the great birth of mankind which expressed itself brilliantly with the establishment of its first Constitutional Republic via the American Revolution of 1776. As those foolish decisions shaping history would have it, the world of sovereign republics free of colonialism would not be carried into reality with the birth of America. All developments leading up to the present crises have been shaped directly by the intrinsic tension between two inclinations. On the one side, we find the spirit of discovery and faith in the perfectibility of the universe and man embodied in the best republican traditions of the United States of America, while on the other do we find an inclination towards stasis and the pessimistic attitude that not only is the universe a cold, evil place, but so too is the humanity found within it. While history has been a struggle between representatives of these two outlooks, with the advent of thermonuclear capabilities, and the actual possibility of self extermination, no longer is mankind afforded the liberty to tolerate their co-existence. One must prevail. Canada must locate its true character within this historical dynamic if it is to overcome the greatest obstacle to its evolution. This obstacle is to be found within the un-principled British imperial system which formed its historical and present behaviour. It is the design of the present report to shed light on several key fallacies embedded within the foundations of Canada’s paradoxical system in order to ensure that she does not remain a tool of those interests intent on subverting the best traditions of humanity during this time of economic crisis and war. Rather, the author intends that these existential crises provide an opportunity of honest self examination such that this great northern territory take up its vital role as a servant to the interests of humankind as a true sovereign nation. To re-emphasize; this system has proven to be one
of the greatest sources of confusion and evil in our nation’s history and if we are to overcome its intended limitations, we must take a moment and evaluate what underlies it.
What is a Sovereign Nation?
The very toleration of something as self contradictory as a Party System as a pillar of a nation state, could only occur to the extent that a fallacious idea of sovereignty were maintained. Contrary to popular belief, nations are not the effect of some “social contract” agreed upon to check the innate selfishness of mankind. Nor can it be assumed that empires are simply the natural outgrowth of nations, within a Hobbesian world of “each against all”. Since modern international law and the sacred right to national sovereignty now being threatened by the Blair doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) and the “World Government”, is rooted in the 1648 Treaty signed in Westphalia, we would do well to look to that founding document to see first hand upon what basis a nation is to be considered sovereign. In this way, we may re-evaluate to what degree sovereignty has been destroyed under the monetarist system of Globalization… especially in those nations popularly perceived to be the most free and democratic of the world. `That there shall be a Christian and Universal Peace, and a perpetual, true and sincere Amity, between his Sacred Imperial Majesty and his most Christian Majesty as also between all and each of the Allies…That this Peace and Amity shall be observed and cultivated with such a Sincerity and Zeal, that each Party shall endeavour to procure the Benefit, Honour and Advantage of the other; that thus on all sides they may see this Peace and Friendship in the Roman Empire, and the Kingdom of France flourish by entertaining a good and faithful neighbourhood”. (1)
(1) To view the entire Treaty of Westphalia, go to: http:// avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/westphal.asp
framework shaped by Mazarin and his law. A handful of such personalities would go on to found the United States of America as a direct outgrowth of this revolution in statecraft. What we find is that Sovereign nations have a character analogous to the character of what we would classify as the virtuous individual. Just as some individuals are weaker and some stronger, some are foolish, and others wise, some are trapped by selfish impulses they themselves don’t fully understand and others by principled motives, so too do we discover nations are similarly defined. As the character of a human is also known as his or her constitution, so too are statesmen obliged not to act as careerists or pragmatists for present concerns as is too often the case today, but rather to ensure the foundation, defence and cultivation of good constitutions which will form the character of its people, in order for its people to reciprocally reinforce and develop their nation’s constitution. This fact has been a matter of intense reflection by the most powerful minds and strategists for good and evil throughout history, so it would be wise for any reader to take such considerations as seriously as the founding fathers did when they chose to risk their lives for those universal ideals expressed in the words written on the founding documents of the U.S. republic. It must also be considered when evaluating the unprincipled founding documents of British Canada, a nation which, though many believe to be a beacon of democracy and freedom in the world, is actually one of the most tightly controlled colonies of an unseen empire. This British empire advocates nothing less than the reduction of humanity both in quantity and quality as proposed by the likes of Prince Philip(2). This has been the legacy of the British Empire System of Empire, of which Canada is still an unacknowledged part, as juxtaposed against the empire’s mortal adversary, the American system of political economy embedded in the United States Constitution.
The Peace of Westphalia signified the end of the Venetian sponsored 30 years of religious war, and set the basis for the modern sovereign nation state and rule of law.. Painting depicting the treaty by Gerard ter Borch
The preamble of the Treaty of Westphalia uniquely established a new social principle in human history which is to “procure the Benefit, Honor and Advantage of the other.” For the first time in history the Christian principle of “Love of Mankind (agape)” is no longer a strictly personal principle of conduct, but an international guiding principle between sovereign nations. In comparison with any other peace treaty in history that principle of the “Advantage of the other” represents the most significant advance in human affairs since the 1439 Council of Florence led by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. It goes on to outline the need for mutual forgiveness of transgressions, and mutual cooperation of all parties. What is remarkable is that for the first time in history, was a legal framework crafted that not only put an end to war, but established the necessary ingredients for a durable peace… not as a negation of war, or a list of `do nots`, but rather as a positive principle` of creative change.
One is also struck by the spirit of Grace, Forgiveness and Charity which shine forth in these words, especially the mandate of `the benefit of the other`. This spirit did not embody the vast majority of signers of (2) "Human population growth is probably the single most serious long-term the Treaty, but rather only a small minority of indi- threat to survival. We're in for a major disaster if it isn't curbed--not just for viduals working directly with its leading architect, the natural world, but for the human world. The more people there are, the Cardinal Gilles Mazarin of France. Yet, even so, the more resources they'll consume, the more pollution they'll create, the more principled character of the individual personality, not fighting they will do. We have no option. If it isn't controlled voluntarily, it some mob, was necessary to forge its success, and as will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation and war." an effect, it has had a durable effect upon the cultiva-Prince Philip, founder of the World Wildlife Fund tion of personalities born and raised under the new
A Necessary Investigation of Two Constitutions:
Before embarking upon a comparative study of these two systems, it must first be noted that Canada has no explicit single constitution. It has a list of “founding documents” which include the Quebec Act of 1774 included among the “intolerable acts” of the 13 colonies(3), the Act of 1791 that established Upper and Lower Canada, the failed Act of Union of 1840 and the British North American Act of 1867. The latter was established as a response by a bankrupt British oligarchy to keep Canada from developing a real constitution modelled on that of Lincoln’s USA after the British-run Confederacy operation failed in its attempted dissolution of the Union with Lincoln’s victory in 1865 (4). While this Act lasted another century, a final Canada Act passed by an order in council in the British and Canadian Parliaments in 1982, now called The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, was added to the mix of legal documents. Many believe (falsely) that this document is now the sole Canadian Constitution. In the case of the United States, two founding documents exist, amended over time, but unchanged in principle. These are the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Constitution (1787). Just as Abraham Lincoln argued that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were to be viewed as one doubly connected document, so too will we here. The American Declaration of Independence begins with the words: “We hold these truths to be selfevident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
(3) The Quebec Act was designed to bribe French Canada with superficial rights… mostly religious as long as loyalty to the Crown were maintained, and thereby subverting Quebec`s near entry into the revolution as a 14th colony and blocking the western expansion policy of America by bringing the Quebec possessions down into Ohio. See Pierre Beaudry, The Tragic Consequences of the Quebec Act of 1774, Canada: Republic or Colony, 2007 (4) See www.larouchepac.com/1932
new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” In the midst of a laundry list of rights granted by order of the Queen, we find article 7 of the Canadian Constitution of 1982 that reads; “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” And then a little later, in article 15: “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability”. After a comparative reading, a nominalist would conclude that both systems are almost equivalent. The right to life, and liberty are to be found in both, as well as the acknowledgement of individual equality. So why is the Canadian Constitution vastly inferior to its American counterpart? To answer this, it is useful to pose another question, namely, what is the source from which these rights are derived in both cases? In the case of the American system, such rights are deemed self-evident and inherent in the soul and as such to be given or taken by no mortal as one would treat a physical object. In the Canadian Constitution, a very different beast rears its head. These rights are granted to the people, as a form of legal contract! While souls cannot be made null and void based on whim and circumstance of a dictator, a contract always can. If the source of Canada’s true director is still ambiguous to the reader, let them merely refer to the last article of the act; “article 62: This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1982, and the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1975” It is here that the cat is let out of the bag. The Constitution Act of 1982 did not replace the longstanding British North American Act of 1867 as most Canadians have been led to believe. Rather, the Act of 1867 was merely amended, and renamed, though its principles and intent never repealed. Thus, let us see what the 1867 constitution establishes clearly in its preamble, as the true purpose of Canada:
WHEREAS the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom: And whereas such a Union would conduce to the Welfare of the Provinces and promote the Interests of the British Empire” There it is. The rights of people in Canada are presumed to be derived from the “fount of all honours” otherwise known as the monarchy, while Canada’s stated purpose is nothing more than to “promote the interests of the British Empire”! Looking towards the geopolitical dynamics of Canada’s history, one is struck that not one ounce of blood was ever dropped for liberty in establishing our founding documents, and for that reason, no honest liberty was ever won because it was never there to be won. Only a cheap counterfeit for liberty prances around the Canadian soul calling herself “comfort”, or the freedom to ”go along to get along”.
Let us compare this with the “mission statement” of America by looking at the preamble of its Constitution: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The liberty derived from this idea is a far different matter than the thing roaming around with the same name in Canada. The fact is that nowhere in the U.S. founding docuThomas Hobbes ments do we find that the re(1588-1679) public is at all a party system, nor even a democracy, but rather a democratic republic, designed explicitly around the principle of the General Welfare, not only for present generations, but into infinite posterity. That is an idea of freedom worth fighting for. Canada’s founding documents were modelled explicitly on the British geopolitical doctrine known as balance of power, derived from the bestial social program of each against all and popularized by imperial propagandists such as Thomas Hobbes and later John Locke,
David Hume, etc... The absolute power of a monarch using her appendages of the Privy Council and Governor General must “counter balance” the power of an unelected House of Lords representing the aristocracy and nobility (in Canada known as “The Senate”) who in turn “balance” the power of the those elected by “the commoners” known as the House of Commons. The Commoners must not be allowed to decide their destiny on principle, but only according to a perverted form of group think known as “party politics”.
Siamese Twins: The Party System and Free Trade
In observing the root evil of the Party system, we must come to recognize that its foundation hinges upon the total destruction of individual conscience. Not only that, but any standard of truth and justice upon which competent deliberation about national policy should be based is reduced to a “hedonistic calculus” of pleasure versus pain. This same “pleasure-pain” fallacy can be clearly seen when evaluating the unprincipled structure of the bastard sibling to the Party System known as British Free Trade. It is impossible to evaluate one child of the British System while ignoring its ugly twin. A useful excerpt from the official architect of Free Trade Adam Smith in his 1759 Theory of Moral Sentiments will suffice to communicate the issue at hand: "Hunger, thirst, and the passion which unites the two sexes, the love of pleasure, and the dread of pain, prompt us to apply those means for their own sake, and without any consideration of their tendency to those beneficent ends which the great Director of nature intended to produce by them." (5)
Just as the Party system is designed around the negation of truth and its replacement by Adam Smith popular opinion, so too is Brit(1723-1790) ish Free Trade designed around the pre-eminence of hedonistic personal desires, and popular opinion before the well being of the nation as a whole. Why plan for the future, when the “hidden hand” of the market guides our personal vice to those mysterious “beneficent ends” which only “the gods” may know… but not lowly man.
(5) Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1759 7
With that said, we may ask: how could it be possible that the superior reason and morality of an exceptional individual be permitted to win over adherents to his or her policy initiative, when that individual’s views and opinions must a-priori conform to the desires of “the party”? How can a place exist in a civilized society for such a function as a party “whip” whose function is to ensure that all party members are kept in line with “the party”? How can the general welfare ever be assured when the Party’s primary mandate is to be maintain power by being popular with “the right demographics”? Where do we find a place for “truth” in such a world? Similarly, in the case of Free Trade let us ask: How can the wise understanding of a nation builder favour the debt incurred to build a hydroelectric dam, relative to a network of whorehouses, when the monetary sums associated with both of them may be equal, and in fact promise a far greater return when invested in a whorehouse (or a hedge fund)? In the logic of free trade, a nation must allow both its infrastructure, and productive powers to rot in favour of the types of “investments” that bring ever more obscene rates of momentary pleasure (aka monetary profit) by the gods of “the market”, even at the expense of the future survival of society. How else could one explain the recent explosion of derivatives to the scale of 10 times the world GDP? How about the satanic case of 40% of a nation’s corn production transformed into ethanol for gas tanks and speculation in a world that suffers the deaths of 30 000 children by starvation every day? While the British system has been sometimes adopted and sometimes resisted by America (seen in hindsight as times of alternating growth and collapse), it has almost perpetually held the Dominion of Canada in its clutches, with very few respites from the corruption, confusion and impoverishment which are its children. As one American economist observed the sad case of Canada in the early 1850s:
A brief illustration of the parasite taking over the host. Derivative growth vs World GDP from 2000 to 2012. From the standpoint of the numbers alone, the green and blue figures are identitcal in ‘value’.. [graph from crunchthenumbers.net]
have enjoyed the blessings of free trade all of the time, we only a part of the time. Whenever we have attempted to supply ourselves by our own industry, with the comforts and necessities of life, we have improved our condition as a people; and during the intervals of free trade and large importations of foreign goods, we have relapsed again into a condition bordering on bankruptcy; while the Canadians have been constantly exhausted, and kept so poor by free trade, as to be unable to get sufficient credit to have the ups and downs of prosperity and bankruptcy in succession” (6). A leading American political economist of the Hamiltonian school named Henry C. Carey not only led Abraham Lincoln’s national economic program that turned the USA into the preeminent force for progress by the end of the 19th Century, but explicitly laid bare the methods of the Union’s true enemy in his many books, speeches and pamphlets, one of which is called The Harmony of Interests in 1856: ``Two systems are before the world; the one looks to increasing the proportion of persons and of capital engaged in trade and transportation, and therefore to diminishing the proportion engaged in producing
“Though the ratio of the increase of the population has been greater in Canada than in the United States, yet their increase of wealth has barely kept pace with the population, and they are (6) Ezra Champion Seaman, Essays on the Progress of Naall as poor as they were half a century since. They tions (1853) p. 599
commodities with which to trade, with necessarily diminished return to the labour of all; while the other looks to increasing the proportion engaged in the work of production, and diminishing that engaged in trade and transportation, with increased return to all, giving to the labourer good wages, and to the owner of capital good profits... One looks to underworking the Hindoo, and sinking the rest of the world to his level; the other to raising the standard of man throughout the world to our level. One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism; the other in increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. One looks towards universal war; the other towards universal peace. One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world.” (7)
Students and allies of Carey imported the Hamiltonian American System into countries the world over. Here left to right are Frederick List (178946), President of Canada’s Executive Council Isaac Buchanan (18101883) and Prime Minister Wilfred Laurier ((1841-1919)
The idea of Progress
While the principles of republicanism embodied in the American System demand a protective tariff, and productive credit, the British System demands the inverse. It is worth asking; “do the upper quotes mean to infer that Free Trade is intrinsically an evil?” Not at all. In fact, guided by a principled intention towards progress and development among all sovereign participants, freedom of trade has had the effect of uniting and empowering all involved. Among the clearest cases, we need only look to the newly liberated colonies themselves just after the Declaration of Independence. These former colonies, left to their own personal self interest, local currency conHenry C. Carey (1793-1879) trols, and fragmented tariff policies on imports, were so divided that a re-conquering was all but inevitable. However, Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton’s bold program to federalize legitimate debts opened up an ability to pay off the debt occurred during the war, and trade freely amongst
(7) Henry C. Carey, The Harmony of Interests: Agricultural, Manufacturing and Commercial, New York, 1856
themselves under a federal government acting for the general welfare which ensured great unity and national power. A similar case can be viewed in the formation of the German Zollverein led by the follower of Alexander Hamilton, German economist Friederick List, or the attempted Reciprocity Treaties arranged between America and Canada of the late 19th century by the Canadian followers of Abraham Lincoln such as the statesmen Isaac Buchanan and Wilfrid Laurier. The key that united these case studies is 1) their common blocking, via protective tariffs, of Monopolized private interests controlled by the financier oligarchy centred in London, 2) the abolishment of usury and wild speculation and 3) the instituting of visionary programs which were designed to promote the general welfare. These long-term projects would not only be fuelled by 4) national credit issued via national banking procedures, but would ensure that 5) investments and private industry would be tied to physically productive enterprises. Profit is good… as long as it is tied to something truly useful to the success of humanity, as well as the entrepreneur. However, when no guiding principle is actively moving the participant states toward common aims of all, and only the mindless unruly beast known as “the Market” is left to rule freely over the many, then no durable good has ever, will ever or could ever occur. A society that tolerates a system which severs human intention and principle so absolutely from its behaviour, in favour of popular opinion and pleasure worshipping, has lost all moral fitness to survive, and the oligarchy which will run free to monopolize all commodities under such a “laissezfaire” logic of enslaved nations shall, by its very nature, not stop until the society which it has trapped in its ideological web has consumed itself into oblivion.
Case Study: Changing Nature
The final test of any system will not occur in a class room, or academic high tower, but in applied reality. In this way, by acting on our concepts, and observing how the universe responds to our ideas may we competently judge whether to keep or discard a hypothesis. This is no less true for political economy as it is for the so-called “hard” sciences. If someone were to confront us and assert: Isn’t the notion of the superiority of the American System over the British System merely a matter of opinion? We may with self-assurance warmly reply that they are mistaken. Just as universal gravitation was not discovered by a The New Deal’s Hoover Dam was a testament to the greatness of mystical fraud like Isaac Newton, or by a consensus, the American System’s long tradition of harnessing the powers of but by the genius of a Johannes Kepler, so too can nature in the interests of mankind’s present and future needs. we assert that the universal validity of the American System is discoverable to self conscious reason (8). As mankind has become more aware of nature’s se- The Anti-Entropic Science of Physical crets, keys have been discovered unlocking doors to Economy her bounty, and the unruly chaos which is her “natural” state has yielded in increased tameness to In refuting British Imperial thinkers Thomas Malthe gentle hand of the plough, the sail, and the dam. thus, Adam Smith, and Charles Darwin by name in his book The Unity of Law, Henry C. Carey obWhere wilderness of the West had kept civilization served that the only reasonable metric to determine a at bay, Lincoln’s Transcontinental Railway program nation’s success is the increase of the productive opened new corridors to development and the blos- powers of labour, manifest in 1) the unbounded insoming of new cities. Where deserts have made way crease of powers of association of producer and conto valleys and farms such as California’s Imperial sumer, 2) the unbounded increase of the ratio of Valley, so too have swamps been tamed as under the Mind’s dominance to Matter. In refuting the British Tennessee Valley Authority, both programs effected notion that returns on production MUST always diunder Franklin Roosevelt’s minish and decay over time, leading inevitably toNew Deal. Where unruly wards overpopulation, starvation and war, Carey rapids and shallow waters makes his case for the higher unity of law which is prevented shipping, has the apparent with the acknowledgement of creative reaSt. Laurence Seaway son: opened up rivers to humanity’s field of activity, and “Here was further proof of the universality of natuwhere the earth had deter- ral laws- the course of man, in reference to the earth mined the limit of man’s at large, being thus shown to have been the same existence for all of human that we see it now to be in reference to all the instruhistory, did JFK’s dream ments into which he fashions parts of the great maextend our field of activity chine itself. Always commencing with the poorest Franklin Roosevelt to other planetary bodies. axes, he proceeds onward to those of steel; always (1882-1945) commencing with the poorer soils, he proceeds onward toward those capable of yielding larger re(8) For a full expose of the the political agenda behind the creation of turns to labor; increase of numbers being thus the Isaac Newton myth and an introduction to Kepler, Leibniz and Huyproved to be essential to increase in the supply of gens’ real discoveries of gravitation, the infinitesimal calculus and food. Here was a unity of law leading to perfect haroptics (attributed wrongly to Newton), see the 2008 LPAC video Harmony of all real and permanent human interests, vard Yard www.larouchepac.com/harvard-yard
and directly opposed to the discords taught by Mr. Malthus… Reflecting upon this, he (Carey) was soon brought to expression of the belief, that closer examination would lead to development of the great fact, that there existed but a single system of laws; those instituted for the government of inorganic matter proving to be the same by which that matter was governed when it took the form of man, or of communities of men.” (9)
European Population Growth increases both quantitatively and qualitatively after the Renaissance. Rather than suppose this fact to prove mankind is a virus killing nature, it were healthier to treat this as a great good which helps us see and act upon future creative challenges within the universe that will impose limits upon our future survival.
In the 20th Century, Lyndon LaRouche, having independently come to Carey’s conclusion and without any foreknowledge of the American System of Political Economy, established in his science of physical economy the metric of the unbounded increase of mankind’s Relative Potential Population Density, measured as an increase of the productive powers of labour measured per capita and per square kilometre. Redefining notions of Work, Energy and Power behind notions of Leibnizian Dynamics rather than Newtonian statistical notions prevalent in academic circles (10), LaRouche explained his discovery in various texts, not the least among them is the Science of Christian Economy where LaRouche writes: “The science of political economy is premised upon conclusive, empirical evidence of a fundamental difference which sets the human species absolutely apart from and above, all of the animal species, as Moses specifies in Genesis 1:26-28. This crucial difference is mankind’s power to increase the potential population density of the human species as a whole by means of the voluntary generation, transmission, and efficient assimilation of scientific and technological progress. Mankind is capable of increasing, intentionally, the maximum size of the human population which could be self-sustained by its own labor, per average square kilometre of land area, while also raising the average physical standard of living. No animal species can accomplish this.” (11)
The scientific formulation of a system usually taught as a mere social theory is not only a crucial breakthrough in human history, but has given leading world citizens around the world the necessary tools, the “objective” metrics of value, for them to successfully develop their national economies which serving the inalienable Rights of Man. Even though this new science has richly proven itself within the body of LaRouche’s nine major public forecasts since 1956, the current mental block to an open recognition of the validity of this new thought in practice, especially among leading Western governments, has been mankind’s inability to break free from the imperial conditioning called “the second law of thermodynamics” or simply “entropy”. The cultish religious belief that the universe as a whole is not only a closed (bounded) system, but also a system which is moving constantly towards increasing states of disorder and towards a reduced potential for change, can only be adhered to via a total disregard for the evidence found in the directed change in evolution since the Cambrian epoch, Kepler’s proof of the harmonic ordering of Solar Systems, as well as mankind’s powers of creative reason that have permitted him, over millennium, to constantly leap beyond his supposedly fixed spiritual and material limits. All evidence that creative thought has intrinsic active existence within the universe must be totally ignored for any such belief as Entropy, Darwinian biology, or even monetarism to hold any influence in society.
(9) Henry C. Carey, Unity of Law: Relations of the Physical, Mental and Moral Sciences, Philedelphia, 1872, preface p. 8 (10) The most extensive treatment of LaRouche’s discovery can be found in his 1984 textbook “So you wish to Learn about Economics” http://archive.org/details/SoYouWishToLearnAllAboutEconomics_66 (11) Lyndon LaRouche, Science of Christian Economy, Schiller Institute Inc., Washington D.C., 1991, p.221
Manifest Destiny as AntiEntropy
In contrast to the entropic view of the British System stands the American System mandate of constant antientropic development which has been expressed both theologically in the form of Genesis 1: 28 (12), politically in the form of Cusa’s New World Project taken up by Columbus in 1480, and economically as John Quincy Adams’ policy of Manifest Destiny (13). It is vital for citizens everywhere, but Canadians especially, to comprehend that with the ironic possession of greater land potential and one tenth the population of the USA, whatever progress achieved throughout Canada’s history has occurred in spite of and never because of our adherence to Britain’s system of party politics and Free Trade. Inversely the only reason why America has not progressed MORE than it has, is because of the British Policy of party politics and Free Trade subverting its own constitutional traditions introduced under such populist anglophiles such as Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman. Were we as a nation, and humanity as a whole, to continue to hold onto the foolish doctrines endorsed by the British Empire, and not overcome our corrupt habits of “lazy reason” which have permitted us to tolerate the self- destructive British System for so long, our self- extermination by war, disease, and starvation were all but assured. Were we not to recognize the solid foundation of reason that the American System of Republic has provided humanity in 1776, then the double edged sword of democracy and tyranny outlined in Plato’s Republic would perpetually take turns draining the blood of our children until no more could be drawn from the body of humankind.
(12) “And God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (13) Adams insisted that the westward expansion of the United States not result in the expansion of slavery, or conquests of other lands, but rather the extension of republicanism as expressed in the Declaration of Independence... And Adams was clear he did not see expansion by conquest, even of Canada (Nancy Spannaus, John Quincy Adams and the Community of Principle, Executive Intelligence Review, January 28 2000)
But as the Founding Fathers recognized that the time had been made ripe to pluck the seeds planted by Plato in his challenge to future generations in the Republic 2000 years earlier, so too must we now ensure that the ripeness of this time of great peril is not missed by a sleeping, cowardly society. The policies of Russia and China are echoing a future time that today exists naught but as a potential for something better. Connecting the old and new worlds via rail through the Bering Strait, greening those wounds known as deserts via great water projects such as the North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA) and Africa’s Transaqua exist as pillars on earth upon which a new financial system may be created. Pillars beyond the earth include Russia’s bold program for Asteroid Defence, China’s lunar mining initiative and international Mars colonization projects echoed by the successful landing of the Curiosity Rover in August 2012. All of these endeavours shall accelerate and be accelerated by the advent of man’s long overdue harnessing of fusion energy for civilian use, followed soon thereafter by controlled Matter-Antimatter processes. All will have the effect of increasing those key parameters laid out by Henry C. Carey and Lyndon LaRouche. All will demonstrate the anti-entropic nature of mind. With this potential and necessary future looking upon us and demanding that the American Revolution finally be completed the world over, may we not safely ask; Is it not time we become a republic?
W.A.C. Bennett: Canada’s Spiritual Father of NAWAPA
By Matthew Ehret-Kump [The majority of pioneering research for this report was done by Robert Hux, Ph.D.]
Today Lyndon LaRouche has laid out a challenge to policy-makers and citizens. The greatest opportunities to unleash progress and peace across the world exist in the opening up the Arctic to development, connecting Russia to North America through the Bering Strait, and constructing the North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA), advocated by the likes of John and Robert Kennedy. It is tragic that such visionary thinking has been absent in our western culture for so long, that the belief that such initiatives were ever possible has been almost entirely crushed out of the hearts and minds of most citizens. The spirit of optimism of the Kennedy years has been abandoned. The challenges defined by John F. Kennedy for the American nation and to all those around the world who took personal pride in Mankind’s space achievements must now be rekindled. The majority of today’s youth, and even fewer of today’s baby boomers do not even believe that it is possible for mankind to exert any durable changes to nature which are not intrinsically destructive. It is the contention of this author that were our minds not severed from great Canadian endeavours, from even our recent past, through largely successful British supported attempts to re-write Canadian history, such pessimistic beliefs as we encounter today could not exist, and those powers of creative problem solving so essential for the survival of nations, could be nurtured anew. In short, with a proper understanding of the ideas of the past that gave birth to this dying present devoid of a future, a dark age, even at this late hour, were still avoidable.
It is for this reason that we will begin our report by introducing the reader to the vital story of William Cecil Bennett, the visionary Premier of British Columbia, admirer and sometimes collaborator of John F. Kennedy, who represented the tradition that a true Canadian patriot should aspire to achieve. Bennett’s struggle for development directly intersects similar fights with allies in Ottawa such as Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, and groupings of leading figures around the Quiet Revolution in Quebec such as Premiers Jean Lesage and Daniel Johnson Sr. Internationally such networks in Canada were tied directly to those leading networks around President Charles De Gaulle of France, and President Kennedy’s networks in the USA.
A man with a purpose
A young man during the Great Depression, W.A.C. Bennett’s recognition of the impotence of economic theories founded on ivory tower formulas, without grounding in reality, proved a vital insight that would serve him for the rest of his life. This insight would be the effect of watching formerly successful citizens living on the streets and begging for food, through no fault of their own. A commitment to heal those ills caused by human selfishness and folly would become a consuming passion which served him throughout a political career that would stretch for over thirty years in the British Columbia legislature, twenty of those as Premier. After having earned a living as a successful entrepreneur, Bennett would decide to make a move into politics as a Conservative Minister of the Legislative Assembly
(MLA) in 1941, two years into Canada’s involvement in World War II. Bennett’s first appointment involved his service as a member of the Post War Rehabilitation Council, whose mission was to prepare for the crisis which was waiting to occur as the influx of young soldiers returning from service would need to find productive employment and rebuild their lives. There was no way that the existent economy of British Columbia would be capable of handling such a flood of young men. The economy would have to be re-adjusted quickly to accommodate this vital need. The council would produce two reports in 1943 and 1944, laying out a bold blueprint for uplifting peoples’ productive capacities, which would soon become Bennett’s lifelong devotion. The blueprint would call for the vast development of British Columbia with a focus upon energy development, northern expansion, water management, agriculture, mining, forestry, rail construction, city building and of course, manufacturing. Industrial development to process as much raw material at home as possible was necessary in Bennett’s mind in order to avoid falling into the age old trap, where one nation exports cheap resources for mere money while a dominant country maintains the vital industries, which perpetuates the backwardness of the raw material exporting nation. Such an imperial monetarist policy was the bane of the existence of the underdeveloped Dominion of Canada. Bennett refused to accept this practice. Among a vast spectrum of proposals, the council’s plan called explicitly for developing the region of the Peace River in the north, the extension of rail lines deep into the north of the province and also the creation of a publicly owned hydroelectric authority to provide cheap electricity. While attempts were being made to advance British Columbia’s development in piecemeal fashion under the Liberal-Conservative coalition governments, the pace was too slow for Bennett’s liking, and he found it necessary to leave the Conservative party in 1951 in order to temporarily become an independent MLA. He began organizing heavily to bring about the collapse of the coalition government through a vote of no
confidence in 1952. During his time as an independent, Bennett saw a potential in re-organizing an underdog party known as Social Credit (Socred) that had never had more than a handful of seats at one time in B.C. However, using every ounce of his energy, Bennett organized outside of traditional party institutions to ensure that within several months, 19 seats would be won by Socred members. While it is important to note that Social Credit would have its origins as a bizarre British run operation in the 1920s, the newly elected batch of Socred MLAs were almost entirely composed of regular working citizens. Barely a few hours of administrative experience could be found among any of the new representatives creating one of the most ideologically free cabinets in Canadian history. Having 19 seats would be enough to win a provincial election, but not enough to earn the mandate necessary to push those large scale projects Bennett wanted. A second election was thus called nine months later, ensuring Socred a solid majority, and giving Bennett the flexibility to advance on various aspects of the blueprint all at once.
Opening up the Great North
Unlike the small minded economists of today who, when confronted with the challenge of developing railroads across the Bering Strait, declare “but what is the point? There is no civilization there”, Bennett was not subject to such short-sightedness. Taking the experiences of history seriously, Bennett understood that the first step to opening up new frontiers hinged upon developing advanced transportation systems, without which nothing could be done, and from which all would organically follow. A railroad is not the effect of civilization as “supply and demand” thinking would presume. Rather, civilization was the effect of the railroad. It was understood by many at this time that British Columbia’s natural potential was too vast to continue to go untouched and its population too concentrated to the south eastern corner of the province around Vancouver and Victoria. A 1942 U.S. survey of the area noted the problem in the following way; “If the northern part of the area has been held down in a vicious circle of under-development (scanty population, inadequate transportation routes, high cost of living, etc) then it is entirely possible that the circle will have been cut
by the provision of a vastly more adequate transportation system” (2). The immediate problem that Bennett faced, was that the Pacific Great Eastern (PGE) was so mismanaged and undeveloped that not only did it merely service a small handful of lines touching the few population centers then in existence cusping the American border, but the provincial government had even tried desperately to sell it to both the federal government and Canada’s two private transcontinental railways, but to no avail. Bennett went straight to work on the rehabilitation of the rail system and stated in 1954 “Of all the interests I have in public life, none is a greater challenge… no money in this province could pay me for the satisfaction I would feel if this railway were changed from a joke and put on a sound financial basis”.
alone stance”, and continued to utilize the sovereign rights which Canadian provinces wield outside of federal jurisdiction to push forward with a second phase of rail extension in the 1960s and early 1970s (3). (See figure 2). Throughout this process, Bennett’s intentions to connect the rail lines deep into the Yukon, Alaska and the Great Slave Lake region of the Northwest Territories were transparent in countless speaking engagements. An illustration of the most likely Alaskan-Canadian rail lines promoted by Bennett can be seen in figure 3. To get there, connections had to be made from Fort St James to Takla Landing, and from Fort St John to Fort Nelson and onto Whitehorse. According to a 1968 study by Hedlin, Menzies and Associates Ltd, six routes in all were to be completed from British Columbia into the Yukon with additional routes stretching into the Northwest Territories, and Alaska. As demonstrated in figure 2, these visionary plans were never fully completed, and limits to the PGE (now B.C. Rail) cut off at Takla Landing, Fort Nelson, and Dawson Creek without a single connection into the Arctic territories or Alaska. Tragically, due to the shift into post-industrial monetarism with the 1971 destruction of the Bretton Woods System, long term thinking has been so derailed that the rail line to Takla Landing has been made famous as the “mysterious rail to nowhere” which the government of British Columbia has up for sale for one dollar! The Northern Vision program of a new John Diefenbaker leadership entering Ottawa in 1957 replacing a 22 year Liberal regime would vitalize Bennett. However due to the blowback by the powerful Ottawa mandarins occupying high level offices throughout Canada’s Civil Service, Diefenbaker’s Vision was aggressively subverted inducing a frustrated Bennett to comment in 1977: “They talked northern vision, but produced none of it” (4).
The rail and transport component of Bennett’s plan would have two phases. The first phase would be from 1954-59 and the second from the mid 1960s to early 1970s. Throughout the 1950s, the PGE was extended to Dawson Creek, and Fort St. John in the Peace River district. Extensions across the south also abounded. After Ottawa continuously blocked his program and refused to participate in the financing of the operations, Bennett took on a more “go it
(2) Benjamin Kizer, “The Northwest Pacific Planning Project”, December 1942, p.5
To what degree Bennett understood the highly coordinated subversion of Diefenbaker’s “Northern Vision” from London’s Foreign Office is not known. However, Bennett was in no way a naïve man, and
(3) An irony of Canadian history is that in large measure, the federal government, unlike the U.S example, has been largely responsible for prohibiting and sabotaging the aspirations of its provinces to develop, while the responsibility has customarily fallen to the shoulders of bold premiers to lead Ottawa to the future by the nose (4) W.A.C. Bennett interviewed by David Mitchell, 18 June 1977,1675 -23, track 2, p. 4, BCARS
age dams to be constructed even for farmers on their ranches. If water flows through an area, build a dam! Governments should encourage that, because what is needed is an abundance of fresh water.” (6) In advancing this component of his design, Bennett would be confronted with a coordinated backlash by the highest echelons of Britain’s networks amongst the Canadian mandarins in Ottawa. The obstacles Bennett would have to overcome to advance this component of his development strategy would be enormous. The greatest were: 1) The Ottawa controlled B.C. Electric company which refused to cooperate with his plan to develop the north. 2) The Fight to subvert Diefenbaker’s Northern Vision via a contraction of the money supply led by the Governor of the Bank of Canada, James Coyne his genius as a strategist would be unveiled during the years of the fight over British Columbia’s water and energy resources (5). 3) The Davie Fulton- General Andrew McNaughton operation to break the American-Canadian program for the Columbia development in favour of a “Canada only” variant. 4) The coordinated barrage of anti-Americanism in the media sponsored by leading British assets in Canada that had given birth to the strategy later dubbed Canada’s “New Nationalism” and embodied in Pierre Elliot Trudeau’s Just Society reform.
Bennett’s Grand Design and its opposition
A core component in Bennett’s Grand Design would be the building of hydroelectric stations to power the present and future industries and households of British Columbia, as well as provide for water management to the benefit of the USA and Canada. The potential for harnessing both was greater in no part of North America than in British Columbia, and the needs of a growing population would become dire if future oriented plans were not adopted immediately. To illustrate Bennett’s sensitivity to the needs of the future, he would later write: “The greatest thing we need in our civilization, in our time, is not oil, not gas, but fresh water; not just any old water but fresh water. There’s too little of it in the world. We’re heading into a period of droughts. I am not prophesying doom, but we should be prepared… These people who are always criticizing dams don’t know what they are talking about. We should be encouraging the building of dams everywhere in Canada. Of course, we shouldn’t hurt our natural resources such as our fish. Of course, we should protect our natural beauty at the same time, but we should encour-
A few words on Continental development
The necessity of developing continental water management policies was first recognized in the late 19th century as the growing population of the western United States blossomed and Lincoln’s Trans Continental Railway linked the two oceans for the first time. Canada’s western population growth followed soon thereafter with the completion of the Canadian Pacific Rail from Montreal to Vancouver in 1885. The westerners of North America had found themselves trapped in territories that suffered massive water scarcity, while the great abundance of water resources in the unpopulated Canadian north went through its cycle essentially unused either by humans or even the biosphere. The first formal treaty signed between Canada and the USA to deal with this increasing need would be the Boundary Waters Treaty in 1909 which also established the International Joint Commission, although very little
(5) In exposing the agendas of subversive agencies (witting or not), Bennett frequently commented that “there are two type of people in the world: those that get things done, (6) Conversations with WAC Bennett, Methune Press, Toronto, 1980.pg 107-108 and those who throw sand on the gears” (heretofore “Conversations)
would come of it for the duration of the coming several decades. By 1944, Prime Minister Mackenzie King and Franklin Roosevelt called upon the International Joint Commission (IJC) to accelerate programs that would mutually benefit both Countries with a focus upon the St. Lawrence Seaway on the east coast and the development of the Columbia River basin in the west. Though great strides had been made by networks of Quebec Premier Duplessis, Prime Minister St. Laurent and President Eisenhower to accomplish the St. Lawrence Seaway program by 1959, the long sought Columbia River development had made very little progress. The importance of the Columbia River Basin was amplified by the fact that many of America’s river systems along the Columbia River basin area were already dammed to near capacity (see figure 4.) and while great abundance had been achieved in agricultural and industrial output throughout the 1940s and 1950s, water and energy scarcity still loomed. Not only that, but the “Glacier dilemma” was creating a big problem for the Americans. The glaciers of the Canadian north are not at all unchanging, but rather partially melt in spring and refreeze in Winter. This process creates a wide variance of the Columbia River’s flow. The Spring melt would result in floods every year wrecking havoc on agriculture, and the weak trickle in winter would make harnessing the full hydroelectric potential of the river impossible. From 1940, American engineers had proposed a series of dams on the Canadian side that would act as catchments to store the water to regulate the flow, creating both flood controls in summer and a maximization of hydroelectricity production in winter. Plans were put forward by American engineers to build what was later to become known as the Mica, the Keenleyside and Duncan Dams on the Canadian side of the border while the Libby Dam was to be built on the American side. The Duncan and Libby dams would be located on the Kootenay River, which was a tributary of the Columbia. In exchange for the Canadian dams which would increase downstream benefits greatly, the American offer would make half of that newly created power available for British Columbia.
A General Subversion
Plans to go through with these designs had been sabotaged largely by the subversive influence of anglophile war hero General Andrew McNaughton, Canadian chairman of the IJC from 1950-1962 (see figure 5). McNaughton not only organized against the American designs, declaring any cooperation with America to be a move towards “continentalism” (and thus the loss of Canadian sovereignty), but he also favoured an alternative program which proposed to divert the Columbia and Kootenay rivers into the Fraser so that their flow would create power only for the Canadians and provide water supplies for the prairies, leaving the Americans out to hang (7). Had this program been accepted, then not only would the Columbia program as we know it not exist, but the great potential to construct NAWAPA would have been destroyed.
(7) McNaughton would later go onto lead the fight against the North American
Power Alliance, becoming the primary organizer against the proposal and its champion, Senator Frank Moss.
McNaughton would be among the powerful networks run by the Oxford Trained Mandarins of Ottawa’s Civil Service who would attempt to destroy every continental approach to resource management presented during these years. Their favoured theme was the creation and exploitation of antiAmerican sentiments, and tapping into deep seated fears that Canadians had of being annexed by the USA (8). McNaughton’s program provided a stubborn counterweight to the American government’s unwilling-ness to pay for the high costs demanded of them by Ottawa for the system, and resulted in a stalemate that lasted years. In order to get an idea of McNaughton’s attitude and the effectiveness of the stalemate: the McNaughton Plan remained under discussion all the way until 1960, and when Premier Bennett decided to openly endorse the American proposal (after a drawn out battle with the Ottawa mandarins beginning in 1956), McNaughton attacked Bennett for allowing the Americans to “walk into a house divided against itself and skin the occupants alive”.
from all parties in the Provincial legislature. The federal government of Prime Minister St. Laurent, then fearing the loss of Ottawa’s bargaining power on the Columbia, immediately responded by passing the International Rivers Improve-ment (IRI) Act of 1955. This act prohibited all parties from building improvements on an international river without federal license, thereby crushing the Kaiser deal. Taking this lesson to heart, Bennett resolved that no such manipulation by Ottawa would occur again. A new opportunity to break the stalemate presented itself in 1957, when a prospecting survey conducted by the Swedish industrialist Axel Wenner-Gren in collaboration with Bennett had concluded that the Peace River in British Columbia’s north held all of the requirements for a huge hydroelectric dam that would create the largest man-made reservoir in the world. The power from the Peace would not only be greater than the Columbia but could be delivered more cheaply. This discovery would become the origin of Bennett’s Two River Strategy (see figure 6) and would provide one of the key bargaining chips to break the OttawaWashington stagnation.
Bennett’s Two Rivers Policy breaks the stalemate.
Previous to 1954, no possible resolution to the stalemate was forthcoming. Bennett, anxious for development, began demonstrating his creative powers to the great anxiety of Ottawa. At this time, Bennett began working with an American firm named Kaiser Corporation which had offered a plan to pay for the construction of a massive storage dam on Mica Creek and guaranteed that 20% of the power produced would be delivered to British Columbia. Bennett pushed for the Kaiser deal against massive backlash
(8) On several occasions, the potential for Canada’s annexation into the USA had nearly materialized beginning with the Quebec Act of 1774 effectively blocking Canada’s entry into the anti-imperial struggle of the 13 colonies, followed by the failed 1776 takeover by Benedict Arnold. After this point, the greatest threat to the imperial control over the Dominion of Canada would be located in the concept of the “custom’s union” modelled on the German “Zollverein” industrial development model of Frederick List. This model would be advanced by Isaac Buchanan in 1865, Sir Wilfred Laurier until 1911, and would again re-emerge as a failed attempt again in 1945. The Customs Union view would have given Canada privileges enjoyed by the U.S. states amongst themselves under the principled guidance of the U.S. Constitution and its anti-monetarist essence.
Realizing the importance of this new bargaining chip, Bennett made the following elated statement at a press conference on October 8 1957: “This is the most momentous announcement I have ever made… the studies being conducted in the north indicated the feasibility of establishing in the Rocky Mountain Trench the greatest hydroelectric project in the world” and would be “entirely in the control of the government of British Columbia… this day is the most important that B.C. has experienced in its whole history. Surely now both Ottawa and the U.S. will realize we mean business.” Bennett’s program for the Peace would not impinge upon the 1955 IRI Act since the Peace River fell entirely within Canadian territory. By early 1960, Bennett had openly begun organizing for America’s Columbia River Treaty proposal which effectively put the nail in the coffin for the McNaughton Plan. An overjoyed Diefenbaker saw this as an opportunity to salvage his waning Northern Vision and immediately raced down to the USA to persuade President Eisenhower to sign a draft treaty (see figure 7) , which was then ratified in Ottawa and sent to Bennett. To everyone’s surprise and bewilderment, Bennett did not sign. He was more committed to the Peace than anyone had hitherto imagined. No one could understand how anything could be made of that obscure, uninhabited region of the north. In the words of Bennett: “The criticism you had to listen to was terrible! First, they said you could never transmit power over that distance to Vancouver, the place where most of it would be needed and used. No, the distance was far too great! They had no vision. We stood alone against all the other parties, the federals, the other provincial governments, even the United States. They opted only for the Columbia; but we alone said that the Peace was vital for our province.” (9)
yet would extinguish the debts incurred in the present and justify its construction. No present demand would justify the abundance of supply that would be delivered by the Peace, for that abundance was for the future. Bennett envisioned using the cash gained by selling Columbia River power to the Americans which would then pay for the building of a reservoir and hydro station on the Peace which in turn would provide the power for British Columbia’s population and industry to flourish. The first obstacle confronted by Bennett at this phase was to be found in the monetarist thinking that had dominated policy making in Canada at that time. The Two Rivers Policy would nearly be destroyed when the Ottawa controlled power utility B.C. Electric that had a monopoly on all power distribution in the province, refused to agree to purchase power from the Peace citing the monetarist argument of “supply and demand”. The monetarist reasoning would follow the following lines: “If the electricity from the Columbia provided from America to BC would more than meet the immediate demand for power in B.C., then no additional power generation would be needed, as none would be demanded… thus nothing should be built on the Peace.” The fact that Columbia River proposals involved the Americans providing half of the newly generated hydro potential from its dams to Canadians meant that all possible demand would be satisfied, and anything greater (such as that which would be developed on the Peace) would be redundant. A second obstacle which threatened to undermine the plan involved the intervention by the Federal Minister of Justice Davie Fulton who became Ottawa’s chief spokesman and negotiator for the Columbia. Fulton had been an advocate of the McNaughton Plan and critic of the Two Rivers Policy. He and a group of young Oxford trained Rhodes scholars known as “Fulton’s Boys” would establish a faction within the Diefenbaker cabinet
(9) Conversations, p.111
More obstacles to disrupt the Peace
Using brilliant American System thinking, Bennett’s entire plan for the Peace would hinge upon future productivity that had no existence in the present and
that worked tirelessly against all attempts by Diefenbaker and his closest collaborators to apply nation building policies into action. Two of Fulton’s Boys, Michael Pitfield and Marc Lalonde would later on lead Trudeau’s close inner circle of advisors. A third obstacle was found in the absence of financial aid from Ottawa. This lack of financial support was the direct effect of the Bank of Canada’s money contracting policy during 1957-1960. The effect of the money contraction would lead to a long public fight between the bank’s Governor, James Coyne and Prime Minister Diefenbaker whose Northern Vision was handicapped when credit was intentionally dried up. The fight led to Diefenbaker’s firing of the Bank of Canada’s Governor James Coyne in July 1961, an action that began the process that ultimately led to the defeat of Diefenbaker’s government in 1963 (10). Up through May 1961, Fulton and Coyne’s intrigues resulted in an Ottawa policy that castrated Diefenbaker and posed unworkable conditions upon Bennett. Ottawa objected to Bennett’s desire to sell downstream benefits to the Americans and demanded that instead of cash, British Columbia receive only electricity from the USA’s newly maximized hydro potential. Obviously, Bennett was furious, seeing as how the cash was necessary to build the Peace River, and the excess electricity provided from the downstream power generating stations would have been far more than an under developed British Columbia could use. To make matters worse, Ottawa demanded joint federalprovincial control over the Columbia River projects in return for any monetary aid. Having proven its perpetual intention to sabotage provincial development, Bennett found this joint control to be entirely unacceptable. The primary argument Fulton used against Bennett’s program would be built on a fallacy which Bennett would frequently attack for years. Where Ottawa asserted that once the treaty was signed to sell power back to the Americans, it could never be reversed, and that power would be forever lost from Canada, Bennett would constantly point out that his program called for a treaty of sixty years broken into two instalments, whereby the second instalment would contractually oblige the USA to return B.C.’s share of power in the form of electricity or cash. Bennett would describe the
(10) “I don’t think there is any question that the Coyne Affair was the destruction of the Diefenbaker government right then and there”- Alvin Hamilton, The Value of a “Coyne”: The Diefenbaker Government and the 1961 Coyne Affair, Daniel Macfarlane, University of Ottawa, 2008. p 140
deal and his battle with his critics thus: “Now critics say it didn’t pay for all the cost of the dams, this cash we received from the Americans. It was a sell-out to the Yankees, they say. The answer to that accusation is that of all the treaties ever concluded between Canada and a foreign country, this one was the best for British Columbia and for Canada. The critics could only see the first half of the treaty but the agreement covers sixty years, not thirty. We were only paid for the first half… How stupid these people are. They always forget about the last half of the treaty when the United States must give back to us at our border our share of the power, our rightful half. Whatever they’ve developed over thirty years, half of it comes back in either power or in cash.” (11) Bennett would deal with these obstacles not by playing within the closed system thinking demanded by the conditions set forth by the Ottawa mandarins and their British controllers. Instead, Bennett would apply his powers of the creative flank and throw over the entire chess board at every opportunity. In this case, he would seek the help of John F. Kennedy and take over B.C. Electric.
On November 1961, in order to gain additional political support in his battle with Fulton, Bennett flew down to Seattle, Washington to attend a memorial for Senator Warren Magnusen’s 25 years of service. The real reason for his attendance is to be looked for in the long closed door meeting he had with fellow attendee, President John F. Kennedy. Meetings between U.S. Presidents and provincial Premiers are relatively unprecedented and the meeting between Kennedy and Bennett created a diplomatic incident. While no official transcript of the meeting exists, the results could be felt when five days later, Kennedy’s Secretary of the Interior, Stewart Udall, loudly denounced Fulton’s opposition to Bennett’s grand plan as “stuff and nonsense”. An enraged Fulton flew immediately to Victoria, B.C. to confront the Premier. Bennett, though having been seen just minutes earlier, could not be found to greet him, leaving a dejected Fulton to hop back on the plane and return to Ottawa. The decision by Kennedy to support Bennett’s Two Rivers policy over that of Ottawa’s version of the treaty would
(11) Conversations, p. 112
contribute to a deep rift between Diefenbaker and Kennedy that would unfortunately last throughout the duration of Kennedy’s short life. The final obstacle that had to be dealt with was the lack of cooperation from B.C. Electric to provide contracts to B.C. Peace River Power Development Company created by Axel Wenner-Gren, of which B.C. Electric was a large shareholder. Contracts to purchase the power were absolutely necessary in order to begin construction on the Peace River. Frustrated by months of inaction, Bennett arranged a meeting with the head of B.C. Electric at a hotel in London. Having asked why it was that B.C. Electric was not cooperating with the needs of the province, Bennett was informed that the problem resided in Ottawa’s direct control over the utility which had no intention of permitting the Peace to go forward. Bennett laid out his ultimatum in the following way: “There’s a great law of nature that goes something like thiswhat you don’t use, you lose. If a person is a pianist and doesn’t develop it, he loses his talent. If a person is a good pitcher and doesn’t throw, he loses that talent. We are not going to sit by and watch potential development in British Columbia be held back by any source. Not big business, not by big labour, not by big government. I want you to clearly understand that. I will give you reasonable time, but it will be short.” (12) Within several months, after no change in the utility’s stance occurred, Bennett introduced Bill 5, also known as the Power Development Act into the provincial legislature offering $180 million for the acquisition not only of Wenner-Gren’s Peace River Power Development Company, but the entire B.C. Electric from its owner, the federally controlled B.C. Power Corporation. This was now August 1961, and after a short legal battle, the sum paid for the takeover was $197 million to cover interest and legal fees. Since British Columbia now owned the utility that would build and operate all the dams on the Canadian side of the Columbia, Bennett could uniquely set the
(12) Conversations, p 116
treaty terms. This would be the birth of B.C. Hydro, and the construction of the Two Rivers Plan.
With the terms Bennett required for British Columbia’s Two Rivers Policy established, a final treaty was ratified with Bennett’s full satisfaction in 1964 by Lester Pearson, President Lyndon Johnson and himself (see figure 8). The success of the Peace River was made evident to all once it began supplying over 90% of B.C. Hydro’s electrical power to British Columbia after its completion in 1968. The agreed upon hydroelectric output produced by the Columbia dams (completed from 19671972) was sold back to the USA for $254 million dollars in one lump sum for the first half of a 60 year long treaty. The second cycle, scheduled to end by 2024 would have the US provide electricity back to Canada instead of cash. $64 million would be provided to British Columbia from the U.S. as compensation for the operation of the dams that minimized flood damages in the U.S. The immediate revenue of this deal mixed with the increased productivity and industrial activity effected by the construction of the Peace River resulted in Bennett’s ability to invest into various social programs such as universal medical coverage, and wide public improvements. To top it off, $100 million loan was also provided to Quebec’s Premier Jean Lesage who had encountered similar problems as Bennett had with Ottawa’s Civil Service and yet yearned to continue developing the hydro electric and transportation programs begun by the Duplessis leadership of l’Union Nationale that came before him. Like the case of Quebec’s hydroelectric potential in the north of the province, British Columbia had encountered many naysayers that said transmitting electricity across the long distances separating the Peace River from most populated centers in the province was impossible, as the electrical power loss due to the heating of the wires would be too great.
The discoveries which had to be made to allow for the transmission of electrical power at much higher voltages and correspondingly lower current flows lead to British Columbia’s and Quebec’s engineers becoming world innovators in the field of electrical transmission.
An Introduction to the Provincial Fight to Develop
It is appropriate at this stage of our report to address the vital role played by two types of conferences that had occurred to make the development of British Columbia and other provinces possible. With the tightly controlled federal government that is itself greatly influenced by the British run Civil Service, and highly fragmented provincial system, the path of Canada’s development has taken an unlikely, yet necessary route. This development had occurred generally in spite of, and rarely through any help of, the Federal Government, with nation building Premiers often being forced to lead Ottawa by the nose in advancing great works. The mechanism most often selected through the 1950s and 1960s to set the conceptual framework for visionary ideas, so often lacking from Ottawa, and that crossed beyond provincial and national borders involved a variety of conferences in which leading state, provincial, and private sector leaders, desiring development would network and strategize for their own and the country’s benefit. The first and most common events were the Interprovincial Conferences which addressed a variety of issues from local concerns, to large scale agricultural, and resource management. These conferences would facilitate such deals as the $100 million aid and technical expertise provided from Bennett to Quebec’s Jean Lesage in 1964. The second type of conference on the west coast was known as the Alaska-British Columbia- Yukon conferences (A-BC-Y), of which three had formally occurred between 1960 and 1964. A brief examination of the contents of these conferences shall provide the reader a wonderful glimpse into the strategic thinking and possibilities which were coming into existence during this vital period of history.
northern vision; because if ever there was a place that needed planned growth and millions of dollars in expenditure, it is northern B.C., the Yukon and Alaska… The time for action is now, not ten years from now! Last week the Russian ambassador told me in a very clear way, that in the part of Russia opposite us, Russia is spending 40 percent of all its capital expenditures. We in the U.S. and Canada cannot sit idly by and see that great economic development take place without matching it with more than words” (13) These were the opening remarks made by Premier Bennett at the second A-BC-Y Conference in Juno Alaska in 1960. The three conferences that would occur amongst Alaska, British Columbia and the Yukon between 1960 and 1964 contained the germ seeds of the greater continental cooperation that was being organized as early as 1870. While intercontinental visions had begun with the planned linking of telegraph wires through the Bering Strait as early as the Alaska purchase of 1867, and the 1905 designs for a rail tunnel connecting America to Russia through Canada (14), the First World War and speculative economic insanity of the 1920s had kept such visions from being realized. The needs of World War II would kick start the orientation to joint cooperative development in the north beginning with the formation of the U.S.-Canadian Joint Economic Committee (USCJEC) in January 1943. The Canada Air routes to Alaska and Yukon, the Alaska Highway, and a pipeline and refinery system known to provide aviation fuel for the Northwest Staging System also known as the Canol Project would begin during this time. A 1943 New York Times editorial on the USCJEC would read “The cooperative project outlined may foreshadow a new kind of relationship, and one that may be imitated elsewhere on the globe. Economic areas do not always run with political areas. Friendly adjoining governments may be able to overcome this difficulty, to the general advantage. Political Boundaries may simply become less important.” This motion towards continental development should not be confused with the contemporary monetarist atrocity of the North
Learning the A-BC-Ys
“We think that this is the time- and timing is important- and this is the place for the new frontier and the
(13) BC Studies, Winter 1975-76, A Study in Regional Strategy: The Alaska, B.C., Yukon Conferences, by P.R. Johannsen, p.29 (14) Funds totalling six million dollars were raised privately, concluding the project to connect the continents by rail across the Bering Strait could be done for $300 million. An editorial in the New York Times of October 24th, 1905, observed that “the Bering Strait Tunnel is a project which at some time in the future is likely to command a great deal of very purposeful consideration.”
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) [see box to the right]. While the momentum to advance continental programs was largely dissipated after World War II, Bennett would revive the spirit alongside like minded thinkers such as Alaskan Governor William Egan. After two important meetings between Bennett and the Alaskan Territorial Governor in 1954 and 1956, the A-BC-Y Conferences would be formed in order to help advance the construction of the PGE Rail into Alaska via a variety of routes, as well as provide hydroelectric power to the Alaskan Panhandle. The panhandle is an area devoid of hydroelectric potential, yet strategically rich in resources, and Pacific ports (15). Due to the destructive role of Ottawa and Gen. McNaughton at the IJC, the third and final A-BC-Y conference in 1964 emphasized that further U.S.-Canada joint development of hydropower should proceed outside of the control of the IJC (16). It is known that NAWAPA was discussed at the third conference, but as the reports would not made public, it cannot yet be reported in what was received or presented.
NAFTA vs NAWAPA
Before the post-1971 imposition of monetarism and the treasonous North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) finalized in 1992, most attempts at free trade policies amongst Canada and the USA had taken on the form of a sort of “customs union” and led to advances in standards of living and industrial power for both the USA and Canada alike. The fact that NAFTA would occur under the umbrella of the postindustrial model of monetarism ushered in with the 1971 killing of the proindustrial Bretton Woods system would be a leading factor in the horrible effects of NAFTA’s destruction of all players locked Canada’s Mulroney, USA’s Bush Sr., and Mexico’s in its monetarist Salinas sign off on the NAFTA accords in 1992 stranglehold. way it As two key bottlenecks for the water’s journey into southern Canada and USA were the Peace River and Columbia, it is safe to say that the final conception of the NAWAPA design was given its modern form through Bennett’s initiatives on the Columbia River Treaty. It is undoubtedly the case that leading engineering and pro-development networks across North America would have been very familiar with the program before its official unveiling. What Bennett’s view of NAWAPA is has not yet been revealed to the authors of this report, however based upon a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) interview from 1961 Bennett’s view regarding river systems and water exports integral to the NAWAPA design were transparent: “We have in British Columbia four great river systems, and we have the greatest potential hydroelectric development of any part of the whole continent. And we’re not to be compared to other parts of Canada, where they haven’t got this great abundance of potential hydroelectric power. We have the Columbia River. We have the Fraser River. We have the Peace River. We have the Liard River. We have the Taku. We have the Yuka, and many many other rivers. In fact, a total of a potential of 40
NAWAPA’s design was begun in 1954 and, after one of its lead engineers had been hired by the Ralph M. Parsons Company in 1958, its development had become the company’s policy. By Spring 1964, a U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Western Water development, led by Senator Frank Moss, was formed in order to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of NAWAPA. Their report, published in October of that year, found that since NAWAPA would store and deliver a much greater amount of water with significantly fewer projects (dams, canals, tunnels, etc.) than would be possible even through the construction of all the projects which had been studied or authorized by U.S. federal or non-federal agencies, a full engineering feasibility study was warranted (see figure 9).
(15) The anti-NAFTA logic wielded by Bennett is evidenced in a statement from May 1956: “As a Government, we must safeguard vital interests of our people, and we must assure that adequate supplies of power are available for our own present and future requirements. However, we are also fully aware of the needs and requirements of our good friends to the south insofar as power is concerned, just as I am sure that they are cognizant of our needs, for example, of an outlet to the Pacific through the Alaskan Panhandle. If the interests of both parties are understood, then certainly a mutually satisfactory arrangement can be reached.” (16) A Study in Regional Strategy, p 43
The 1963 Paradigm Shift: The Dream Fades
Everyone participating in these conferences could sense that the world was quickly changing for the worse. JFK’s assassination opened the gates for the unleashing of the Vietnam war, a wave of traumatic political assassinations of great leaders struck with lightning speed, and a slide into cultural irrationalism with the emergence of the sex-rock-drugs counterculture paradigm was draining the life from Bennett’s vision. The time for such visionary programs was quickly running out. The recently created cult of “environmentalism” was serving as a new religion for a disenchanted youth generation trained to blame all of the imperialistic folly of the postwar world, not on the oligarchical system that was taking over society, but rather on the nuclear family, Christianity, and the belief that scientific and technological progress could support a continuously growing population. It seemed that planning for the future needs was not as important as “squares” like Bennett thought, as youth across North America and Europe seemed to “discover” all on their own, that humanity was not something worth saving after all. The anti-science, anti-technological growth green policy would be cultivated by British agents within the Canadian and American establishments not to save nature, but rather to desperately put blockades on the continuation of programs such as the Bennett Grand Design. The first such program was the creation of the Aitlin Lakes Provincial Park to forestall the hydro plans for the Yukon River. To this would later be added the first wave of conservation lands sponsored by the Canadian government under Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and the $4.5 million dollar grants supplied to the Nature Trust of B.C. that would remove British Columbia territories vital to continental development from consideration(18). These programs would be established specifically to halt the construction of the NAWAPA design.
million horsepower [30 gigawatts]. And we have a great asset, which is now being exported, unused, for which we do not receive a single nickel. It’s exported out to the oceans. The Arctic Ocean, and the Pacific Ocean unused. We are not doing a good job regarding this great natural resource”. (17) To avoid venturing into speculative territory, choosing to remain instead on firm ground, we can say that the majority of those water systems outlined by Bennett in this interview have major roles to play in the NAWAPA design. Necessary support components to NAWAPA’s construction would have necessitated massive rail development and industrial potential across Northern B.C. and into the Yukon and Alaska reflected in the rail extension strategy begun by Bennett in 1954. Holding in ones’ mind the fact of Bennett’s intended Alaska- B.C. rail connection, and other uncompleted rail extensions outlined above, as well as the hydroelectric generation on the Fraser which he was fighting to develop when he was defeated in the 1972 B.C. election, we must conclude that all of the organic ingredients for NAWAPA’s development were on hand under Bennett’s visionary leadership and very present during the proceedings of each of the A-BC-Y Conferences.
(17) Hon. R. A. Williams, Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, interviewed on CBC "Hourglass" television programme, 18 December 1973 (18) In describing their history on the website www.naturetrust.bc.ca, we can read the motivation for the conservation areas of BC: “There was also a sense of urgency in getting the projects underway because BC was experiencing a period of rapid growth and industrial development. That is how The National Second Century Fund of British Columbia, later to be called The Nature Trust of British Columbia, was born.”
The abolishment of large scale programs that inspire the imagination of citizens to leap outside of a closed framework of local concerns is today and has always been the pre eminent drive of the oligarchical system. No society under any form of government, which is properly awakened to the greater needs and potential of the future can be stopped from pursuing a mission that is in line with creative reason. This also means that since oligarchical systems such as that embodied by today’s British Empire can only maintain their existence when a population is kept small minded and fearful of change, such projects which awaken a spirit of creative change and improving nature as well as civilization are the greatest threat to empire. For this reason, it is vital that today’s citizens come to understand that the green agenda imposed upon Canada by Pierre Elliot Trudeau’s “Cybernetic Revolution” from 1968-72 which is today threatening to eliminate the majority of the world population, would be made possible only through the effect of a British sponsored cultural policy that would be known as “New Nationalism” and promoted by the likes of Walter Lockhart Gordon, General McNaughton, James Coyne and Davie Fulton. This cultural policy would be vital in shaping a sense of Canadian identity that would be founded upon fear of change. Those programs advanced by the likes W.A.C. Bennett, C.D. Howe, John Diefenbaker and Daniel Johnson Sr. have now become the inspiration of fear and hatred from many such Canadians that have been victimized by several generations of misanthropic propaganda wearing the mask of patriotism.
by Bennett’s Grand Design, JFK’s Apollo mission, and Diefenbaker’s Northern Vision. Combined with joint collaborative programs with China and Russia on Arctic development and Asteroid Defence, the future could become very bright indeed.
David J. Mitchell, W.A.C. Bennett and the Rise of British Columbia, With a New Afterword, Douglas & McIntyre, Vancouver/Toronto, 1995. Roger Keene and David C. Humphreys, Conversations with W.A.C.Bennett, Methuen Press, Toronto, 1980. Neil A. Swainson, Conflict over the Columbia, The Canadian Background to an Historic Treaty, Canadian Public Administration Series, the Institute of Public Administration of Canada, McGill-Queens University Press, Montreal, 1979. British Columbia, Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources, History of the Columbia River Treaty. John R. Wedley, A Development Tool: W.A.C.Bennett and the PGE Railway, BC Studies, no. 117, Spring 1998, pp. 29-50. P.R. Johannson, A Regional Strategy: the AlaskaBritish Columbia-Yukon Conferences, BC Studies, no.28, Winter 1975-76, pp. 29-52. Daniel Macfarlane, The Value of a “Coyne”: The Diefenbaker Government and the 1961 Coyne Affair, University of Ottawa, 2008. Peter C. Newman, Renegade in Power: The Diefenbaker Years, McClelland and Stewart Ltd., 1963.
Bringing Bennett’s Dream Back to Life
Lyndon LaRouche’s policies for a New Bretton Woods and Glass-Steagall would provide Canada with the tools to begin to quickly return to the paradigm of creative change, and future planning last actively embodied by the likes of Bennett and his international collaborators. If the choice were made to defend human life at all cost and without any compromise from the emerging dark age which is fast creeping upon civilization, then programs such as NAWAPA, and the Bering Strait Tunnel would be the natural continuation of programs already begun decades ago, and expressed
The Paradoxical Case of Canada’s British Constitution
By Jonathon Ludwig
The relationship of Canada’s provinces to each other primordial constitutional principle of the general weland to the federal government is both extremely fare, and has manifested a great power for states to unique in world history and peculiarly British. The frequently collaborate around large infrastructure proonly way to properly understand the Canadian political grams that cross state boundaries, the Canadian system structure and its role in world history is to take the ad- has never had such power. Instead, the Canadian sysvice of that great poet and historian Frederich Schiller tem features a highly decentralized planning structure who in 1789 identified the key motive of all political with provinces rarely having a capacity to work even behaviour as a struggle between the oligarchical- amongst themselves, and not even enjoying the benefit imperial and humanist-republican systems (see box). of free trade even amongst each other! In modern history these two systems have presented themselves in the opposing ten- Frederick Schiller on the appropriate dencies of the British Empire on the one side and the United States of America on method for judging laws and constitutions the other. (excerpted from his 1789 Universal History lecture at Jena UniverCanada’s strategic proximity to the British Empire’s greatest enemy has resulted in two mutually contradictory, yet coexisting tendencies within Canada’s national identity and political institutions. One tendency strives towards defining sovereignty and national identity around the right to constantly develop its territories and culture inspired by the Platonichumanist knowledge of the potential in unbounded scientific and technological progress. The other tendency strives to keep the perception of sovereignty chained to the belief in preserving nature’s apparent pristine equilibrium. The adoption of this second view has been married to the irrational fear of every impulse which threatens to imbalance such equilibrium as these types of impulses are most often embodied in America’s best anti-imperial history from Alexander Hamilton to Abraham Lincoln, to Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. Unlike the American System which possesses a solid federal government under a
sity; “the Legislation of Lycurgus and Solon” (1) ) “The state itself is never the purpose, it is important only as the condition under which the purpose of mankind may be fulfilled, and this purpose of mankind is none other than the development of all the powers of people, i.e., progress. If the constitution of a state hinders the progress of the mind, it is contemptible and harmful, however well thought-out it may otherwise be... In general, we can establish a rule for judging political institutions, that they are only good and laudable, to the extent that they bring all forces inherent in persons to flourish, to the extent that they promote the progress Frederick Schiller of culture, or at least not hinder it. This (1759-1805) rule applies to religious laws as well as to political ones: both are contemptible if they constrain a power of the human mind, if they impose upon the mind any sort of stagnation. A law, for example, by which at a particular time appeared to it most fitting , such a law were an assault against mankind and laudable intents of whatever kind were then incapable of justifying it. It were immediately directed against the highest Good, against the highest purpose of society.”
(1) Fredick Schiller, The Legislation of Lycurgus and Solon, Poet of Freedom vol. 2, Schiller Institute, 1988, p. 273
Whereas America’s civil service has historically tended to act under a direct influence of elected policy makers on the state and federal level, making accountability more easily traceable to elected public servants, the Canadian civil service is largely an entity unto itself with no accountability. Under this system, secrecy is protected by the British modelled Official Secrets Act and Privy Council Office. The marriage of this unofficial shadow governance structure with the “official” parliamentary government structure modelled on the British Westminster system of party conformism, has resulted in a self-controlling system of great power that requires minimal direct intervention by the true controllers. Lest anyone still have any lingering belief that Canada may be a democracy, note that the Westminster system demands that all elected officials keep their public views within limits acceptable to the party, while the Party Whips are assigned to straighten out those unruly MPs who tend to be independent thinkers.
The setup of a highly centralized unelected civil service, and banking system mixed with a politically and economically fragmented provincial system has resulted in a country whose the top down control has made development goals much easier to inhibit and, when deemed expedient to prevent the implementation of a greater good, advanced. This rare second circumstance can be seen in the case of the 1870-1885 “National Policy” construction of the Trans-continental railway and anti American protective tariff under Sir John A. Macdonald. The beneficent effect on Canadian development gained by the Trans-continental railway was suffered by the British Empire as a “necessary evil” to prohibit Canada’s adoption of greater continental development and “rapprochement” with the United States under Abraham Lincoln’s collaborators still in influential positions in both countries. It has also been of relevant interest that the subversive British North America Act of 1867 had laid out a system which gave enormous legal power to the provinces to direct their own local affairs outside of the control of the Federal government. This provincial power was codified in section 92 and 109. In the rarer, but more important cases, Canada’s national planning has often been an effect of provinces taking the lead, often with the help of American private and public initiatives, and forcing the hand of Ottawa to accommodate great joint infrastructure projects.
The Canadian civil service is a massive bureaucratic structure whose high level of compartmentalization ensures that no department (or sub department) ever fully understands what other departments are doing or why. Only a small grouping of high level civil servants, sometimes called ‘éminences grises’ or “mandarins”, who dominate the upper echelons of the bureaucracy in affiliation with the major financial institutions, and Privy Council Office, may conceptualize the whole. This shadow government directs the vast multitude of parts in the bureaucratic machine through instruction from the Club of the Isles, and Foreign Office in London. The unelected bureaucratic machine running the Civil Service has no allegiance to the people of Canada, but rather to the institution of the British Monarchy. While American banks have historically been composed of thousands of local commercial branches (“too big to fail” being a relatively new invention), the Canadian experience has always suffered from a “too big to fail” structure of Private banking whose influence on the federal level was evidenced by the revolving door policy into and out of the Ottawa bureaucracy. As historian R.T. Naylor wrote in 1976: “The political
power of the larger banks and of the Bankers’ Association can hardly be exaggerated. The bank acts were written largely by the very banks supposedly regulated by them. “ (1)
(1) R.T. Naylor, History of Canadian Business 1867-1914, James Lorimer publishing
Canada in 1873. The British Empire’s purchase of the privately owned “Rupert’s Land” from the Hudson’s Bay Company (everything labeled as “North-West Territories”) made possible the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway and subversion of the American System in Canada
John Diefenbaker and the Sabotage of the Northern Vision
By Matthew Ehret-Kump
The years following World War II featured the greatest boom in economic progress and quality of life ever experienced in Canadian history. Today, the reasons for this acceleration of development of Canada as well as much of the world are largely misdiagnosed by historians and economists who, consciously or not, know nothing of the principled struggle between the American and British Systems and are totally ignorant of basic elementary principles of physical economy. Previous knowledge of these dynamics was understood clearly by those few who, for good or for ill, have inflected the curvature of universal history, and without such knowledge quickly regained, no hope exists for our current population and its organic leadership to escape the tragic devolution of cultural, economic and intellectual life now pressing upon our future. The present paper intends to shed light on the sometimes very paradoxical dynamics surrounding the failed Northern Vision and National Development Policy of Canada’s 13th Prime Minister John G. Diefenbaker who led the Conservative Party to its first victory in 22 years in 1957 and remained in power until 1963. The broad scope of his Northern Vision policy would not be permitted to unfold for reasons that none but key officials in London working through Canada’s Privy Council Office and Civil Service would truly know anything about. While a fuller presentation of those years preceding Diefenbaker shall be left for another report, it is important, here and now, to run through certain key dynamics which shaped the world in which John Diefenbaker was entering when he was elected for a second term as an MP for Lake Centre, Saskatchewan in 1945. come manifest across the world. British colonialism was considered an obsolete relic of the Victorian epoch whose time had finally passed It was during this period that the optimistic recognition of humanity’s true mission began to penetrate to the forefront of general popular understanding. This was the understanding that human nature was not located within the narrow confines of “limited resources” to be balanced and distributed during a given “state of existence” governed by entropic laws of “diminishing returns” in time and space. Instead, human nature’s true purpose is to be located in the future potential that could be created by breaking out of the boundary conditions imposed by finite resources and leaping to new platforms of scientific and technological development. With the nuclear age and the frontiers of space quickly opening up to humanity’s sphere of influence, no fixed end point to this progress was assumed by the major part of populations of the world. Could it be that a new hope would finally be realized after centuries of oligarchical suppression? Alas, another dynamic was pressing against this potential. The reaction of a wounded British Empire was expressed most vividly in the anti-thesis to Roosevelt’s Vision embodied in Winston Churchill’s nightmarish defence of Empire. After Roosevelt’s untimely death in 1945, Sir Winston Churchill would lay out the Empire’s vision for the post war world beginning with the dropping of atomic bombs on an already surrendered Japan followed by an AngloAmerican alliance organized by a new financial (and often military) re-colonization that was set into motion through Churchill’s Wall Street lackey President Harry S Truman. This process would be amplified by Churchill’s infamous 1946 “Iron Curtain” speech in Fulton, Missouri, which would usher in the new bipolar age of the Cold War. This new era of
Post War Visions Clash
The years 1945-1957 would be pregnant with seeds of potential as Franklin Roosevelt’s post war vision elaborated in his “Four Freedoms” would nearly be28
(1) Lonnie Wolfe, The Beastmen Behind the Dropping of the Atomic Bomb, 21st Century Science and Technology, vol 18 no. 1, p. 22
geopolitics began by inducing former allies to become bitter enemies. In this new world dis-order, the Red Terror, McCarthyism, and the perpetual fear of nuclear annihilation organized the culture and geopolitical relationships of all nations, and brought about an absolute schism of nations between the “democratic-capitalist” ideology on the one side and “Communist-Marxist” ideology on the other. The painful weight of this un-natural schism would shape the unfolding mentalities and policies for the coming decades. As it was later revealed, the controlling hand of both the Communist International, as well as western European and American military doctrines throughout the Cold War were always found in London, evidenced by the likes of MI6’s triple agent Kim Philby, the Socialist Fabians of the London School of Economics, Chatham House’s Royal Institute for International Affairs and Bertrand Russell’s International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. The latter organization was found with its tentacles spread throughout MIT, Harvard, the Rand Corporation, and Soviet policy making circles alike. These British Empire networks led the call for “World Government” demanding the replacement of the sovereign nation-state system with a one world bureaucracy of “enlightened dictators” enforcing their will through the supranational military apparatus of NATO. Their thinking was founded upon a radical positivist outlook called “systems analysis”, and “information theory” which was an attempt to lock-up all branches of human knowledge into its cage. Within this dynamic that found the world often sitting precariously close to nuclear annihilation and death, the pulsing thirst for creativity and life found various means of expression through different leaders from different cultures the world over, united by a common commitment to natural law, and unbounded progress.
fluence of the British Empire within Canada that longed for stagnation and control. Were it not for the collaboration of key leaders in American industry and politics with groups of their Canadian counterparts, it can almost be guaranteed that the stunning growth rates of the Canadian physical economy seen during these post war years would never have been permitted to occur. The driving force behind the Liberal Party’s success during this period was the American trained engineer turned politician Clarence Decatur Howe who remained the guiding force behind both PM Mackenzie King and his replacement Louis St. Laurent from 1935 to 1957. C.D. Howe’s C.D. Howe, the ‘Minister of admiration of FrankEverything’ from 1937-1957 lin Delano Roosevelt and his collaboration with Harry Hopkins not only helped re-organize Canada’s industry during the war, but actually provided the political economic solution for Howe in ushering in a wave of large scale projects that would define an unstoppable potential for progress, and challenge the closed system thinking built into the structure of the Canadian political system and its imperial constitution of 1867. Such game changing programs included the construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Avro Arrow program, the Canadian Deuterium Uranium reactor (CANDU) technology, the Trans-Canada Highway, large scale rail, pipelines, mining and vast new heavy industries. Such programs had increased the Canada-USA exports from 42% in 1939 to 60% in 1955, and imports from 66% in 1939 to 73% in 1955 (2). Purchasing power would increase by a factor of three over this period. The three means which C.D. Howe used to advance Canada’s development during these years would be: 1) The cheap credit provided via loans through the Bank of Canada (nationalized by Mackenzie King in 1937),
(2) Cara Spittal, The Diefenbaker Moment, University of Toronto Thesis, 2011
The Power and Downfall of C.D. Howe
The realization of Canada’s potential for growth under the Liberal Party of Prime Minister Mackenzie King might not have occurred except for the brilliant manoeuvring of key strategists such as his “Minister of Everything” C.D. Howe and a small grouping of like minded thinkers, who in various degrees comprehended the anti-human in-
2) The investment capital of enthusiastic American enterprise and boosts in trade with America, which would increase from $6.9 to $13.5 billion during this period and 3) The sweeping legal powers granted to him via the invoking of the War Measures Act of World War II and extended during the Korean War. The War Measures Act had permitted a Government of Canada, for the first time in history, to bypass bureaucratic red tape and parliamentary “party politics” for the sake of the development of the nation and the General Welfare. The incredible fact that C.D. Howe managed to use these broad powers long after WW II had come to an end is worthy of a study in and of itself, yet it was these same broad war powers that contributed to the Liberal Party’s downfall in June 1957 under the populist accusations that C.D. Howe was a dictator who disdained parliamentary politics. As far as the second part of the accusation was concerned, it was absolutely true, yet not for the superficial reasons that his accusers intended. These accusations were amplified during a 1956-57 fight to build the largest pipeline in Canadian history bringing oil from Alberta to Quebec, providing an $80 million federal loan to American contractors to facilitate the process. The resistance in Parliament to the loan was absolute and condemnation of “selling Canada off to the Yankees” echoed throughout the corridors of Ottawa and reverberated deeply in the population through the press. When C.D. Howe unwisely introduced a bill in parliament which eliminated the expiration date of his war powers and then repeatedly called for “closure” of Parliament in order to shut down any attempts to contest the pipeline resolution, all hell effectively broke loose. As necessary as such actions may have been at the time, his enemies took the opportunity to stoke the flames of anti-Liberal (and anti-American) sentiment throughout the population. Little beknownst to C.D. Howe, these flames had been carefully lit and fueled by arsonists years before.
strategy instituted by leading British operatives working within the umbrella group of the Canadian Institute for International Affairs (CIIA) to induce an artificial fear of America. The CIIA was a Canadian version of Britain’s Royal Institute for International Affairs (aka: Chatham House) founded in 1921 with similar IIA branches throughout the Commonwealth. The CIIA had been formed in 1928 as a new incarnation of the Canadian Roundtable and promoted the Empire’s post World War I strategy of dismantling sovereign nation-states using the mechanism of the League of Nations. After the failure of the League in 1940, the CIIA and its parent RIIA, enforced the new strategy of perverting the United Nations and organized for World Government under new supranational military, banking and regulatory structures. The first of the two most influential CIIA run Royal Commissions whose design was to reshape Canada for this purpose, was the 1952 Massey Commission report on American infiltration of the Canadian Culture. The report of the Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences listed prescriptive “remedies” to purge Canadian culture of its American influences in media, education and the arts, most of which would be adopted soon thereafter to shape a new synthetic Canadian culture. Among the variety of influential positions held by Vincent Massey was Privy Councillor, Governor General (1952-59), High Commissioner to London (1935-46) and Leader of the Roundtable Group in Canada. Massey’s counterpart in the Roundtable Movement was CIIA Honor ar y Secr et ar y Vincent Massey (1887-1967) George Parkin de Glazebrooke, head of the Canadian New Joint Services Intelligence Agency which functioned as a Central Intelligence Agency of Canada. Massey himself served as vice-president of the CIIA.
The Rise of the CIIA’s “New Nationalism”
When John Diefenbaker took power in 1957, overthrowing the 22 year reign of the Liberal Party, the flames of anti-Americanism were becoming a raging furnace. This heated sentiment was the product of a
The second piece of CIIA sponsored piece of antiAmerican conditioning surfaced during this period in the form of the explosive 1957 Royal Commission report on Economic Prospects for Canada. This sister report was designed to make the case that were Canada not to break away from the vast American investment and economic influence that had developed under the post war Liberal Party, then the loss of sovereignty and absorption into the “American Empire” would have become inevitable. The Commission was popularly known as the Gordon Commission, after its chairman Walter Lockhart Gordon who also served as chair of the National Executive Committee of the CIIA while also heading Canada’s largest accounting firm and management consulting company. Other significant figures on the Commission were Rhodes Scholar A.E. Grauer and Maurice Lamontagne. Lamontagne rose to prominence as an enemy of Duplessis’ Union National in Quebec and soon became President of the Privy Council (1964-65). Grauer served as president of B.C. Electric as well as its holding company B.C. Power Corporation and was soon locked in a battle with B.C. Premier W.A.C. Bennett over the development of the Peace River in northern B.C. (3). As the later battles of Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy against the British Empire’s Wall Street axis demonstrate at this time is that America’s character as an imperialist nation was not at all determined (4). In fact, what the masters of the CIIA centered in London’s RIIA/Chatham House truly feared was that Canada might finally become a sovereign national republic as so many countries were choosing to become throughout the world at this time, under the influence of the United States’ political and economic leadership. Canada’s proximity to the British Empire’s historic nemesis, and vital geographical position between the Soviets and Americans, made the threat of losing this valuable geopolitical territory that much greater, especially as the population of Canada was becoming so prosperous specifically due to their collaboration with the Americans. The anti-American rhetoric that Diefenbaker would
Eisenhower and Kennedy’s resistence to the imperial transformation of America posed a threat to the re-emergence of the New ‘British Empire’’
popularly use during his bid for the leadership of Canada must be understood as having occurred within a context heavily shaped by the above factors influencing it. As events later demonstrated, this antiAmerican, nationalistic image created by Diefenbaker was selected as a populist means of attaining political power. Diefenbaker’s choice to rise to power on the tide of populist sentiment would later contribute to his own downfall.
The Profile of a Tragic Personality
Before proceeding to the substance of the Diefenbaker program, a brief note on his personality is in order. John Diefenbaker would have the misfortune of being both a devout believer in human progress on the one side, while also a believer in the greatness of the British Empire on the other. In his memoirs Diefenbaker would write: “I am a Canadian, first, last and always, and to me the monarchy remains a vital force in the Canadian constitution. Not only is it the cornerstone of our institutional life, it remains a highly functional and necessary office… More important are the prerogative powers of the monarch to be consulted, to advise and to warn on all matters of state. The Queen, these twenty four years after her accession to the throne, is perhaps the most knowledgeable person in the world in the fields of Commonwealth and foreign affairs. As Prime Minister, I benefited from her wisdom.”
(3) The fight would erupt when it became evident that B.C. Electric would attempt to sabotage Bennett’s vision of developing northern B.C with revenue from the Columbia River Treaty. Bennett would oversee B.C. Electric’s takeover by the province. (4) Spencer Cross, Who We Fightr episode 3: The Organization Children, LaRouchepacTV, 2012, www.larouchepac.com/node/20935
How an admirer of Abraham Lincoln and defender of progress could hold such views is paradoxical but not incomprehensible. This personality flaw is an important theme amongst many Anglo Saxon Commonwealth policy makers and is a simple effect of the naïve belief in a British view of history which has falsely attributed every advance of civilization and democracy to the “beneficent fruits of Imperialism”. In actual fact, contrary to British revisionist history, progress, democracy and the increase of the powers of productivity of nations has always occurred in spite of imperialism, rather than because of it.
immediately in order to win a strong majority(5).
Diefenbaker’s program for Canada was crafted with the aid of a tight group of collaborators known as his “brain trust”. Among the most influential of this brain trust was a young economist named Merrill Menzies who constructed a bold agriculture policy, and former head of the Saskatchewan Progressive Conservatives Alvin Hamilton, who led the strategy for Northern development alongside Menzies. Other important figures included George Hees, Donald Fleming, Roy Faibish and Gordon Churchill, all of whom maintained close corJohn Diefenbaker, Prime Minister from respondence with the best minds of 1957-1963 industry and science in advancing what soon come to be known as “the New National For the British Empire, an undesirable consequence Policy”. of its own propaganda is that, on occasion, certain dupes tend to believe it to the point that they actually The National Policy desire progress and freedom without themselves wanting to be imperialist. When the conditions and On February 12, 1958, the new election campaign opportunities for national improvements and the pro- was kicked off with a speech which set a firm theme motion of the General Welfare present themselves, that sparked the frontier spirit of Canadians from such personalities tend to jump boldly for them. Un- coast to coast, and laid out a bold plan crafted by his derstanding this personality type would be necessary brain trust. Speaking to a rally of 5,000 supporters in to understand John Diefenbaker, and his failure as a Winnipeg, a words echoing a vision unheard and unseen in Canadian history swept across the imaginaleader in a time of revolutionary change. tions of all those attending:
Hints of a Vision
Diefenbaker’s Conservatives unseated the Liberals in 1957, coming to power as a minority government. Piercing through the anti-American rhetoric, a sense of substance, of new frontiers and national development could be detected throughout Diefenbaker’s campaign. This was something completely absent from the rhetoric of all those “new nationalists” arising out of the CIIA networks. Though promises of growth, northern expansion, and social justice were themes throughout these elections, it was not yet clear for anyone how such ideals would be attained, nor even if true intentions lay behind the fiery words which spurred the heart of the electorate to hope. Were such words to take the form of action, then it was understood by Diefenbaker and his collaborators that a new election would need be called
“We intend to launch for the future, we have laid the foundations now, the long range objectives of this party. We ask from you a mandate; a new and a stronger mandate, to pursue the planning and to carry to fruition our new national development programme for Canada. .. This national development policy will create a new sense of national purpose and national destiny. One Canada. One Canada, wherein Canadians will have preserved to them the control of their own economic and political destiny. Sir John A. Macdonald gave his life to this party. He opened the West. He saw Canada from East to West.
(5) Under a parliamentary system, no minority government will do for any government which hopes to achieve anything, since any mandate proposed by that government could be overthrown by a coalition of opposition parties, and the government could easily fall at any time via a vote of “no confidence” and new elections spontaneously called
I see a new Canada- a Canada of the North. What are these new principles? What are our objectives? What do we propose? We propose to assist the provinces, with their cooperation, in the financing and construction of job-creating projects necessary for the new development, where such projects are beyond the resources of the provinces. We will assist the provinces with their cooperation in the conservation of the renewable natural resources. We will aid in projects which are selfliquidating. We will aid in projects which, while not self-liquidating will lead to the development of the national resources for the opening of Canada’s northland. We will open that northland for development by improving transportation and communication and by the development of power, by the building of access roads. We will make an inventory of our hydroelectric potential.” “Ladies and gentlemen, we now intend to bring in legislation to encourage progressively increasing processing of our domestic raw materials in Canada, rather than shipping them out in raw material form. We will ensure that Canada’s national resources are used to benefit Canadians and that Canadians have an opportunity to participate in Canada’s development. We have not discouraged foreign investment, but we will encourage the partnership of the foreign investors with the Canadian people… This is the message I give you my fellow Canadians, not one of defeatism. Jobs! Jobs for hundreds of thousands of Canadian people. A new vision! A new hope! A new soul for Canada,” With this new vision for a transformed Canada, Diefenbaker stormed the campaign trail and beat all expectations by winning every single province in Canada but one. Never before had the Canadian population heard such boldness from a Prime Minister. For most of its history, Canada had been a nation founded upon moderate complacency, while bold risk taking and visionary leaders were for the Americans. Canadians were supposed to be shaped by a British constitution, and not of a revolutionary stock. The British Empire’s satisfaction of having disposed of the troublesome influence of C.D. Howe was suddenly made more complicated. The greatest surprise of all was to be seen in Maurice Duplessis’ Quebec, which had been a Liberal stronghold on the Federal scene since the days of Confederation and Wilfrid Laurier. With the cunning organizing by Daniel Johnson Sr., then minis-
Due to the brilliant organizing by Daniel Johnson Sr, Diefenbaker swept the 1958 elections, winning a historic majority. Here Diefenbaker at a rally in Quebec.
ter of Natural Resources under Duplessis’ Union National government, Diefenbaker’s Conservatives were able to win the 1958 elections with 60% of the Quebec vote. Daniel Johnson became a strong ally of Diefenbaker during a Conference of Commonwealth Parliamentarians in 1950 and became known as “Diefenbaker’s right hand in Quebec” (6). With Daniel Johnson and Maurice Duplessis’ support on the east coast, and British Columbia Premier W.A.C. Bennett’s support in the west, Diefenbaker’s Conservatives were able to sweep the March 1958 elections winning 208 out of 265 federal seats. This became the largest majority government in Canadian history. Throughout Johnson and Bennett’s leadership, both Quebec and British Columbia would lead the world in hydroelectric power development and industrialization.
The Policy Defined
Basing their conception on their limited understanding of the first National Policy of John A. Macdonald in 1878 [See box 1], Diefenbaker’s Brain Trust would first outline the “One Canada” program in a 1957 pamphlet entitled “A New National Policy” which elaborated the Party platform and five key components of the Northern Vision;
(6) Albert Gervais, Daniel Johnson: A Short Biography, Lidec publishing, Quebec, 1984, pg. 18
1- National Resource Policy a) Every encouragement must be given to the processing of domestic raw materials in Canada to a much greater degree than exists today; b) Foreign investment must not be discouraged, but it must be directed to the maximum benefit of Canada c) Canadian subsidiaries of foreign concerns… should be required to provide a substantial interest in their equity stock to Canadian investors d)… wherever possible foreign companies should employ Canadian in senior management and technical posts. 2- National Energy Board To meet the industrial demands of Canada’s future, I believe that there is need now for the setting up of a Canadian Energy Board… to the end that the most effective use of the energy resources of Canada in the interests of the public welfare may be assured. 3- Roads to Resources A National Highway policy should be launched to provide highways for peace and development wherein the Federal Government will make contributions to or share in cooperation with the provinces. The challenge of Communism now and in the years ahead demands that our vast northern resources be made accessible and available to industry, for vast resources undeveloped and hidden in the earth will not fashion or forge the shield of freedom or contribute to the survival of the Free World. 4-Tax Structure to be Revised I believe that the entire tax structure in Canada needs to be overhauled with a view to providing encouragement to the promotion of primary and secondary industries in our country. 5-A Fair Share for Farmers We will assure the farmer of his fair share of the national income by maintaining a flexible price support programme to ensure an adequate parity for agricultural producers based on a fair price-cost relationship… Agriculture and its welfare is a basic cornerstone of our policy”(7).
Fig. 1:1958 Frobisher Bay Domed City design (commissioned by the Dept. of Public Works)
On top of this program, by 1958 Diefenbaker announced $75 million for the construction of an advanced domed city of Frobisher Bay in the arctic in what is today named Iqaluit, the capital of the territory of Nunavut that accommodated 4,500 citizens and their families with all of the comfort of Toronto [see fig 1]. His monetary policy involved tax cuts for small businesses, increasing federal grants for hospital construction from $1,000 to $2,000 per bed, increased payments to provinces by $87 million/year. $286 million was required to assist Atlantic Provinces in energy development. A major public work became the century old plan to construct the South Saskatchewan Dam requiring government support totalling $182 million. This project irrigated 500 thousand acres in the Prairies, and supply 475 million kw/year to power the new Rural Electrification Program and Midwest industrial growth. Sweeping price controls, advanced payments to farmers and parity pricing were also instituted to protect the farmers from foreign dumping as well as stimulate increased production. In all, public works expenditures alone totalled $1,185 million according to this first budget.
(7) Owen Carrigan, Canadian Party Platforms, Copp– Clark Publishing, Toronto, 1968, p.226-232
Diefenbaker’s outlook to Arctic development was not limited to mineral extraction, but also included scientific research. Six components of his science programme involved: 1) Polar Continental Shelf explorations which would begin in 1959 2) A 10 year program of magnetic survey of the Cordillera and Canadian Shield 3) Completion of the gravity meter shield of the same area 4) The doubling of the hydrographic survey capability 5) The establishment of an Oceanography institute
nant in Canada at that time. A creative change was required, and a concept outside of the space defined by the problem was demanded. This was a feat that Diefenbaker and his brain trust accomplished with the Conversion Loan of 1958. This solution required Federal loans to finance the conversion of those maturing bonds to the tune of $6.4 billion and would transform the debt incurred to win World War II, into productive debt that would be “self-liquidating” in the financing of Canada’s development! During a radio announcement of July 14, 1958, Diefenbaker outlined his view of the role of credit within a developing system: “This, the largest financial project in our history, offers an opportunity to all holders of victory bonds which were purchased as an act of patriotic faith during the war years, to re-invest them for the greater development of greater Canada. These monies that were advanced during the days of war, and which contributed to the victory, we now ask to be made available to speed the pace of peaceful progress and the program of national development… The action we are taking will make it possible for our nation to embark on a new era of peacetime prosperity far and beyond anything we have ever known. I sincerely believe that great objectives can and will be attained by the faith and enterprise of all our people. To that end, your Government believes that the steps we are taking are necessary in order to create the climate in which this can come to full fruition… In saying that a major result of this new loan is to make other necessary funds available for immediate participation by the federal government in the development of resources, I need hardly remind you that such participation is not, by any means, an end in itself. Its chief objective is, of course, to provide essentials such as access roads, railroads, and energy sources and the business climate which will attract private investment to newly developing and lesser developed regions in our country, in amounts many times in excess of the government investment. It is confidently expected that the debt refinancing which we announced today will clear the decks for greatly increased private investment in our future, just as surely as it will do so for government investment.”(8)
(8) John Diefenbaker, Memoires vol 2, Macmillan Publishing, Toronto, 1976, pg. 270
The Fight for a Canadian Credit System
With a broad vision for the future growth of the nation thus outlined, the problem of financing immediately posed itself. This problem was compounded by several factors at once: 1) The deep recession which had begun in the beginning of 1958 had set in, wrecking havoc on employment, and making private capital scarce for such long term endeavours. 2) The resistance of James Coyne, Governor of the Bank of Canada to any such investment programs 3) The maturation of the first waves of World War II “Victory Bonds” which demanded $10 billion from 1958-68. to pay for World War II. Before the first budget could be presented by Finance Minister Donald Fleming, the problem of the Victory Bonds had to be resolved. Net expenses required $1.423 billion, with $1.950 billion required to pay for the first wave of maturing securities for a total of $3.4 billion total that year. From January 1, 1959 to September 1, 1966, $10 billion in Victory Bonds matured at 3% interest. $400 billion needed to be borrowed from the Bank of Canada for debt payment alone. The problem was absolutely untenable. The solution to this problem could not be found within the confines of any monetarist thinking domi-
This was the first self-conscious idea in Canadian history where a National Bank would be used for the purpose of generating anti-inflationary credit driven by a greater national mission in a time of peace. Up until this point, this principle had been first successfully expressed under the 1st and 2nd National Banking system of Alexander Hamilton and Nicholas Biddle, Abraham Lincoln’s Hamiltonian credit system of “greenbacks” during the Civil War, and Franklin Roosevelt’s use of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation during the New Deal. Nothing could induce such fear in the British Empire more than witnessing its own prize colony in North America adopt an outlook and mechanism for carrying it out whose nature was to bring it to a truly sovereign status alongside Britain’s mortal enemy. Sadly, the full fruition of this policy was never permitted to come into being.
views: “We are now, at one of the more critical crossroads in our history, perhaps the most critical of all, when economic developments and preoccupation with economic doctrines of an earlier age are pushing us down the road that leads to loss of any effective power to be masters in our own household and ultimate absorption in and by another…” (9) While vigorously touring Canada, calling for lines of foreign investment to be cut off in the defence of Canadian sovereignty, and demanding that the nation learn to live off of its own resources, even if this meant lowering its standard of living! Coyne never identified how his propositions were going to be accomplished. In fact, being a devout monetarist, Coyne worshipped the “balanced budget”. Extolling a policy of “tight money”, Coyne believed that the recession could only be ended if Canada were to cut the budget, and pay its debts. Commenting on Coyne’s ideology, Diefenbaker remarked in his Memoirs:
The Coyne Affair
Diefenbaker and his finance minister would require full co“Our economic projections indicated operation from the Bank of CanBank of Canada Governor that unemployment would remain a ada in order for the New NaJames Coyne serious problem until at least 1961. tional Policy to succeed. Since Coyne was content to assume that the the Bank of Canada (unlike the Federal Reserve in the United States) was made a 100% publicly owned level of demand would be adequate for sustained entity after its nationalization in 1937, it was reason- growth if our economic policy embraced the goal of able for either man to believe that it could be turned “sound money”. He apparently belonged to the ecointo a cooperative instrument in the national mission. nomic school which had considered that the only What they didn’t realize however, was the role that way out of the great depressions was to have more such British agents were playing within the top eche- depression and the only way to cure unemployment lons of Canada’s Civil Service in undermining nation was to have more unemployment.” (10) building strategies. In the case of the Bank of Can- By the time Coyne was in control of the Bank of ada’s Governor James Coyne, Diefenbaker found an Canada, the “Harris Doctrine” had already been creenemy that would publicly battle his policy to the ated by the previous Minister of Finance which held point of creating a national scandal resulting in that there were two sovereignties in Canadian ecoCoyne’s dismissal in 1961. nomics: the Government and the Bank of Canada. Coyne, an Oxford trained Rhodes Scholar was an early disciple to the synthetic New Nationalism expounded by the likes of Vincent Massey and Walter Gordon. As a nationalist, he believed and preached publicly for policies that were intended to prevent American industries from accessing Canadian markets. During a speech in 1958, Coyne expounded his
This policy of dual jurisdiction of sovereignty would give Coyne the confidence to resist the government, and criticize its fiscal policy until the hour of his forced resignation struck.
(9) Peter Newman, Renegade in Power: The Diefenbaker Years, McClelland and Stuart Ltd., Toronto, Montreal, , 1963, pg. 303 (10) Ibid. p.271
The Coyne affair eventually resulted in a train wreck for Diefenbaker. Of all of the absurd policies Coyne represented which ran against the intention of his administration, Diefenbaker chose to use Coyne’s acceptance of a pension increase from 13 to 25 thousand dollars. While the pension increase was certainly slimy, it followed legal protocol, giving Coyne the moral upper hand in the public inquiries that would ensue. Who it was that advised Diefenbaker to fire Coyne on this populist basis is still not known, but the effect of this choice haunted Diefenbaker during the following period, as Coyne was elevated by the mass media to the status of a folk hero fighting as a David against Goliath. (11) Instead of stepping down as per the request of both the Cabinet and the Bank’s Board of Directors, Coyne held a press conference revealing that he was being unlawfully prosecuted by Diefenbaker in order to take the blame for any failure in economic policy up until this point. A protracted which included the passing of a bill in parliament forcing his resignation. Finance Minister Donald Fleming commented on the situation: “Coyne had declared war on the government… his actions were part of a clearly calculated attempt to build up controversy”. (12) The Liberal opposition under Lester B. Pearson and the mass media colluded with Coyne to shape popular opinion against Diefenbaker. By the time Coyne officially stepped down in July 1961, a reported 60% of the 76% of the population that had heard of the affair sided with Coyne, and only 9% sided with Diefenbaker(13). Coyne was even named “newsmaker of the year for 1961” by the Canadian Press. It is undoubtedly the case that the drop from 208 to 116 federal seats in the 1962 elections would be the effect of this scandal. With the majority now lost, Diefenbaker’s minority government was susceptible to a vote of no-confidence triggering a snap election at any moment. The multiple crises and absurd public relations dis-
asters arising from the breakdown of U.S.Canadian relations following the Coyne affair compounded the crisis in the public’s faith in its government to the point that the elections of 1963 resulted in Diefenbaker’s fall from power. This process contributed to the failure of the full intention of the “conversion loan/credit system” plan of 1958. Much of the Northern Vision’s steam was lost during the period following the Coyne debacle as more and more energy was consumed in putting out diplomatic and economic fires set by the general dynamic of the Cold War.
Diefenbaker’s Fallout with Kennedy
It is perhaps one of the greatest misfortunes that two men so dedicated to the cause of human progress would find themselves so deeply at odds with each other as John Diefenbaker and John Kennedy. Indeed Robert F. Kennedy said that “my brother really hated only two men in all his presidency. One was Sukarno [president of Indonesia] and the other was Diefenbaker”. The factors contributing to this schism are manifold, and it will be the purpose of another report to investigate more in depth all of those economic, military and philosophical variables that fed the break between the two leaders during this important period of world history. For the time being it is worth mentioning, if only summarily, the four main points of this US-Canada misunderstanding:
(11) It is interesting to note that CIIA affiliated economist and Walter Gordon ally Wynne Plumptre was the only official from the Ministry of Finance’s office attending the Feb. 15, 1960 board meeting that voted on the pension increase. Plumptre neglected to inform either the Minister of Finance or Deputy Minister of Finance of the occurrence. (12) Daniel Macfarlane, The Value of a “Coyne”: The Diefenbaker Government and the 1961 Coyne Affair, University of Ottawa, 2008, p. 131 (13) Ibid. p. 136
Diefenbaker and Kennedy: a potential revolutionary alliance tragically wasted
1) Diefenbaker’s reneging on his earlier commitment (with Eisenhower) to host nuclear warheads upon the American made Bomarc missiles that had replaced the Avro Arrow missile delivery system [see box to Today, John Diefenbaker is most popularly remembered as the man right]. who killed Canada’s Avro Arrow in 1959. The Avro was the world’s 2) Canada’s refusal to participate in trade first supersonic jet, and the genius of Canadian engineering that creembargos against communist China and ated these machines was the envy of the world. Due to the existence of Cuba as per the demands of Kennedy (14) . this aerospace program’s success, Canadian engineers filled the majority of the positions in NASA under Presidents Eisenhower and Ken3) Kennedy’s refusal to tell Canada about nedy. While it is a tragedy that such a program met the sad fate which his decision to enact a blockade on Soviet it did, the circumstances of its demise under Diefenbaker’s watch must ship entry to Cuban waters, and Diefen- be understood not only as having occurred within the context develbaker’s refusal to acknowledge the nuclear oped in the main report, but also within the framework of the same threat posed during the Cuban missile crisis geopolitical tension that brought them into existence in the first place. of 1962. This would be followed by his rejection of the US demand that Canada acti- Today, historians rarely mention the important fact that the Avro jets vate its NORAD forces for potential war were the creation of a contract for the US military in order to deploy with the Soviets. Minister of Defence nuclear warheads upon enemy territory within the quickest possible Douglass Harkness ignored the Prime Min- time frame. With the advent of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles ister and moved the Canadian military into (ICBMs), the speed of warhead delivery dramatically outpaced Avro’s position anyway. potential, making their production obsolete for that purpose. Without the continued American contracts, and since no other contracts from 4) Diefenbaker’s refusal to join the Organi- other nations were forthcoming, the means were no longer available to zation of American States (OAS), and Ken- continue the program. On February 20, nedy’s 1961 speech in Ottawa calling for 1959, Diefenbaker announced Avro’s Canada to join even after being refused by discontinuation. the Prime Minister. To the shock of all, 14,525 personnel Subjectively, both Diefenbaker and Ken- were disbanded at once, all designs, nedy derived their sense of mission and blueprints, models and pictures were commitment to progress from incompatible destroyed and the only Avro jets in exviews of history. While Kennedy’s identity istence were immediately cut down into The Avro is made public soon before its was firmly grounded in the superiority of scrap metal. life is tragically cut short the American system of republicanism, Diefenbaker mistakenly derived his identity from the belief in the superiority of the Brit- ish sys- critical in nature. Such problems between the USA and tem to that of the American. Canada during this period were not lacking, and historians agree that never have relations sunk to such lows as Objectively, the global tension caused by the Cold they had during the interval of 1960-62. War’s policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) defined the behaviour and necessarily neurotic mindset Certainly, if these men had been focused on a common of many leading military figures, and statesmen during economic purpose during that short period of time, then this period. The fact that civilization could be annihi- powerful collaboration of Canada and the USA based on lated at any given moment would weigh heavily upon a continental perspective of nation building, vectored every decision made during this time, making disagree- around vast water and energy projects pursued by JFK ments and mistrust between nations that much more such as the North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA) would have shaped the course of history in (14) Canadian wheat sales to China skyrocketed from $12 million dollars in 1959 to $137.3 million in 1962. Breaking “trading with the enemy” laws, the a very different way (15). But that was not to be.
ICBMs and the death of the Avro Arrow
USA attempted blocking the use of equipment vital for wheat exports leased from American firms when Diefenbaker threatened to go on radio and say that the USA was attempting to run the Canadian economy. JFK acquiesced and trade proceeded..
(15) For a full development of the NAWAPA program and the fight for Continental development see: www.larouchepac.com/nawapa1964
Iago’s Ghost Haunts North America
The fact that top advisors trusted by both men during this time were simultaneously British Agents is also an important fact to bear in mind. While Kennedy had suffered such scoundrels as National Security advisor McGeorge Bundy, campaign advisor George Ball, CIA director John Foster Dulles whispering in his ear, and attempting to shape his perception of reality, Diefenbaker was also not lacking in his share of Iagos. From the Rhodes Scholar and Justice Minister Davie Fulton, and his group of “technocrats” who would go on to reform the Liberal Party under Trudeau to Diefenbaker’s trusted Clerk of the Privy Council R.B. Bryce, Diefenbaker lamented years later of the problem: “I have often been asked why I appointed those people to Cabinet who had so vigorously opposed my leadership. Abraham Lincoln, who had included several in his cabinet who had been strong and bitter antagonists, was asked why he had done so. He is reported to have replied to the effect that he liked to have them around so he could see what they were doing. Unfortunately I trusted my colleagues.” (16) Due to the sage guidance of the likes of Dwight Eisenhower, Eleanor Roosevelt, Gen. Douglas MacArthur and President Charles de Gaulle, JFK soon lost his naïve faith in many agents working within his Cabinet evidenced by his firing of CIA director John Foster Dulles in 1962. Although not having the benefit of many of such positive influences, in later years, Diefenbaker would illustrate his awareness of subversive agents infesting the upper levels of the Civil Service who had worked to undermine his administration from within: “The Civil Service is there to advise on, but not to determine policy. A minister is there to see that government policy is carried out within his department… That said, had I been returned to office in 1965, there would have been some major changes made. It became obvious as soon as we were out of office in 1963 that there were quite a number of senior people in the public service, about whom I had not known, who had simply been underground, quietly working against my government and waiting for the Liberals to return to power’’ (17)
(16) Ibid, p.49 (17) Ibid, p.53
The Success and the Tragedy.
While the Diefenbaker government fell in February 1963 after a vote of “no confidence” by the Liberals under Lester B. Pearson, and many of the institutions that were created under the Conservatives were soon undone, it cannot be said that Diefenbaker’s New National Policy was a complete disaster. The development of the South Saskatchewan Dam dramatically increased the agro-industrial productivity of the Prairies while the Agriculture Rehabilitation and Development Act revolutionized Canadian agriculture. And while the design of the modern northern city of Frobisher Bay never became reality, over 4,000 miles of roads were created in the Northern provinces and territories under the “Roads to Resources” program. The Pine Point Railway was also completed along with the advancement of the TransCanada Highway. From the standpoint of The South Saskatchewan Dam social justice, under Diefenbaker, aboriginals were finally given the right to the vote. The Canadian Bill of Rights of 1960 became the first and only constitutional document in Canadian history which attempted to introduce a universal principle before legality or utilitarianism and managed to advance, though in a clumsy way, the protection of the individual far beyond anything that had come before. The fact that Diefenbaker attempted to reconcile his new principled law of the land with the absolute power vested in the Monarchy and the imperial BNA Act of 1867, left the Bill of Rights without the means of becoming a reality. Little did Diefenbaker know, that for his principles to succeed, the BNA Act and monarchy would have to go. While many factors can be attributed to the failure and sabotage of the New National Policy and Northern Vision, none is more important than the complete lack of understanding Diefenbaker suffered regarding the true essence of empire which defined the context in which he operated. His passion often governed his reason and thus both would perpetually be corrupted by the mistaken belief that there could somehow be a reasonable justification for “the divine right of kings” and the British system’s superiority over that of the American system.
Diefenbaker’s populism also serve to sabotage his own agenda in ways he never could have imagined. In leaping into power on a wave of antiAmericanism, he could not refute the Coynes, Gordons, Fultons or other “New Nationalists” both in government and the press who accused him of not presenting to the public those means by which a full development strategy for his vision could become possible. Both Diefenbaker and his opponents alike understood that without broad American investment, and without the successful conversion of WW II Victory Bonds into new development bonds, then his plans could not come to fruition. Believing the parliamentary system to be superior to the republican system, Diefenbaker mistakenly gave undue flexibility to members of his own party to vote as they saw fit, and attempted to bring every policy measure to a vote in parliament before being approved by the Queen in becoming law! This behaviour would be in stark contrast to the C.D. Howe method of statecraft under the 1935-1957 Liberals. C.D. Howe had long made his disdain for parliamentary democracy known to all and used the “presidential” authority of the war measures act as the primary driver of Canadian development, bypassing the circus of parliamentary partisanship and unprincipled bickering as much as possible while keeping the Civil Service and members of his party on as tight a leash as possible. Diefenbaker’s commitment to parliamentary “democracy” would give his enemies every opportunity to sabotage his policies. For all of his failings, the pure substance of the Diefenbaker vision was well illustrated in his final appearance during the 1963 election campaign: “I just want to leave one thing with you. You have had a government in Canada this past six years that has a simple philosophy, an old philosophy. That’s to build Canada. Not by worshipping statistics, but by watching for areas and people that need help- that’s the One Canada, One Nation basis. Our task for the next two or three hundred years is going to be moving from the south into the north, so that future generations will know that we have not forgotten the principles upon which this nation was founded and which generation after generation have had to stand together to protect”
The Palace Revolution in the Liberal Party
When the Diefenbaker administration fell in 1963, the Liberal Party that returned to power under Lester B. Pearson was a far cry from that which had fallen in 1957. During the interim of Diefenbaker’s government, the Liberal Party was to be re -organized directly by Walter Lockhart Gordon, the British Foreign Office’s agent working through the CIIA. During this period, Gordon proved himself to bethe most powerful man in the Liberal Party and the controller of Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson. Gordon would led the cleansing of all C.D. Howe Liberals and transformed the Party from the proAmerican machine it had been since WW II into a radically anti-American, anti-progress colony under British financial control. The recommendations that Gordon had made in his 1957 Royal Commission Report on Economic Prospects for Canada, especially those regarding restricting American investments and ownership of Canadian industry, would now, for the most part, be fully supported. In his memoirs, John Diefenbaker noted the irony of Walter Gordon’s radical promotion of Canadian nationalism on the one side, yet hatred of the policies pushed by Diefenbaker which provided the actual means of attaining those nationalist ends which Gordon apparently desired:
Walter Gordon, controller of the Liberal Party, and cofounder of ‘New Nationalism’
“One of the ironies of recent Canadian history is that Walter Gordon, a man whom I only met for a few minutes when he delivered to me his Royal Commission Report, has stated that he decided to do everything in his power to make Mr. Pearson Prime Minister because he hated me and feared that my policies would wreck Canada!” (18)
(18) Ibid, p.202
ade. The wound was made large enough and the white blood cells weakened to the point that the infection could take over without much effective resistance. This transition also brought about various neoMalthusian ideologues and technocrats into powerful positions of the Liberal Party, first within the province of Quebec during the “Quiet Revolution” and then on the federal level, with the rise of Walter Gordon’s “New Nationalism”. This transition sowed the seeds for the next stage in the imperial paradigm shift with the 1968 “Cybernetics Revolution” of Fabian Society asset Pierre Elliot Trudeau and his colleagues Gérard Pelletier, Jean Marchand and René Lévesque.
Pearson and his Minister of Justice, Pierre Trudeau in 1967
Gordon went much further in his attacks on Diefenbaker when, after declaring his commitment to overthrow the Conservative government, he said that the Tory leader “does remind me of Hitler who was far more dangerous” (19). Lester B. Pearson, also a Rhodes Scholar and former assistant in London to Vincent Massey in the Canadian High Commission during WW II, became the vehicle Gordon selected to oversee the transformation of the Liberal Party and the purging of prodevelopment Liberals who resisted the isolationist monetary policies of Gordon. One of those who would suffer the purge was Henry Erskine Kidd, General Secretary for the Liberal Party who would refer to the process led by Gordon as “a palace revolution”. Under Pearson, Gordon became Finance Minister from 1963 to 1965 and then President of the Privy Council from 1967 to 1968. Although Gordon’s attempts at reforming the Canadian economy during that time frame would fail, creating an eventual rift between himself and Pearson, the damage was done to the Liberal Party and the Canadian national spirit alike. The population became jaded to bold visions of progress, and the political structures became crusted with layers of bureaucratic machinery that increasingly hid the anti-human ideologies of population control and world governance from both the population and even the policy-makers who applied many of those destructive programs which would only began to take full force by the following dec(19) Stephen Azzi, Gordon and the Rise of Canadian Nationalism, pg. 71
1. John Kendle, The Round Table Movement and Imperial Union, University of Toronto Press, Toronto and Buffalo, 1975
2. Stephen Azzi, Walter Gordon and the Rise of Canadian Nationalism, McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1999
3. Peter Newman, Renegade in Power: The Diefenbaker Years, McClelland and Stuart Ltd., Toronto/ Montreal, 1963
4. John Diefenbaker, One Canada: Memoirs vol 1 and
2, Macmillan of Canada, Toronto, 1976
5. Philip Isard, Northern Vision: Northern Development
During the Diefenbaker Era, Thesis to University of Waterloo, 2010
6. Cara Spittal, The Diefenbaker Moment, Thesis to the
University of Toronto, 2011
7. Daniel Macfarlane, The Value of a “Coyne”: The
Diefenbaker Government and the 1961 Coyne Affair, University of Ottawa, 2008.
8. Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment,
Georgetown University, New York Books in Focus, 1981
9. W.L Morton, The Kingdom of Canada, McClelland
and Stewart Ltd., Montreal, 1970 10. Blair Fraser, The Search for Identity: Canada Postwar to Present, Doubleday Canada Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, 1967
Canadian Exceptionalism and the Manifest Destiny of Canada in a Post-Imperial World
By Paul Glumaz
The British East India Company and its succeeding imperial forms have ruled Canada since 1763. As a result Canada is regionally disunited by intention. It has a major French speaking nation inside it that is linguistically and culturally different than the rest of Canada, but important enough to Canada that its departure from Canada would devastate Canada. Canada has a Western part that also sees itself separate from rest of Canada. Then the Maritime Provinces are divorced from their French neighbor and cut off from the rest of Canada, and so on. National politics in Canada is dominated by the regions and their separate agendas, not by a concept of Canada as a whole. Sometimes those regional agendas are very positive to the nation as a whole but are often blocked by the unelected Civil Servants working through the Privy Council Office at the Federal level in Ottawa. With all this, is Canada really a nation? The answer to this question is no, in one sense, and yes, in another. Canada is a colony of the British Empire and has never been independent from that empire. The inhabitants of Canada are in the formal legal sense subjects of the empire and have no rights or freedoms that are not granted by the Monarch of that empire. Yet, in the informal sense, the inhabitants of Canada, for the most part, do not think of themselves fully as subjects. This is especially true in the French speaking part. So there is a paradox between the formality of the law, and the informality of the spirit. It is in this “informality” that Canada has the potential to emerge as a great and fully sovereign nation in the collapse which is now occurring to the empire. The basis for this emergence of a truly independent and sovereign Canada does not rest in the current politics of Canada; rather it rests in the psyche of every Canadian. Deeper than the shackles of divide and conquer, and the systems of social control that have ruled the people of Canada throughout its existence, there is “something else” in the psychic makeup of every Canadian. This “something else” is a desire for a nation that resides in the original intention of those who came to
settle Canada to find something better. The intention of those who immigrated to Canada from the first French settlers in the early 1600’s under the policy of Jean-Baptist Colbert, to the most recent immigrants is the very intention of progress itself. No immigrant ever came to Canada to be subservient to an aristocracy, or a plutocracy, or to be the subject of a Monarch. Those who came to Canada came to find freedom from such subservient circumstances. The intention of the immigrant is to create a future for oneself and one's posterity. This involves economic progress. It is this desire for this progress, as an unfolding part of Canada's development, which is the “manifest destiny” of Canada. There is no “manifest destiny” in the imperial intention to contain, prevent, or subvert progress which has also been the history of Canada since the takeover by the British East India Company in 1763. This Canadian history is also inextricably linked to the same struggles that have occurred to its larger neighbor to the South whose “manifest destiny” has the same roots in the intention of the immigrant. These roots are centered in the failure of the European Renaissance to break Europe free of the imperial and oligarchical systems that dominated Europe. As the greatest of the creators of the European Renaissance, Nicolas of Cusa, was nearing the end of his life he encouraged his successors to go across the waters and establish new societies free of control by the oligarchical and imperial systems of repression. To this day this intention coming from the European Renaissance Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401is in essence the po1464) would set the foundations tential for the future of for both modern science and the Canada. modern nation state.
If one looks at the sweep of Canadian history we see a pattern of struggle between those who want to have progress and development and those who sought to stop it, or reverse it. This continues to this day, with forces that are pretty much the same as they were in the past and involving themes and ideologies that also are similar today as they were in the past. This very short article will just touch on three themes which run throughout Canadian history.
it easy for the Hudson’s Bay Company to control a vast area of the continent by pitting the various First Nations against each other in competition over fur trapping and hunting areas. The imperial policy toward the settlers with regard to the First Nations was to use the First Nations against President Andrew Jackson would lead the extermination the settlers. Expanded setof the Cherokees during the tlement by the immigrants infamous “Trail of Tears” and their offspring meant the reduction of the area available to the First Nations for the hunting way of life that allowed the First Nations to be kept under the control of entities like the Hudson Bay Company. Today, similarly, the same imperial forces plan to use the First Nations to lock up and prevent the development of the Artic and Northern Canada. However, The First Nations may be wise enough not to be so used.
The First Nations
The imperial policy toward the First Nations of the empire has always been the same since 1763. Historically the first priority of the empire toward the First Nations was to prevent at all costs the development among the first nations a successful selfsufficient agricultural capability that would make the First Nations economically sovereign and independent. In the U.S., the Cherokees in the South of the U.S. were successful in developing agriculture and becoming thereby sovereign. This was not acceptable to the slave holding Southern U.S. allies of the British Empire. This led to the genocide by Andrew Jackson of the Cherokees and the “trail of tears.” The Hudson Bay Company which controlled most of the land mass of Canada for most of Canada’s history [figure 1] made it a capital crime for anyone to introduce any animal husbandry or agricultural technology into its vast area of control. This made
The British East India Company is the historical model for the current rise of corporate feudalism. The modern international corporate conglomerates that dominate Canada today or for that matter the U.S., derives its fundamental nature from the earlier British East India Company and its offshoot the Hudson Bay Company. In corporate feudalism there is no development of infrastructure for the people. Whether in the days of the monopoly of furs to China, before opium became more profitable or today in the inefficient extraction of oil from the tar sands, the corporate feudal model is the same: Extraction without development. The British East India Company created the “free market” ideology to prevent ideological resistance to their economic rape of India and everywhere else. This is the model of exploitation that led to the uprisings for independence of 1837 under reformer William Lyon Mackenzie and the patriot LouisJoseph Papineau.
British East India subsidiary Hudson’s Bay (green) 43
From this the “science” of Eugenics emerged to claim that those who were fittest had certain inherited traits that made them superior. From the late 1800’s till the advent of World War II, Race Science and Eugenics were the dominant view in the biological and social sciences of the imperial system. What most people fail to recognize is that Eugenics and genocide like that practiced in Ireland and India in the 19th Century, and Hitler in the 20th Century were extensions of an age old imperial “environmentalist” view of culling the human herd.
The Rebellions of Upper and Lower Canada of 1837 would be led be the reformers Louis-Joseph Papineau (1786-1871) pictured left and William Lyon Mackenzie (1795-1861) pictured right
In the middle to late 1800’s, Issac Buchanan led the fight against this corporate model to bring to Canada canals, rail and manufacturing without which Canada would remained impoverished. Much later W.A.C. Bennett in British Columbia, and Daniel Johnson Sr. in Quebec would do the same to further develop the rail and the hydropower to open up the potential to develop the vast untapped regions to the North. John Diefenbaker would attempt to challenge this system during his tenure as Prime Minister from 1957-1963, but would be thwarted due to his failed understanding of the British System. However, since the murder of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, there has been, to the great misfortune of the human race, a dramatic revival of the corporate feudal model. Under this model, Canada is to be consigned to being primarily a raw material exporter for the empire with no development. Under corporate feudalism Canada is going back in a modern form to the kind of system where entities like the Hudson Bay Company used to be in control.
The modern “environmentalist” movement of today is the imperial replacement of the eugenics movement of not too long ago. The whole propaganda onslaught of the last 60 years to defend “nature” against the increase of human population is really only the effort of the imperial system to defend its “fixed order” from economic, scientific, and technological progress. The same kind of propaganda offensive we see today behind “environmentalism” is the same kind of propaganda offensive that the same imperial forces used to make eugenics as wildly popular then as environmentalism is wildly popular today. Regardless, the empire is going down and is collapsing. The question is what Canada will be after the collapse of the Empire? Will Canada break apart? Or, will Canada find in the intention of those who settled Canada over the last 500 years, a basis for creating a true unity, a real nation? Will, and can Canada become a nation based on fulfilling the aspirations of the immigrants, as well as the aspirations of the First Nations, rather than the subject colony it is now under corporate feudalism and environmentalism?
From time immemorial, the ruling oligarchies of the Babylonian, Roman, Venetian, and British Empires have invoked the principle of “the inviolability of nature” to justify the mass culling of the human herd. The British East Indian Company version of the age policy of culling the human herd took the form of Malthusianism and the “limits to resources” as its justification. The modern conduit for these genocidal policies has taken the form of “environmentalism”. In the British East India Company version, the culling was justified on the basis of the principle of “the survival of the fittest.”
A “population bomb” cartoon from the 1970s betrays the true intention underlying modern “environmentalism”
Cecil Rhodes, the Roundtable Movement and Eugenics*
By Robert Ainsworth and Jonathon Ludwig The British East India Company, modeled on the older Levant Company of Venice, had been raping India since the early 1700s; but it wasn't until 1763 that this Venetian faction was able to seize control over the Empire as a whole. It was the rapacious looting policies of this faction that forced the American colonies to declare their independence. After the American Revolution, the British launched a renewed drive against India, completely conquering the Subcontinent by the first years of the new century. It was in this period that the opium trade, for which India was the linchpin, became the dominant pursuit of the Empire. After Lincoln's victory over the Confederacy in the American Civil War, and even more so after the 1876 Centennial Celebration, it became clear that the United States could not be conquered militarily. The British responded by launching the pseudoscience of eugenics, and also the Round Table movements of Cecil Rhodes and Lord Alfred Milner. In the 1880s and 1890s, this “elite” movement created the Eugenics Society, founded by Sir Arthur Balfour of the Venetian-origin Cecil family and John Ruskin's “Pre-Raphaelite” Brotherhood, Opposing the entire European Renaissance; the Round Table of Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Milner, Balfour, and their friends, strategists from the African and Asian empire, seeking world power for the Anglo-Saxon master race. These men shared a bored *Due to the fact that such a large component of the Canadian establishment has been directed through the Rhodes Scholarship program, especially leading up to the 1968 paradigm shift, it were wise to understand the origins and purpose of the Rhodes Trust at the turn of the 19th century. We reprint here a section of the 2007 study by historian Robert Ainsworth “New Environmentalist Eugenics: Al Gore’s Green Genocide” published in Executive Intelligence Review March 16 2007. contempt for the existence of mankind, like the satanic Zeus of Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound.. Their idea was to convince the United States to join them in their quest for AngloSaxon world government while coordinating their commonwealth possessions to that same end. Canada’s proximity to the United States made its role that much Lord Milner would lead the more vital to advance Round table into becoming the subversion. the primary intellectual The Round Table of Ce- the Renaissance tradition cil Rhodes was origi- that defined mankind as nally centered on the `made in the image of the imperial networks of creator`. South Africa, which later spawned raw materials monoliths such as Rio Tinto Zinc, Anglo American, Lonrho, and DeBeers. It was this inhuman cabal which ran the Boer War, conducted genocide against the black population, and later set up the horrendous Apartheid regime. One of the wealthiest, most influential, and evil men of his day, Rhodes was a virulent racist, or as he and his friends termed it, a race patriot, who wrote in a document called Confession of Faith: "I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings; what an alteration there would be if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence, look again at the extra employment a new country added to our dominions gives. I contend that every
base of operations against
acre added to our territory means in the future birth to some more of the English race who otherwise would not be brought into existence. Added to this the absorption of the greater portion of the world under our rule simply means the end of all wars; at this moment had we not lost America I believe we could have stopped the RussianTurkish war by merely refusing money and supplies. Having these ideas what scheme could we think of to forward this object? "Why should we not form a secret society with but one object: the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilized world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, and for the making of the AngloSaxon race but one Empire? "Africa is still lying ready for us, it is our duty to take it. It is our duty to seize every opportunity of acquiring more territory and we should keep this one idea steadily before our eyes: that more territory simply means more of the Anglo-Saxon race, more of the best, the most human, most honourable race the world possesses'' Over the course of his life, Rhodes commissioned seven wills to be written, all expressing this same purpose. His fortune was to be used for setting up the Rhodes Trust and Rhodes Scholarship as a means of recruiting American and Commonwealth Anglophiles into the imperial faction: "Let us form the same kind of society, a Church for the extension of the British Empire. A society which should have its members in every part of the British Empire working with one object and one idea we should have its members placed at our universities and our schools and should watch the English youth passing through their hands just one perhaps in every thousand would have the mind and feelings for such an object, he should be tried in every way, he should be tested whether he is endurant, possessed of eloquence, disregardful of the petty details of life, and if found to be such, then elected and bound by oath to serve for the rest of his life in his Country. He should then be supported if without means by the Society and sent to that part of the Empire where it was felt he was needed.'' In his will/ Rhodes authorized provisions for: "...the extension of British rule throughout the world. The colonization by British subjects of all
British Imperialist Cecil Rhodes, founder of the British Roundtable, would establish institutions to ensure that his white supremacist policies would outlive him.
lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour, and enterprise and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, [and] the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire'' emphasis added). It was this same British network of families (including the Huxley clan, the Cadburys, the Darwins, and the Wedgewoods) and banking interests, with offshoots in North America and the rest of Europe, which spawned the early 20th-century eugenics movement. This set ran the zoos, and said men were base animals, and they directed British
colonial strategy and official science. Eugenics claimed that the English upper class ruled because they were genetically superior. The English masters humored themselves with this doctrine enforced on their beaten-down subjects, in India, which the English reduced to starvation and political impotence by closing native industries; and in South Africa under white rule. These were the very same families who funded Hitler, and exerted their influence over the German banking system to have him appointed Chancellor in 1933. In 1917, while World War I was still raging, Lord Lothian, one of Lord Milner's most important protégés, suddenly departed from his previously fanatical antiGerman rhetoric. As soon as Germany is crushed, he said, let us rearm and remilitarize it under the most reactionary leaders, and point Germany towards war with Russia and France. This was done 16 years later, in 1933. At the same time, the Anglo-Saxon eugenics doctrine was imported into Germany, to help shape Nazi rule.
Sir Julian Huxley heading the Eugenics Society made a smooth transition into founding UNESCO.
The cabal called for the sterilization or euthanizing of unfit members of society, to spare the expense of their lives, much like today's privatized HMO system functions; and these policies have always been a doctrine of racial aggression. In 1932, the Third International Eugenics Conference was held in New York City, chaired by the rabid bigot Fairfield Osborn, whose like-minded nephew would later create the Conservation Foundation. Osborn was president of the American Museum of Natural History and a close colleague of the notoriously racist Julian Huxley, and the co-host of the conference, the Harriman family. On Aug. 23, 1932, the New York Times published a speech delivered by Osborn at the conference. "Eugenics,'' Osborn declared, "aids and encourages the survival and multiplication of the fittest; indirectly, it would check and discourage the multiplication of the unfitted. As to the latter, in the United States alone, it is widely recognized that there are millions of people who are acting as dragnets or sheet anchors on the progress of the ship of state.'' Osborn, in language all too familiar among today's environmentalists, continued with his analysis of the
10 million Americans unemployed at the time: "While some highly competent people are unemployed, the mass of unemployment is among the less competent, who are first selected for suspension, while the few highly competent people are retained because they are still indispensable. In nature, these less-fitted individuals would gradually disappear, but in civilization, we are keeping them in the community in the hopes that in brighter days, they may all find employment. This is only another instance of humane civilization going directly against the order of nature and encouraging the survival of the un-fittest''. The policies of the eugenicists were derived explicitly from those of the Confederate slave holders, whose descendants, such as Teddy Roosevelt, continued to be virulent racists and proudly traitorous Anglophiles. In fact, it was Gifford Pinchot, a eugenicist himself, who first coined the term "conservation,'' deriving it from a term used by the British in their colonial management of India! The eugenicists sought not only to "scientifically prove'' the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon race, and thus its right and responsibility to rule the Earth, but also the incapacity of the "lesser races'' to utilize technology or govern themselves.
The British were in full agreement with Hitler on most issues, including the threat posed by Asian development. When Hitler met with Lord Lothian on Jan. 29, 1935, Lothian had recently completed a term as Undersecretary of State for India, directing the repression of India's nationalist leaders, Gandhi and Nehru, Philip Kerr (aka: Lord Lo- just after Lothian's close colthian) would dedicate his life laborator Lord Halifax had to justifying a eugenics probeen Viceroy. Hitler knew gram for all darker races he was speaking to a memunder the Empire`s control. ber of the inner circle of the Empire when he suggested to Lothian that, "Germany, England, France, Italy, America and Scandinavia ... should arrive at some agreement whereby they would prevent their nationals from assisting in the industrializing of countries such as China, and India. It is suicidal to promote the establishment in the agricultural countries of Asia of manufacturing industries'' (Transcription in Sir James R.M. Butler, Lord Lothian, Macmillan and Co., London, 1960, pp. 332) Hitler also would have recognized that the British were actively engaged in exactly those policies he had outlined. Lord Lothian himself had expressed this viewpoint long before, writing in 1918 about the problem of getting the United States to give up its support for the advancement of colonial-sector peoples, and to adopt the British approach of crushing them with free trade. Lothian wrote, "The real problem is going to arise from the treatment which must be accorded to politically backward peoples.... ''There is a fundamentally different concept in regard to this question between Great Britain ... and the United States .... as to the necessity of civilized control over politically backward peoples.... The inhabitants of Africa and parts of Asia have proved unable to govern themselves ... because they were quite unable to withstand the demoralizing influences [i.e. their reprehensible desire to possess modern industry--ed.] to which they were
subjected in some civilized countries, so that the intervention of an European power is necessary in order to protect them from those influences.... The American view ... is quite different.... The extent of this work after the war, sometimes known as the white man's burden, will be so vast that it will never be accomplished at all unless it is shared.... Yet America not only has no conception of this aspect of the problem but has been led to believe that the assumption of this kind of responsibility is iniquitous imperialism. They take an attitude towards the problem of world government exactly analogous to the one they [earlier] took ... toward the problem of the [first] world war.... "If they are slow in learning we shall be condemned to a period ... of strained relations between the various parts of the English-speaking world. [We must] get into the heads of Canadians and Americans that a share in the burden of world government is just as great and glorious a responsibility as participation in the war'' (Lothian to Lionel Curtis, Oct. 15, 1918, in Butler, Lord Lothian, pp. 68-70). Lothian, secretary of the Rhodes Trust, and his collaborator Lord Halifax, would both serve as ambassadors to the United States over the course of World War II, tasked with "handling America'' and guiding it into its destined imperial role.
Lord Halifax would be tasked with `handling America` during WW2.
The Canadian Roundtable and the CIIA
In 1921, with the formation of the League of Nations as the first attempt at consolidating a one world federation, a new coordinating network was instituted in London known as the Royal Institute for International Affairs (aka: “Chatham House”). The original order was given to form this network by the head of the London Roundtable Group Lionel Curtis in a 1919 Paris meeting. The funds would be provided primarily by the Astor Family which owned the Times of London. The American branch would be called the Council on Foreign Relations and its sister organization the Institute of Pacific Relations would be set up
in 1925 incorporating twelve countries along the Pacific ocean. Every major commonwealth nation would institute Insitutes for International Affairs in subsequent years. To provide as direct an insight into the psychology of the Roundtable founders in regards to Canada, the United States and world governance, the eminent historian Carroll Quigley documents in his book Tragedy and Hope: “The members of this group worked valiantly to extend the British Empire and to organize it in a federal system. They were constantly harping on the lessons to be learned from the failure of the American Revolution and the success of the Canadian federation of 1867, and hoped to federate the various parts of the empire as seemed feasible, then confederate the whole of it, with the United Kingdom, into a single organization.” (1) The Canadian Roundtable, then headed by Vincent Massey and George Parkin de Glazebrooke would follow the British lead by instituting the Canadian Institute for International Affairs (CIIA) in 1928 whose first director was none other than the former Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden. Using his connections through the Masonic Orange Order and Roundtable Groups, Borden was able to become Prime Minister by defeating Wilfred Laurier and the Reciprocity Treaty of 1911 (2). In 1917, Laurier would write to a friend: “Canada is now governed by a junta sitting at London, known as “The Round Table”, with ramifications in Toronto, in Winnipeg, in Victoria, with Tories and Grits receiving their ideas from London and insidiously forcing them on their respective parties.” (3) With a grant provided through the Massey Foundation, a young Rhodes Scholar by the name of Escott Reid would be assigned the duty of serving as the first full time National Secretary for the CIIA in 1932. Reid would be among a large contingent of Rhodes Scholars that would advocate world government, and push the doctrine of a World Government System replacing the
(1) Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, Macmillan Company, New York, 1966, p.122 (2) Robert Ainsworth, The End of an Era: Laurier and the Election of 1911, University of Ottawa thesis, 2009 (3) O.D. Skelton, Life and Letters of Wilfred Laurier vol. 2, p.510 (4) Smith, Diplomacy of Fear: Canada and the Cold War 1941-48, Toronto University Press, 1988, p.16
obsolete Nation State system. He would write: “It would be easier and more self respecting for Canada to give up to an international body on which it was represented, the Escott Reid and Lester Pearson. Pearson decision on which it would become chairman of the Advisory board for the CIIA in 1970 should go to war than to transfer the right to make that decision from the government in Ottawa to the government in Washington.. It would thus appear probable that effective military cooperation between Canada and the United States is possible only within the framework of an effective world order of which both Canada and the United States are loyal members.” (4) Escott Reid would be among a group of Oxford men conditioned to become Fabian Socialists under the tutelage of such Oxford eugenics luminaries as George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Welles, Bertrand Russell, John Maynard Keynes and Harold Laski. In 1932, this a nest of Fabian Rhodes Scholars would be activated which would include F.R. Scott, Frank Underhill, Eugene Forsey, Graham Spry and Escott Reid to found the Fabian Society modeled “League for Social Reconstruction” whose Regina Manifesto would set the foundations for Tommy Douglas’s Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF). This set would be among the recruiters of Fabian CIIA asset, Pierre Elliot Trudeau after his London conditioning in 1949. The CIIA under the likes of Walter Lockhart Gordon, Vincent Massey, and Reid would set the foundation for Canada’s transformation into the political and cultural model for the New World Order whose promise of establishing “world peace” and “environmental protection” would be Orwellian code words for “depopulation” and “world fascism”.
For Further Reading:
1. John Kendle, The Round Table Movement and Imperial Union, University of Toronto Press, Toronto and Buffalo, 1975 2. Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment, Georgetown University, New York Books in Focus, 1981 3. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, Macmillan Company, New York, 1966
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.