Fascism or Socialism?  Fourth Instalment of a Talk by Adrien Arcand at Montreal in 1933, published by “Le Patriote

Young Christian leader Adrien Arcand lecturing on stage (date unknown)

Young Christian leader Adrien Arcand lecturing on stage (date unknown)

The State as fascism conceives it, says Mussolini, is a spiritual and moral entity, because it embodies the political, legal and economic organism of the nation, and this organism, both in its creation and its development, is a manifestation of the spirit of the nation. The State is not only the guarantor of internal security, but it also is the guardian and transmitter of the Spirit of the People, and this spirit has been elaborated throughout the ages through its language, its customs and its faith.  The State lives not only in the present, but also in the past and, above all, in the future.  It is the State which, transcending the brief limits of individual lives, represents the immortal consciousness of the nation.

— From Adrien Arcand’s Fascism or Socialism? (1933)

There are four instalments to date of this English translation:  part one, part two, part three, and the fourth is below, after my Foreword.


This fourth segment of Adrien Arcand’s 1933 public talk, “Fascism or Socialism?” is thought-provoking.  Arcand exposes the defects of parliamentary democracy as he sees them, to illustrate a part of his motives for preferring fascism.  It is clear that a rational, serious mind was applied to the problems with goodwill.  Fascism, as Arcand understands it, is proposed sincerely, with intent to remedy these defects for the benefit of society.

Much of Arcand’s description of the aims and workings of fascism is poetic, as when he quotes Mussolini, above.

As to other points, there is evidence that Arcand’s grounds for objecting to “universal suffrage” and the liberal parliamentary system are valid.

On the other hand, some of Arcand’s reasons for preferring fascism can be countered with facts from Canada’s British-parliamentary system, inherited by us in 1867.  For example, in “Fascism or Socialism? (1933)”, Arcand says:

“Fascism considers that human law is a reflection of divine law, and that every leader derives his authority from the divine law which he is charged with enforcing and applying.  But, however high a leader may be, no matter how great he is, he remains himself subject to this law, which he cannot disobey without undermining the bases of his own authority.”

But this is Catholic doctrine.  Like promulgation (Thomas Aquinas), we have as a fundamental principle of our British-Canadian Constitution of 1867 that government is subject to the law of the Constitution.

Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine

Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine

Albert Venn Dicey, the great British constitutionalist, in his Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, framed it as the “Rule of Law”; but it first came from Thomas Aquinas, and even earlier from Saint Augustine.

A classic Christian statement of the doctrine would put it this way:  “A stream cannot rise higher than its source” or “A stream cannot rise above its source”.  Thus, no government under the British-Canadian Constitution can exceed the source of its authority, which is the Constitution.

As I recall, the principle is found in the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas.  Therefore, if one reason Arcand wants fascism is in order to implement this principle; well, we already have it.

Here is how Dicey put it:

Albert Venn Dicey


“We mean in the second place, when we speak of the ‘rule of law’ as a characteristic of our country, not only that with us no man is above the law, but (what is a different thing) that here every man, whatever his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals.”

Normally, today — or anyway, it’s better practice — we capitalize Dicey’s “Rule of Law”.

Dicey goes on:

“In England the idea of legal equality, or of the universal subjection of all classes to one law administered by the ordinary Courts, has been pushed to its utmost limit.  With us every official, from the Prime Minister down to a constable or a collector of taxes, is under the same responsibility for every act done without legal justification as any other citizen.”

That was found at page 114 in one of the few word-searchable editions online of Dicey’s famous “Introduction to the Study”, so there is the link in case you would like to delve more deeply.  That’s the Liberty Classics edition (Indianapolis), a reprint of the eighth edition published by Macmillan in 1915.  The first edition was issued by the same publisher in 1885.

Now, on the topic of democracy, Arcand has things to say, and here, I tend to agree with him, and I can back him up.  Says Arcand at page 54:

“The quality of a statesman requires foresight, wisdom and sacrifice that the electoral mass can never bestow.  Wisdom is not obtained by multiplying to infinity the number of ignorants; but in the democratic regime, wisdom is summed up in the ‘no’ or the ‘yes’ expressed by the general ignorance called ‘universal suffrage’.

Fascism therefore has no confidence in the democratic electoral system, which always proceeds by the lie of false promises, or intimidation, or corruption, and confers power only on one class or group of interests in the nation.’

It isn’t clear which “class or group of interests” Arcand is referring to.  Perhaps he means that the mass of ignorants is merely manipulated by professional politicians who then serve another “class”, the moneyed class.  And in Arcand’s day, as in our day, increasingly, the moneyed class is the internationalists for whom there are no borders, no concern for nations and whose favoured interests totally conflict with the very existence of nations.  The internationalists discard and disregard the homelands of ethnic majorities, who have a need for and a right to them, and which are the real and only bases of existence for most of any local population.

Albert Venn Dicey, again, in his Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, shows how the British constitution with its unelected upper house and its elected house with its two-party system, tries to share power between the “educated” and the “ignorant” or non-educated classes:

“The working of English parliamentary government has owed half of its success to the existence of two leading and opposed parties, and of two such parties only.  Using somewhat antiquated but still intelligible terms, let me call them by the name of Tories and Whigs.  These two parties have, if one may speak in very broad terms, tended, the one to uphold the rule of the well-born, the well-to-do, and therefore, on the whole, of the more educated members of the community; the other has promoted the power of numbers, and has therefore aimed at increasing the political authority of the comparatively poor, that is, of the comparatively ignorant.”

Notwithstanding the laudable intent to give some voice or power to the masses in making law, there is decent evidence that Arcand’s objection to “universal suffrage” and to the liberal parliamentary party system as we know it has a valid basis.

I’m thinking now of the example of the legal fiction of “legislative intent”, which illustrates a clear understanding that a particular intent to confer (or to restrain) a particular power by passing an act or statute, cannot be gathered by canvassing each of those members of a legislature, or more accurately each member of the majority who voted to pass it.

My point being that if we cannot gather a clear and common intention to confer power through a law from the disparate minds of those in the legislative majority who passed the act, then how can any mere ‘yes’ or ‘no’, as Arcand says, confer any real authority at all.  Here’s my evidence.  Case and Comment in the Cambridge Law Journal of November 1993 (Volume 52, Part 3), sums up the recognized problem:

“Hansard for the purpose of ascertaining the intention of Parliament has been firmly forbidden, both by common law and by rulings of the House of Commons, for over two centuries.”

Hansard means a record of the debates in parliament at the time an act was passed.

“The House of Lords nevertheless declared that it is now permissible,” says Case and Comment, “at any rate for the purpose of construing an enactment which is ambiguous or obscure, or which if literally construed might give rise to an absurdity, and provided that the statement in question was made by a government minister or other promoter of a Bill.”

So, it is recognized that the intention in passing an act cannot be gathered from the majority of those who passed it; but to clear up an ambiguity, or another problem, the court that must implement a statute may look — not to the majority of the minds who passed it, but to the single Minister who led the bill.

And when a court decides what a statute means, it calls that meaning the “legislative intent”, or the “intention of parliament”.  But there is no such intent; again, as above, it’s a legal fiction.  Well then, what can you say about the “democratic Yes”?

There is and can be no equivalent process with the electorate.  There is no one person who led the “yes” who can be consulted as to why there was a “Yes”.

Even greater absurdities arise, in my view, in the liberal democratic system, when the mass of the electorate is conscripted to the polls, but doesn’t really view any party as representing its interests, yet it feels compelled to vote.

In The Universal Republic (1950), Arcand says:

“Eliminate democracy, it’s the end of the world, oblivion.  Listen to our liberals, our socialists and our communists shout out the word, gargle it with hysterical tremolos, see them roll their ecstatic eyes when they declaim it, their mouths pasty, foaming, and you will understand the importance given to this idol, this fetish of modern times …”.

“This idolatry, the most stupid of all since it is based on nothing at all, explains why political partisanship exerts more authority than a religious cult over the ignorant masses and, consequently, that the subject is more prized than things of the Spirit.”

The “elector-RAT” on a democratic treadmill.

The “elector-RAT” on a democratic treadmill.

The masses have to send someone to government, and frequently they send parties to power with whose platforms they disagree in part or in whole, but they feel compelled to tick off a box on voting day.  There is no box on the ballot stating “none of the above”, but of course a voter can rebel and spoil his vote, though apparently that doesn’t happen sufficiently to “crash” the default “liberal democratic” system that puts the electorate on a treadmill.

We are thus back to Arcand’s “tyranny of the democratic power that comes from the numerical majority”.  But, I think by that he means the tyranny of the political party that successfully manipulates the mass to vote a meaningless, incoherent “yes”.

I’ve had my say.  Let’s see what Adrien Arcand has to say.  Here’s the fourth instalment of my exclusive English translation of “Fascism or Socialism?”.


Preview of a Talk by Adrien Arcand


For the first time in English

Adrien Arcand

Fascisme ou Socialisme ?

Fascism or Socialism?

Le fascisme et le pouvoir

Fascism and power

Le fascisme n’admet pas que le pouvoir émane, dans l’Etat fasciste, d’une section du peuple ou d’une majorité électorale accordée à un parti politique, puisque l’Etat comprend tout le peuple. Il décrète que tout pouvoir vient de Dieu ; que le pouvoir n’est pas un droit, mais un devoir qu’on ne peut revendiquer au nom d’un groupe, de certains intérêts ou voire de soi-même, mais seulement au nom de Dieu et de la vérité.

Fascism does not admit that power in the fascist State emanates from a section of the people or from an electoral majority granted to a political party, because the State includes all the people.  It decrees that all power comes from God; that power is not a right, but a duty that cannot be claimed in behalf of a group, of certain interests, or even of oneself, but only in the name of God and Truth.

Le voeu et les aspirations du peuple doivent servir à renseigner le gouvernement sur les besoins du peuple, mais la popularité ne comporte par elle-même aucun titre au pouvoir. Cette différence avec la doctrine libérale paraîtra tout à l’heure plus claire lorsque nous étudierons le fonctionnement gouvernemental et électoral du fascisme.

The wishes and aspirations of the people must serve to inform the government of the needs of the people, but popularity by itself has no title to power.  This difference from liberal doctrine will appear more clearly later when we study the governmental and electoral functioning of fascism.

Le fascisme considère que la loi humaine est un reflet de la loi divine, et que tout chef tire son autorité de la loi divine qu’il est chargé de faire respecter et d’appliquer. Mais, quelque haut placé que soit le chef, quelque grand qu’il soit, il reste lui-même soumis à cette loi, qu’il ne saurait enfreindre sans saper les bases de sa propre autorité. C’est pourquoi la conception fasciste s’oppose à la tyrannie du pouvoir démocratique issu de la majorité du nombre, comme à la tyrannie du pouvoir personnel absolu, puisque personne dans l’Etat fasciste ne peut être au-dessus de la loi. Un chef fasciste peut, en tout temps, être destitué par le grand conseil politique de !a nation s’il trahit la charte qui a été confiée à sa direction, charte à laquelle il est le premier soumis et dont il doit être le serviteur modèle.

Fascism considers that human law is a reflection of divine law, and that every leader derives his authority from the divine law which he is charged with enforcing and applying.  But, however high a leader may be, no matter how great he is, he remains himself subject to this law, which he cannot disobey without undermining the bases of his own authority.  This is why the fascist conception is as opposed to the tyranny of the democratic power that comes from the numerical majority, as it is to the tyranny of absolute personal power, since nobody in the fascist State can be above the law.  A fascist leader may, at any time, be dismissed by the great political council of the nation if he betrays the charter entrusted to his direction, a charter to which he is the first to be subject and of which he must be the model servant.

Qui doit décider la forme de gouvernement que l’Etat doit adopter, pour amener un régime fasciste ? A cette question nous répondons: quiconque est, en réalité, au moment du choix, l’autorité effective. Si une autorité nominale cesse de fonctionner*, une autorité réelle doit être mise à sa place.

Who should decide what form of government the State should adopt to bring about a fascist regime?  To this question, we reply:  whoever is, in reality, at the moment of the choice, the effective authority.  If a nominal authority ceases to function*, a real authority must be put in its place.

Le fascisme et l’Etat

Fascism and the State

Il suffira de donner la définition que Mussolini fait de l’État, définition identique à celle d’Hitler, pour savoir quelle conception s’en fait le fascisme.

It will suffice to give Mussolini’s definition of the State, identical to Hitler’s definition, to know how fascism conceives it.

L’État tel que le fascisme le conçoit, dit Mussolini, est une entité spirituelle et morale, parce qu’il incarne l’organisme politique, juridique et économique de la nation, et cet organisme, tant dans sa création que dans son développement, est une manifestation de l’esprit de la nation.  L’État n’est pas seulement le garant de la sécurité intérieure, mais il est aussi le gardien et le transmetteur de l’Esprit du Peuple, et cet esprit a été élaboré à travers les âges par sa langue, par ses

The State as fascism conceives it, says Mussolini, is a spiritual and moral entity, because it embodies the political, legal and economic organism of the nation, and this organism, both in its creation and its development, is a manifestation of the spirit of the nation. The State is not only the guarantor of internal security, but it also is the guardian and transmitter of the Spirit of the People, and this spirit has been elaborated throughout the ages through its language, its

Note de la traductrice:  “Si une autorité nominale cesse de fonctionner, une autorité réelle doit être mise à sa place.”  Il s’agit d’une déclaration que je garde à l’esprit lorsque je lis qu’Arcand a été accusé de vouloir renverser le gouvernement canadien.  Connaissant le respect religieux d’Arcand pour l’autorité légalement constituée, et son mépris pour la révolution, je pense que tout projet en dehors des élections qu’il aurait pu entretenir pour remplacer le gouvernement fédéral, s’il y en avait, aurait été lié à une risque d’invasion pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale.  Dans ce cas, il aurait fort bien pu être prêt à maintenir le pays à flot en «remplaçant» «l’autorité nominale» qui aurait cessé de fonctionner en raison d’une invasion étrangère.  Mais, bien sûr, Arcand n’a jamais eu de procès, donc nous ne savons pas si c’est ainsi qu’il aurait pu s’expliquer.

Translator’s note:  “If a nominal authority ceases to function, a real authority must be put in its place.”  This is a statement that I keep in mind when reading that Arcand was accused of intending to overthrow the Canadian government.  Knowing Arcand’s religious respect for lawfully constituted authority, and his contempt for revolution, I would think that any plans outside of election that he may have entertained for replacing the federal government, if such plans there were, would have been connected with a war-time risk of invasion during WWII.  In that case, he might well have intended to be ready to keep the country afloat by “replacing” the “nominal authority” that might have ceased to function due to foreign invasion.  But, of course, Arcand never had a trial, so we don’t know if that’s how he might have explained himself.


Fascisme ou Socialisme ?

Fascism or Socialism?

coutumes et par sa foi. L’Etat ne vit pas seulement dans 1e présent, mais aussi dans le passé et, pardessus tout, dan l’avenir. C’est l’Etat qui, transcendant les brèves limites de vies individuelles, représente la conscience immortelle de 1 nation”.

customs and its faith.  The State lives not only in the present, but also in the past and, above all, in the future.  It is the State which, transcending the brief limits of individual lives, represents the immortal consciousness of the nation.

En un mot, le fascisme considère que nos ancêtres on été nos coopérateurs pour établir le pays dans lequel nou vivons et que nous devons, à notre tour, coopérer avec nos descendants.  L’Etat fasciste est donc un Etat avant tout traditionnaliste, qui fait de la tradition son guide vers la réalisation des aspirations nationales. C’est pour cela que, sans prescrire aucune forme particulière de gouvernement, le fascisme cherche à éviter les défauts de la démocratie, en préférant les intérêts PERMANENTS de la nation et l’incorporation de ses traditions et ses aspirations ETHNOLOGIQUES à n’importe quelle sorte d’agitation politique TEMPORAIRE.  En somme, le fascisme préfère l’ethnocratie à la démocratie.  Le gouvernement de l’Etat fasciste cherche constamment à réaliser les intérêts suprêmes de la nation, tels que confirmé par une large consultation des opinions EXPERTES, à déterminer le peuple, à toujours étudier et défendre l’intérêt national primordial et, s’il est nécessaire, à lui faire faire des sacrifices temporaires en vue d’obtenir des avantages plus durables.

In a word, fascism considers that our ancestors were our cooperators in establishing the country in which we live and that we, in turn, must cooperate with our descendants.  The Fascist State is therefore above all a traditionalist State, and makes tradition its guide toward the realization of national aspirations.  This is why, without prescribing any particular form of government, fascism seeks to avoid the defects of democracy, by preferring the PERMANENT interests of the nation and the incorporation of its traditions and its ETHNOLOGICAL aspirations, to any sort of TEMPORARY political turmoil.  In sum, fascism prefers ethnocracy to democracy.  The government of the fascist State constantly seeks to realize the supreme interests of the nation, as confirmed by a wide consultation of EXPERT opinions, to keep the people determined always to consider and defend the overriding national interest and, if necessary, cause them to make temporary sacrifices to obtain more lasting benefits.

Le fascisme et la religion

Fascism and religion

Le fascisme est une formule de redressement politique, social et économique, et il ne croit pas que l’on puisse opérer ce redressement sans tenir compte des racines profondes de la civilisation occidentale.  Cette civilisation millénaire est la civilisation chrétienne.  Elle a pour inspiratrice et pour guide la religion chrétienne, formatrice des individus.  Comme les individus qui composent la nation doivent vivre suivant les principes de leur formation religieuse, il est indispensable que l’Etat coopère étroitement avec la religion.  Hitler est le gouvernant qui est allé le plus loin, à ce sujet.  Dans sa première déclaration officielle comme chancelier, à Potsdam, il posai le principe politique suivant :  “Le gouvernement de La Nouvelle Allemagne est persuadé que la religion est la seule base de toute morale, de l’instinct de famille, du peuple et de l’Etat et il la défendra”.  C’est pourquoi, dans son programme déclaré intangible pour toujours, Hitler a fait insérer le principe que l’Etat doit être positivement chrétien, qu’il n’a pas le droit d’être neutre ou même indifférent et que, dans toutes ses législations, il doit non seulement éviter de venir en conflit avec la religion mais doit donner aux lois une attitude positive pour faciliter l’accomplissement des enseignements de la religion.  Le fascisme exige que l’instruction et l’éducation soient con-

Fascism is a formula for political, social and economic recovery, and it does not believe that this recovery can be carried out without taking into account the deep roots of Western civilization.  This millennial civilization is Christian civilization.  Its inspiration and guide is the Christian religion, the trainer of individuals.  As the individuals who make up the nation must live according to the principles of their religious training, it is essential that the state cooperate closely with religion.  Hitler is the ruler who has gone the farthest on this subject.  In his first official declaration as Chancellor, at Potsdam, he laid down the following political principle:  “The government of New Germany is convinced that religion is the only foundation of all morality, of the family instinct, of the people and of the State, and it will defend it”.  That is why, in his program declared intangible forever, Hitler inserted the principle that the State must be positively Christian, that it has no right to be neutral or even indifferent, and that in all its legislation it must not only avoid coming into conflict with religion but must confer upon the laws a positive attitude to facilitate the fulfillment of the teachings of religion.  Fascism demands that instruction and education be con-


Fascisme ou Socialisme ?

Fascism or Socialism?

fessionnelles, à tous les stages. Le fascisme reconnaît que la religion est la dépositaire, la gardienne et l’interprète de la morale. Le fascisme, et la constitution de Potsdam le définit clairement, est le premier défenseur et soutien de la religion. Le fascisme répudie entièrement le rêve de l’homme divinisé et du paradis sur terre, rêve issu de la Révolution de 1789, et il veut imposer un retour aux principes de la pure tradition chrétienne. Et quand nous parlons de tradition chrétienne, il n’est aucunement question de ce qu’on pourrait appeler la bigoterie, le cléricalisme ou le puritanisme, puisque l’Etat est une forme de pouvoir purement laïque.

fessional at all stages.  Fascism recognizes that religion is the custodian, guardian and interpreter of morality.  Fascism, and the constitution of Potsdam clearly defines it, is the first defender and supporter of religion.  Fascism utterly repudiates the dream of deified man and paradise on earth, a dream from the Revolution of 1789, and it wants to impose a return to the principles of pure Christian tradition.  And when we speak of Christian tradition, there is no question of what might be called bigotry, clericalism, or puritanism, since the State is a form of purely secular power.

Le fascisme et

Fascism and the

Le fascisme décrète, contrairement au socialisme libéra!, que les individus sont naturellement inégaux.  En vertu de ce principe, l’organisation sociale ne peut plus être individualiste; elle est entièrement sociale.  L’individualisme est un crime qui est puni suivant les maux qu’il occasionne.  L’individu, dans l’Etat fasciste, appartient à la classe à laquelle il est normalement dévolu par naissance, atavisme, éducation, aptitude et avancement personnel.  Cependant, l’individu n’est pas abandonné à ses propres ressources, mais encadré et soutenu par des organisations corporatives.

Fascism decrees, unlike liberal socialism, that individuals are naturally unequal.  By virtue of this principle, social organization can no longer be individualistic; it is entirely social.  Individualism is a crime that is punished according to the harm it causes.  The individual, in the fascist State, belongs to the class to which he is normally devoted by birth, atavism, education, aptitude, and personal advancement.  However, the individual is not abandoned to his own resources, but given a framework and supported by corporate organizations.

Le travail est considéré par le fascisme comme un devoir social obligatoire pour tous les individus. Il ne tolère pas plus les paresseux riches que les paresseux pauvres. Et, dans tout ce qu’il fait, l’individu n’a pas le droit de s’occuper seulement de lui-même; il doit aussi s’occuper des autres. L’individu doit subordonner ses intérêts personnels à ceux du bien général et à ceux de l’Etat qui exerce l’autorité nécessaire. Il n’est pas seulement une unité indépendante, dans la nation, mais membre d’une communauté pour le bonheur présent et futur de laquelle il porte de graves responsabilités. Il peut, et même il doit avoir des intérêts personnels, mais il ne doit pas chercher son avantage dans une direction opposée à celle du bien commun. Il doit donc agir dans un esprit corporatif et patriotique. Sa vie, dans la société, doit se modeler sur les devoirs de sa vie individuelle dans sa famille, qui est naturellement corporative, guidée par une autorité permanente et stable, et dont l’Etat se fait le plus ferme soutien et défenseur. L’Etat considère la nation comme la grande famille nationale, extension de la petite famille, et il se fait le défenseur naturel de la grande et de la petite famille.

Work is considered by fascism as a compulsory social duty for all individuals.  It tolerates the lazy rich no more than the lazy poor.  And, in all that he does, the individual has no right to care only for himself; he must also take care of others.  The individual must subordinate his personal interests to those of the general good and to those of the State which exercises the necessary authority.  He is not only an independent unit in the nation, but a member of a community for whose present and future happiness he bears grave responsibilities.  He may, and even must, have personal interests, but he must not seek his advantage in a direction opposite to that of the common good.  He must act in a corporate and patriotic spirit.  His life in society must be modeled on the duties of his individual life in his family, which is naturally corporate, guided by a permanent and stable authority, and of which the State is the strongest supporter and defender.  The State considers the nation as the great national family, the extension of the small family, and it is the natural defender of both the great and the small family.

Cette doctrine faisait écrire à Harold-E. Goad, M.A., qui a particulièrement étudié la question : “Le principe fasciste, c’est le principe chrétien. Le fascisme forme un tout logique et n’est pas, comme on le prétend, un assemblage de théories

This doctrine caused Harold E. Goad, M.A., who has particularly studied the question, to write:  “The fascist principle is the Christian principle.  Fascism forms a logical whole and is not, as it is claimed, an assemblage of different theories.


Fascisme ou Socialisme ?

Fascism or Socialism?

différentes. C’est le principe chrétien parce qu’il astreint tout homme à accomplir son devoir envers son prochain. Le socialisme priverait l’individu du privilège de la charité, en rendant toute personne indépendante de son voisin, et dépendant seulement de l’Etat”.

It is the Christian principle because it compels every man to fulfill his duty to his neighbor.  Socialism would deprive the individual of the privilege of charity, by rendering every person independent of his neighbor, and only dependent on the State.”

Le fascisme et les classes

Fascism and social

Le fascisme combat avec acharnement la lutte des classe sociales, suscitée par le libéralisme et avivée par le socialisme et il prend les moyens législatifs et économiques voulus pou la faire cesser. Il considère que toutes les classes sociales son nécessaires et que, au lieu d’être naturellement antagonistes elles se complètent les unes les autres.

Fascism fiercely combats the struggle of the social classes stirred up by liberalism and enlivened by socialism, and takes the necessary legislative and economic measures to put an end to it.  It considers that all the social classes are necessary and that, instead of being naturally antagonistic, they complement each other.

Il faut admettre l’inégalité des classes comme des individus, conséquence de l’inégalité naturelle, loi fondamentale de 1a nature.  Comme les roues d’un même rouage d’horlogerie, le différentes classes doivent fonctionner suivant un rythm coordonné, dans un mouvement d’ensemble, suivant un ordre et une harmonie qui assurent l’avancement et le progrès de toute la nation.  Chaque classe accomplit sa fonction, dan l’organisme social; chaque classe a ses devoirs et ses droit propres qui forment sa tradition.  À la haine de classe socialiste, comme à la tyrannie de classe du capitalisme, le fascisme oppose une solidarité sociale basée sur une juste répartitioi des droits et des devoirs. Dans chaque classe, le fascisme reconnaît des hiérarchies, des élites personnelles et responsables.

We must admit the inequality of the classes as of individuals, a consequence of natural inequality, the fundamental law of nature.  Like the wheels of the same clockwork, the different classes must function according to a coordinated rhythm, in an overall movement, according to an order and a harmony which ensure the advancement and progress of the whole nation.  Each class performs its function in the social organism; each class has its own duties and its own rights which form its tradition.  To socialist class hatred, as to the class tyranny of capitalism, fascism opposes social solidarity based on the just distribution of rights and duties.  Within each class, fascism recognizes hierarchies, personal and responsible elites.

Le fascisme répudie le socialisme et accepte la doctrine sociale chrétienne.  Il l’applique, suivant un mode corporatif.  Tout, dans le fascisme, est basé sur cette idée corporative mettant chaque aptitude et chaque compétence à sa place normale, comme dans une corporation industrielle ordinaire, avec cette différence que, plus un chef a d’influence et de puissance plus nombreux sont ses devoirs et plus rigoureux sont les comptes que l’Etat exige de lui.

Fascism repudiates socialism and accepts Christian social doctrine.  It applies it in a corporate fashion.  Everything in fascism is based on this corporate idea putting each aptitude and each skill in its normal place, as in an ordinary industrial corporation, with the difference that the more influence a leader has, the more numerous his duties are, and the more rigorous is the accounting that the State requires of him.

Le fascisme et le droit de

Fascism and property

Le droit de propriété est sacré, dans l’Etat fasciste. Cependant, puisqu’il est reconnu comme, un droit, il comporte des devoirs.  Si le socialisme prêche que “la propriété, c’est le vol”; si le libéralisme proclame que “tout individu peut indistinctement faire ce qu’il veut avec ce qu’il possède”, le fascisme proclame que la propriété privée est un dépôt que l’individu peut posséder et transmettre à ses héritiers sans taxe immodérée sur le capital, POURVU qu’il fasse un usage raisonnable de son privilège et qu’il le développe à sa capacité

The right of ownership is sacred in the fascist State.  However, since it is recognized as a right, it carries duties.  If socialism preaches “property is theft”; if liberalism proclaims that “every individual can indiscriminately do what he wants with what he possesses,” fascism proclaims that private property is a deposit that the individual can possess and transmit to his heirs without immoderate taxes on the capital, PROVIDING that he makes reasonable use of his privilege and that he develops it to the best of his ability


Fascisme ou Socialisme ?

Fascism or Socialism?

maximum, pour l’interêt commun en même temps que le sien, cette part du sol national ou de capital ou d’industrie qui est laissée entre ses mains.

for the common good at the same time as his own, this share of the national soil or capital or industry that is left in his hands.

Le fascisme décrète qu’aucun homme n’a le droit de laisser une portion de bonne terre improductive pour de seules fins égoïstes de sport ou de plaisir; encore moins qu’un individu puisse appauvrir ses propriétés en les déboisant sans besoin ou en y occasionnant des foyers malsains par négligence de les drainer. Aucun propriétaire n’a le droit de laisser des maisons habitables tomber en ruines; s’il n’a pas le moyen de tenir sa propriété en bon état, le propriétaire doit la vendre, ou l’Etat se charge de la développer pour lui, moyennant rémunération. L’inertie ou la négligence de produire est considérée inexcusable pour tout possesseur de capitaux. Chaque fois qu’un possesseur de capitaux fait preuve de négligence ou d’incapacité, l’Etat fasciste prend charge de ce qu’il a. Personne n’a le droit de démolir une construction magnifique ou d’intérêt historique sans la permission du gouvernement. Personne ne peut vendre, pour exportation dans un pays étranger, des trésors artistiques, car ces trésor» sont considérés comme partie de l’héritage national et ceux qui en sont les dépositaires temporaires ne peuvent les aliéner pour un gain personnel. L’Etat fasciste tient à garantir la propriété individuelle non seulement pour l’individu, mais aussi pour ses héritiers. Les mines, forêts, carrières et autres sources potentielles de richesses doivent être suffisamment développées, et l’Etat fasciste est prêt à aider par des prêts et de la main-d’oeuvre experte leur développement pour le meilleur intérêt collectif national.

Fascism decrees that no man has the right to leave a portion of good land unproductive for selfish ends of sport or pleasure; even less can an individual impoverish his properties by deforesting them without need or causing an unhealthy state of affairs by neglecting to drain them.  No landlord has the right to let habitable houses fall into ruins; if he does not have the means to keep his property in good condition, the proprietor must sell it, or the State shall take care of developing it for him, in return for remuneration.  Inertia or neglect to produce is considered inexcusable for any possessor of capital.  Whenever a possessor of capital shows negligence or incapacity, the fascist state takes charge of what he has.  No one has the right to demolish a magnificent construction or one of historic interest without the permission of the government.  No one can sell artistic treasures for export to a foreign country because these treasure are considered part of the national heritage and those who are the temporary trustees cannot alienate them for personal gain.  The fascist State wants to guarantee individual property not only for the individual, but also for his heirs.  The mines, forests, quarries and other potential sources of wealth must be sufficiently developed, and the fascist State is ready to help their development with loans and expert manpower for the best national collective interest.

L’Etat fasciste dirige un système de coordination du progrès national, et il empêche, à cette fin, toute surcapitalisation, la formation de nouvelles entreprises dans le genre de celles dont le pays est déjà suffisamment pourvu ou qui n’ont pour seul but qu’une compétition de coupe-gorge.

The fascist State directs a system of coordination of national progress, and to this end, it prevents overcapitalization or the establishment of new enterprises similar to those already in sufficient abundance in the country or whose only purpose is cut-throat competition.

Si le fascisme se fait le défenseur du droit de propriété, dans toutes les sphères imaginables, il se permet d’intervenir lorsque le droit de propriété entre en conflit avec l’intérêt de l’Etat et le bien général.  Le fascisme est conscient de son devoir primordial de diriger, et il accomplit ce devoir intelligemment, en coordonnant toutes les forces productrices de la nation.  C’est ce qui peut lui permettre de contrôler la production, suivant les besoins naturels du pays et de ses marchés extérieurs, et restreindre toute surproduction basée sur des besoins artificiels spéculatifs.  C’est donc opposer l’idéal de service1 au mercantilisme industriel et à l’idéal de production pour le seul avantage du profit, ainsi que protéger la propriété personnelle contre le capitalisme agioteur.

If fascism is the defender of the right to property in all conceivable spheres, it allows itself to intervene when the right of ownership conflicts with the interest of the State and the general good.  Fascism is aware of its primary duty to lead, and it fulfills this duty intelligently, by coordinating all the productive forces of the nation.  This is what can allow it to control production according to the natural needs of the country and its external markets, and to limit any overproduction based on artificial speculative needs.  It therefore opposes the ideal of service1 to that of industrial mercantilism and to production for the sole advantage of profit, as well as protecting personal property against exploitive capitalism.

1.  Note de la traductrice:  “l’idéal de service”:  gardez à l’esprit la devise d’Adrien Arcand, SERVIAM.  C’est le contraire de la réponse matérialiste de Satan à Dieu :  “Je ne servirai pas!” (Non-Serviam!).

1.  Note de la traductrice:  “the ideal of service”.  Keep in mind Adrien Arcand’s motto, SERVIAM.  It’s the opposite of materialist Satan’s answer to God:  “I will not serve!” (Non-Serviam!).


Fascisme ou Socialisme ?

Fascism or Socialism?

Le fascisme et le capital

Fascism and capital

Le fascisme établit une démarcation très nette entre le capital et le capitalisme. Le capital est un élément économique absolument indispensable pour la vie d’une nation. Le capitalisme est une tyrannie économique et sociale exercée par certains détenteurs de capitaux. La démocratie libérale est directement responsable de la tyrannie capitaliste qui a fini par rompre tout équilibre en absorbant la majeure partie du capital des nations, en exploitant cruellement les classes faibles pour augmenter sa puissance, en corrompant les partis politiques en sa faveur, en échafaudant tout un édifice de législations détrimentaires aux autres classes.

Fascism establishes a clear demarcation between capital and capitalism.  Capital is an absolutely indispensable economic element for the life of a nation.  Capitalism is an economic and social tyranny exercised by certain holders of capital.  Liberal democracy is directly responsible for the capitalist tyranny that has ended by upsetting the whole equilibrium, absorbing most of the capital of nations, cruelly exploiting the weaker classes to increase its power, corrupting political parties in its favor, scaffolding up a whole edifice of legislation detrimental for the other classes.

Le fascisme est peut-être plus fanatiquement anti-capitaliste que le socialisme, parce qu’il perçoit plus sainement les méfaits du capitalisme et les remèdes qu’il faut apporter aux maux qu’il occasionne.  Parce que la chirurgie fait souffrir, ce n’est pas une raison pour abolir la chirurgie.  Pourtant, telle est la logique du socialisme: parce que le capital a commis des abus, il faut abolir le capital!  Le fascisme a une façon plus intelligente de régler le problème.

Fascism is perhaps more fanatically anti-capitalist than socialism, because it perceives more soundly the misdeeds of capitalism and the remedies required for the ills occasioned.  The fact that surgery is painful is no reason to abolish surgery.  Yet this is the logic of socialism:  since capital has committed abuses, abolish capital!  Fascism has a more intelligent way to deal with the problem.

Il se propose d’abord, par des lois préconisées dans ses programmes politiques, lois qui diffèrent suivant les lieux et les genres d’abus, d’écraser définitivement le despotisme et la tyrannie du capitalisme. Dans le domaine positif, il décrète que les rôles jusqu’ici maintenus doivent être renversés et que la finance doit cesser d’être la maîtresse, pour devenir la servante de l’agriculture, de l’industrie et du commerce. La force inerte de l’argent doit être assujettie à la force vive des activités humaines.

First, it proposes, through laws advocated in its political programs, laws which differ according to the places and the kinds of abuses, to definitively crush despotism and the tyranny of capitalism.  In the positive area, it decrees that the roles hitherto maintained must be reversed and that finance must cease to be the mistress, to become the servant of agriculture, industry and commerce.  The inert force of money must be subjected to the living force of human activity.

Le fascisme pose aussi en principe que seuls le travail d’un individu ou une mise réelle de fonds peuvent rapporter des profits. C’est dire que le capital ne pourra plus être spéculatif, mais devra devenir purement productif. La spéculation sur des titres sans valeur réelle, sur des stocks de valeur fictive ou imaginaire, est ce qui cause la grande misère moderne et la maldistribution des richesses. Le capitalisme actuel exige de la nature et des classes travailleuses, des produits naturels et un travail humain qui sont compensés par des valeurs dont les trois quarts ne valent pas un sou.

Fascism also posits in principle that only the work of an individual or a real investment of funds can produce profits.  This means that capital can no longer be speculative, but will have to become purely productive.  Speculation on securities without real value, on inventories of fictitious or imaginary value, is what causes the great modern misery and maldistribution of wealth. 
Today’s capitalism requires of nature and of the working classes natural products and human labor which are compensated by assets, three-quarters of which are not worth a penny.

Le fascisme considère comme un devoir de rendre le plus productif possible toute mise réelle de fonds dans une entreprise, mais il est en même temps déterminé à détruire l’exploitation des masses par les capitaux irréels, dont l’existence a été rendue possible par les lois démocratiques régissant les compagnies et les sociétés anonymes.

Fascism considers it a duty to make any real financial investment in a company as productive as possible, but at the same time it is determined to destroy the exploitation of the masses by unreal capital, the existence of which was made possible by the democratic laws governing companies and public limited companies.

Les entreprises capitalistes devront tendre, dans l’Etat fasciste, à revenir à l’ancien système des entreprises de famille, et les chefs en seront entièrement responsables, devant

Capitalist enterprises will have to tend, in the fascist State, to return to the old system of family enterprises, and the leaders will be entirely responsible for this, under


Fascisme ou Socialisme ?

Fascism or Socialism?

des lois rigoureuses. Le capital sera aidé et protégé, mais dans les limites de devoirs stricts et d’un esprit de juste coopération avec les activités qu’il devra servir.

rigorous laws.  Capital will be helped and protected, but within the limits of strict duties and a spirit of just cooperation with the activities it will serve.

Le fascisme et

Fascism and

Le fascisme considère l’agriculture comme la première, la plus importante et la plus vitale des industries nationales et lui accorde préséance, même dans la représentation parlementaire, où elle a droit à un plus grand nombre de représentants que toute autre industrie. Elle reçoit une aide équivalente à Ja considération qu’on lui porte. Le premier acte du fascisme est de spiritualiser l’agriculture, de la décentraliser et de la réorganiser sur des bases corporatives. Les détails de cette réorganisation, comme on le conçoit, font l’objet de programmes politiques qui viendront à leur heure. La colonisation, considérée comme l’un des aspects de l’agriculture, partage au même titre dans la considération de la première industrie nationale.

Fascism regards agriculture as the first, the most important and most vital of national industries and gives it precedence, even in parliamentary representation, where it has the right to a greater number of representatives than any other industry.  It receives help equivalent to the status attributed to it.  The first act of fascism is to spiritualize agriculture, to decentralize and reorganize it on a corporate basis.  The details of this reorganization, as we see it, are the subject of political programs that will come in due time.  Colonization, considered as one of the aspects of agriculture, shares equally in the status of the primary national industry.

Le fascisme et les

Fascism and

Comme tous les citoyens sont astreints à travailler, dans l’Etat fasciste, il s’ensuit qu’il y a des lois pour protéger les travailleurs de tous genres, de même qu’il y a des lois pour punir ceux qui ne veulent pas travailler. Ces lois vont jusqu’à défranchiser, comme anti-nationaux, les fainéants qui refusent de reconnaître le devoir du travail. Cependant, les travailleurs manuels, parce qu’ils en ont un plus grand besoin, ont une protection toute particulière. L’Italie a produit pour eux le plus remarquable code qui se soit jamais fait. Il porte le nom de “Charte du Travail” et, ‘bien qu’il ne soit pas encore incorporé dans la constitution, il fait loi et a cours devant les tribunaux. Il faudrait lire toute cette Charte, monument de justice, d’équité et de bon sens, pour en révéler la valeur.

As all citizens are forced to work in the fascist State, it follows that there are laws to protect workers of all kinds, just as there are laws to punish those who do not want to work.  These laws go so far as to disenfranchise, as anti-nationals, idlers who refuse to recognize the duty of work.  However, manual workers, because they have a greater need, have special protection.  For them, Italy has produced the most remarkable code ever made, called the “Labor Charter”.  And although it is not yet incorporated in the constitution, it is law and is in the courts.  The whole Charter, a monument to justice, equity and common sense, should be read to reveal its value.

Cette charte réglemente la solidarité qui doit exister entre le capital, le travail, l’administration et le marchandage des produits. Elle décrète que le salaire de l’ouvrier doit non seulement être suffisant pour répondre aux besoins normaux de la vie, mais encore qu’il doit être proportionné à la valeur du travail pour lequel il est payé. Cette dernière clause permet de faire augmenter le salaire de l’ouvrier lorsqu’une machinerie plus efficace est installée dans une usine, car on considère que le travail prend une plus grande efficacité et une plus grande valeur avec une machine plus perfectionnée. C’est donc décourager chez l’employeur la mécanisation dont le seul but est d’éliminer ou avilir la main-d’oeuvre. La même charte comporte un mécanisme pour assurer le plus bas niveau possible des prix de vente, non seulement dans l’intérêt du commerce

This charter regulates the solidarity that must exist among capital, labor, administration and price-fixing of products.  It decrees that the worker’s wages must not only be sufficient to meet the normal needs of life, but also that they must be proportionate to the value of the work for which they are paid.  This latter clause increases the wages of the worker when more efficient machinery is installed in a factory, because it is considered that the work takes greater efficiency and acquires greater value with a more sophisticated machine.  This therefore discourages the employer from mechanizing, the sole purpose of which is to eliminate or debase the workforce.  The same charter includes a mechanism to ensure the lowest possible level of selling prices, not only in the interest


Fascisme ou Socialisme ?

Fascism or Socialism?

d’exportation, mais aussi dans l’intérêt de l’ouvrier-consom-mateur.

of export trade, but also in the interest of the worker-consumer.

Cette “Charte du Travail” considère donc et concilie le plus équitablement possible ces trois choses capitales: les plus hauts salaires possibles pour le travailleur; un niveau raisonnable de profit pour la direction et l’employeur afin d’assurer un courant constant de cerveaux et de capitaux vers l’entreprise; les plus bas prix de vente possibles afin d’étendre le commerce extérieur et de maintenir un coût de la vie peu élevé pour les consommateurs de l’intérieur du pays. Ces trois intérêts sont reconnus comme solidaires et complémentaires, d’importance égale pour les travailleurs, pour les employeurs et pour la nation. Négliger ou diminuer l’un des trois peut être fatal aux deux autres.

This “Charter of Labor”, therefore, considers and reconciles these three most important things as equitably as possible:  the highest possible wages for the worker; a reasonable level of profit for management and the employer to ensure a constant flow of brains and capital to the company; the lowest selling prices possible in order to expand foreign trade and maintain a low cost of living for consumers in the interior of the country.  These three interests are recognized as mutually supportive and complementary, of equal importance to workers, employers and the nation.  Neglecting or diminishing one of the three can be fatal to the other two.

Ajoutons que la “Charte du Travail” régularise les heures de travail, décrète les congés de semaine, exige des vacances annuelles payées à plein salaire, et oblige l’employeur de payer une gratuité ou une pension proportionnée à la durée de service, lorsqu’un travailleur termine son contrat ou est démis de ses fonctions. La Charte pourvoit à des Bureaux pour le transfert des ouvriers d’une usine à l’autre, afin d’éviter le chômage; à des assurances spéciales oblgatoires contre les accidents industriels, le chômage involontaire, les maladies provoquées par certains métiers, assurances auxquelles l’ouvrier et le patron contribuent chacun pour la moitié. Le fascisme encourage, répand et soutient les syndicats de métiers, exigeant qu’ils soient de contrôle et de caractère national. A cause de son système parlementaire rt des qualités exigées des représentants du peuple, le fascisme désire que tous les travailleurs du pays fassent partie des syndicats de métiers, associations agricoles, associations professionnelles ou autres organisations s’occupant des intérêts de leur profession particulière.

It should be added that the “Labor Charter” regulates working hours, orders time off each week, requires annual holidays paid at full salary, and obliges the employer to pay a gratuity or a pension proportionate to the length of service when a worker finishes his contract or is dismissed.  The Charter provides for Offices for the transfer of workers from one factory to another to avoid unemployment; for compulsory special insurance against industrial accidents, involuntary unemployment, diseases caused by certain trades, insurance to which the worker and the employer each contribute half.  Fascism encourages, propagates and supports trade unions, demanding that they be of national character under national control.  Because of its parliamentary system and the qualities required of the peoples’ representatives, fascism desires that all workers in the country be a part of trade unions, agricultural associations, professional associations or other organizations concerned with the interests of their particular profession.

Le fascisme et les partis

Fascism and political

Le fascisme comporte l’abolition de tous les partis politiques. En réalité, il n’y a même pas de parti fasciste, sauf pendant le temps que dure encore l’ère démocratique, car le fascisme est un système gouvernemental et non un groupement partisan.

Fascism involves the abolition of all political parties.  In fact, there is not even a fascist party, except while the democratic era still lasts, because fascism is a governmental system and not a partisan group.

La situation canadienne nous prouve suffisamment que le régime des partis empêche tout gouvernement national. Que notre gouvernement soit libéral ou conservateur, c’est toujours le gouvernement d’une moitié de la population, l’opposition représentant l’autre moitié. Quelle unité d’action, quelle permanence de continuité, quelle stabilité réelle, quelle sécurité pouvons-nous avoir, avec un tel régime ? Aucune.

The Canadian situation sufficiently proves that the party system prevents any national government.  Whether our government is Liberal or Conservative, it is still the government of a half of the population, the opposition representing the other half.  What unity of action, what permanence of continuity, what real stability, what security can we have with such a regime?  None.


Fascisme ou Socialisme ?

Fascism or Socialism?

Le pouvoir, sous le régime démocratique des partis politiques, est basé sur la souveraineté du nombre, sur la majorité des voix, c’est-à-dire sur une masse anonyme, instable, incohérente et totalement irresponsable. Ce mode électoral prête à corruption et, de fait, n’est que corruption. L’autorité qu’il confère n’est que nominale, elle est toujours timide, toujours insuffisante.

Power, in the democratic regime of political parties, is based on the sovereignty of number, on the majority of votes, meaning on an anonymous, unstable, incoherent and totally irresponsible mass.  This electoral method is prone to corruption and, in fact, is nothing but corruption.  The authority it confers is only nominal, always uncertain, always insufficient.

Le suffrage universel, tel qu’il est pratiqué dans les pays démocratiques, est issu du faux principe de l’égalité de tous les citoyens. Et, quelque parti qui soit au pouvoir par le moyen du suffrage universel, il est incapable de gouverner. Le suffrage universel ne produit que des politiciens professionnels, susceptibles de corruption et capables de corrompre l’électorat de qui ils détiennent le pouvoir; il ne produit pas d’hommes d’Etat, sauf en de très rares exceptions. La qualité d’homme d’Etat exige des mesures de prévoyance, de sagesse et de sacrifice que la masse électorale ne consentira jamais. On n’obtient pas la sagesse en multipliant à l’infini le nombre des ignorances; et, sous le régime démocratique, la sagesse se résume dans le “non” ou le “oui” exprimé par l’ignorance générale, que l’on dénomme “suffrage universel”.

Universal suffrage, as practiced in democratic countries, stems from the false principle of the equality of all citizens.  And, whatever the party in power by means of universal suffrage, it is incapable of governing.  Universal suffrage only produces professional politicians, susceptible to corruption and capable of corrupting the electorate from whom they hold power; it does not produce statesmen, except in very rare exceptions.  The quality of a statesman requires foresight, wisdom and sacrifice that the electoral mass can never bestow.  Wisdom is not obtained by multiplying to infinity the number of ignorants; but in the democratic regime, wisdom is summed up in the “no” or the “yes” expressed by the general ignorance called “universal suffrage”.

Le fascisme n’a donc aucune confiance dans le système électoral démocratique, qui procède toujours par le mensonge des fausses promesses, ou l’intimidation, ou la corruption, et qui ne confère le pouvoir qu’à une classe ou un groupe d’intérêts de la nation. Les gouvernants qui doivent exercer des talents d’hommes d’Etat et une grande vision ne doivent pas être forcés de faire leur cour à la popularité, car ce n’est pas le nombre de voix en faveur d’une loi qui doit compter, mais la sagesse et l’équité de cette loi. C’est pourquoi, sous le Fascisme, les majorités ne veulent rien dire, à moins qu’elles ne soient des majorités d’hommes d’expérience et d’esprit patriotique.

Fascism therefore has no confidence in the democratic electoral system, which always proceeds by the lie of false promises, or intimidation, or corruption, and confers power only on one class or group of interests in the nation.  The rulers who must exercise the talents of statesmen and great vision ought not to be forced to court popularity, for it is not the number of votes in favor of a law that must count, but the wisdom and fairness of this law.  This is why, under Fascism, majorities mean nothing unless they are majorities of men of experience and patriotic spirit.

Le fascisme et l’opposition

Fascism and parliamentary

L’opposition parlementaire est, aux yeux du fasciste, l’une des plus grandes futilités dont il convient de se débarrasser. Toute opposition parlementaire semble être un corps d’agitateurs salariés dont la tâche stupide est de retarder et entraver l’action du gouvernement au pouvoir, de mal représenter sa conduite et de critiquer les lois au point de créer dans l’esprit public des doutes sur leur justice et de diminuer le respect qu’elles devraient inspirer; et souvent, à cause des craintes que lui inspire l’opposition, un gouvernement néglige de passer des lois que les circonstances rendraient impérieuses. Le fascisme répudie l’erreur démocratique des oppositions parle-

The parliamentary opposition, in the eyes of the fascist, is one of the greatest trivialities that ought to be got rid of.  Every parliamentary opposition seems to be a body of paid agitators whose stupid task is to delay and hinder the action of the government in power, to misrepresent its conduct and to criticize the laws to the point of creating doubts in the public mind about their justice and diminish the respect they should inspire; and often, because of fears aroused by the opposition, a government neglects to pass laws that circumstances make imperative.  Fascism repudiates the democratic error of parliamentary oppositions


Fascisme ou Socialisme ?

Fascism or Socialism?

mentaires et exige que tout soit avec et dans l’Etat, et qu’aucun groupe ne soit contre l’Etat.

and requires that all be with and in the State, and that no group be against the State.

Le gouvernement de parti est lui-même une source de gaspillage national, car son administration est toujours privée de grands et réels talents qui dépensent leur énergie dans des critiques artificielles et improfitables de la politique du gouvernement, gaspillant aussi le temps et l’énergie des ministres qui, à tout bout de champ, sont obligés de recourir à des moyens artificiels de défense et de contre-attaque. De plus, la nécessité de trouver des excuses, des justifications ou des explications pour les actes administratifs ne permet le succès parlementaire qu’à des avocats, dont la profession consiste en ce genre d’occupations, plutôt qu’à des hommes d’affaires d’une habileté pratique. L’inefficacité de la plupart des ministres dans la conduite de leurs ministères pourrait trouver une explication dans ce facteur psychologique, car on sait que les ministres sont ordinairement sauvés des impasses de leur vie publique par leurs subalternes.

The party government is itself a source of national waste, because its administration is always deprived of great and real talents who spend their energy in artificial and unprofitable criticisms of the government’s policy, also wasting the time and energy of government ministers who, at every turn, are obliged to resort to artificial means of defense and counter-attack. Moreover, the need to find excuses, justifications or explanations for administrative acts only allows parliamentary success to lawyers, whose profession consists of this line of work, rather than to businessmen with practical skill.  The inefficiency of most ministers in the conduct of their ministries might find an explanation in this psychological factor, for it is well known that ministers are usually saved from stalemates in their public life by their subordinates.

Le Parlement fasciste

The Fascist Parliament

Le fascisme ne se contente pas de critiquer et souligner les graves défauts du système parlementaire démocratique, il offre mieux. Son système parlementaire est un système corporatif à base consultative, c’est-à-dire un système d’administration d’Etat fonctionnant comme une administration de compagnie ordinaire, le peuple étant appelé à faire connaître ses besoins à des époques déterminées, généralement tous les cinq ans. Le fascisme établit d’abord comme principe que le système représentatif n’est pas d’imposer la volonté d’une masse impersonnelle et aveugle aux hommes d’Etat en autorité, mais seulement pour que ceux-ci puissent prendre connaissance des besoins des diverses parties de la communauté. Et, sur ce principe, il échafaude le système parlementaire le plus logique, le plus pratique et le plus scientifique qui puisse satisfaire aux ‘besoins modernes.

Fascism is not content to criticize and underline the serious flaws of the democratic parliamentary system, it offers better.  Its parliamentary system is a consultative-based corporate system, that is, a system of State administration functioning like an ordinary company administration, the people being called upon to make known their needs at specified times, generally every five years.  Fascism first establishes as a principle that the representative system is not to impose the will of a blind impersonal mass upon Statesmen in authority, but only to acquaint them with the needs of various parts of the community.  And on this principle, it constructs the most logical, practical, and scientific parliamentary system that can satisfy modern needs.

Comme je l’ai dit plus haut, le fascisme n’exige pas une forme identique de gouvernement dans tous les pays, et il n’est d’aucune nécessité de copier le système italien, ou allemand, ou autrichien. Cependant, comme le fascisme exige une forme gouvernementale corporative et une autorité permanente et stable pour l’Etat, il s’ensuit que tous les systèmes fascistes ont des affinités qui les rendent Semblables dans leurs grandes lignes. Comme notre système gouvernemental canadien est copié sur le système anglais, je m’en tiendrai au système que désirent les Fascistes d’Angleterre. Vous me permettrez de citer textuellement ce que préconise à ce sujet l’Impérial Fascist League, de Grande-Bretagne.

As stated above, fascism does not require an identical form of government in all countries, and there is no need to copy the Italian, or German, or Austrian system.  However, since fascism requires a corporate governmental form and a permanent and stable authority for the State, it follows that all fascist systems have affinities that make them broadly similar.  Since our Canadian government system is copied from the English system, I will stick to the system that the Fascists of England want.  You will allow me to quote verbatim what the Imperial Fascist League of Great Britain advocates on this subject.


Tune in again!  Subscribe for the next instalment!
Branchez-vous à nouveau! Abonnez-vous pour le prochain versement!


Same slogan, similar “National Policy”, very different outcomes:  what happened to Canada between 1878 and 1938?

1878 Winning Campaign Slogan of Sir John A. Macdonald

The National Policy

Canada for Canadians!

The National Policy began as a proposal to protect Canadian manufacturers from cheaper foreign products. It was put forward by Macdonald and his party in the 1878 general election with the slogan “Canada for Canadians”. The National Policy, as it was implemented in the budget of 1879, included much more than protection. The encouragement of immigration, the development of agriculture in the west, the growth of industry in the east, the improvement of railway and harbour facilities to promote the movement of goods and people across the country; all to make Canada strong and independent. These were some elements of Macdonald’s grand vision.  Macdonald’s Conservative Party maintained that the National Policy, along with the British connection and resistance to cultural and economic pressures from the United States, were the keys to Canada’s survival.

Macdonald wins!  He goes to Parliament

Parliament Building - Ottawa - 1878 by Art MacKay

Parliament Building – Ottawa – 1878 by Art MacKay


1938 Federal Campaign Slogan of Adrien Arcand

The National Policy

Canada for Canadians!

Abolish monopolies, trusts, cartels, foreign exploitation, including exploitation by foreigners become locals using international banks to buy up the country and internationalize the ownership of Canadian resources and production.  In Arcand’s day, immigration was too much and too foreign.  French-Canadians in Quebec and other Canadians were fleeing the country in search of work.  Arcand wished, once again, to benefit Canadian farmers and industry. Arcand’s “National Policy” was to cap foreign immigration, restore the unitary parliament that had existed prior to political parties, and thus prevent corruption and exploitation by trusts and private interests. Catholic Corporatism would ward off Communism, Socialism, Liberalism and Internationalism. These were some elements of Arcand’s grand vision. Arcand’s conservative National Unity Party maintained that its National Policy, along with the British connection and resistance to cultural and economic pressures from mass-immigrated Jews were the keys to Canada’s survival.

“Treason!” they cry, “Lock him up!”
“Off to the Camps!”

World War II.  Petawawa Internment Camp.

World War II. Petawawa Internment Camp.

What happened to Canada between 1878 and 1938?

William-Lyon Mackenzie King, our American Prime Minister

William-Lyon Mackenzie King, our American Prime Minister

Could it be that massive Jewish immigration around the turn of the previous Century converted a proud, conservative, self-governing Christian Canada with wholesome values, into an international liberal parking lot, ripe for the plucking under foreign domination?

Vite Liberal

Adrien Arcand “Avers The Family Is Fascism’s Ideal” (11 February 1937)

Adrien Arcand with the family of his friend, Gérard Lemieux

Adrien Arcand with Gérard Lemieux, his faithful lieutenant and Lemieux’s young wife, Réjeanne.  After the war, after the camps, arms filled with hope and joy, a new life.  Source:  Adrien Arcand, Une grande figure de notre temps, Jean Côté, 1994, p. 29

Since the family unit is the surest protection for individuals and for classes, even those that socialism wants to see disappear, socialism aims to deplete, dissolve and eliminate the family, numerous of whose rights have already been annihilated by liberalism.
— Adrien Arcand, Fascism or Socialism? (1933), p. 40*


Avers The Family Is
Fascism’s Ideal

Adrien Arcand Expounds
His Political Beliefs to McGill Club


Taking as its ideal the family — created by God and therefore perfect — Fascism in Quebec seeks to set up a new order based on God, King, country, property, family and personal initiative, Adrien Arcand, leader of the “Parti Social National Chrétien,” told the Social Problems Club of McGill University yesterday.

Of course, Fascism was dictatorship, he said, but this was a principle that went throughout nature.  Even in the beehive there was a dictator; heads of businesses and families were dictators.  Why had Bennett and Taschereau failed in government when they were so successful in their own businesses?  Because in Parliament and the Legislature they had been hampered by opposition.  Carrying on his analogy of the family, Mr. Arcand said that the state had to be rigid, just as a good father had to be who loved his children and wanted them to grow up healthy and sane.

Christianity, he emphasized, was the basis of Fascism, and in answer to a question he defined it as “a belief in the testament of love rather than in the testament of terror.”  Under democracy, exploiters stood between God and His children.  This Fascism would not tolerate.  Nor would it tolerate immorality.  “Whatever the yells,” he said, “pornography will be burned in public places.”

It was not because of Communism, “our direct enemy,” that Fascism came into being, said the leader.  It was because of the failure of democracy, which was based on liberty, an illusion.  “We hear only liberty — liberty to rebel against God, against our country, against law and order.  We never hear of duty,” Fascism sounded the call to duty.

Mr. Arcand blamed democracy for rebellions, strikes and wars, and even ugly architecture.  (The grandest achievements of men — Versailles, for instance — were in the days before democracy.)  It was to blame for the disruption of national unity and vision and for the new and damaging spirit of internationalism.  Liberalism he described as the ante-chamber of socialism, which could lead only to Communism, anarchy, the state of the beast.

*  «Parce que la cellule familiale est la plus sûre protection pour les individus et pour les classes, même celles que le socialisme veut voir disparaître, le socialisme vise à la diminution, à la dissolution puis à la disparition de la famille, dont le libéralisme a déjà anéanti de nombreux droits.»

— Adrien Arcand, Fascisme ou Socialisme? (1933), p 40

– 30 –

Sunday, 14 November 1965:  Adrien Arcand’s last public appearance:  “Work, Sacrifice, Honor”


The Quebec Archives (La Bibliothèque et Archives Nationales du Québec) have digitized the great Quebec dailies.  You can search and read them online for free!  An astonishing historical record is just a few clicks away.

I decided to see what might be online about Adrien Arcand.  I searched google for “BAnQ numérique” and “La Presse”, and this url came up:  “La Presse – Liste de résultats | BAnQ numérique”.  http://numerique.banq.qc.ca/resultats

Banque numérique, La Presse, Adrien Arcand

I clicked on that, which brought up the BAnQ numérique with sample results on a search for LA PRESSE.  I typed “Adrien Arcand” into the search box, top-right, and issues of LA PRESSE on a wide range of dates came up, discussing Arcand (above).  I was delighted to find an account of Adrien Arcand’s last public appearance at the Paul Sauvé Center.  I have translated the article for you, adding a picture of Robert Winters and a couple of footnotes.  I hope you enjoy it!

Keep in mind, Adrien Arcand was dying of cancer when he summoned up the will to make a last presentation to his friends and followers.

Work Sacrifice Honor 14 Nov 1965

WORK, SACRIFICE, HONOR …                                                 photo LA PRESSE
About 700 people paid an entrance fee of $3.50 last night to see and applaud the leader of the National Unity Party of Canada, Adrien Arcand.  The meeting took place at the Paul Sauvé Center.  Mr. Arcand once again laid out the main lines of his thinking.  (See page 13)
TRAVAIL, SACRIFICE, HONNEUR …                                           photo LA PRESSE
Environ 700 personnes ont payé, hier soir, un droit d’entrée de $3.50 pour voir et applaudir le chef du Parti de l’unité nationale du Canada, Adrien Arcand.  Le meeting s’est déroulé au centre Paul Sauvé.  M. Arcand a exposé de nouveau les lignes maîtresses de sa pensée.  (Voir en page 13)

Robert Henry Winters, PC

The Honourable Robert Henry Winters, PC, MSc, LL.D. Photo courtesy of Library and Archives Canada, reproduction reference LAC|PA-047511|3643405

Robert Henry WINTERS was a politician and businessman born in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia on August 18th, 1910 and died in Monterey, California on October 10th, 1969.

Elected to the House of Commons in 1945, he sat as a Liberal from Lunenberg.  He was re-elected in 1949 and again in 1953.  Served as a member of the federal Cabinet from 1948 à 1957.  Defeated in the elections of 1957, he went into business for himself.  Urged by Lester Pearson, he returned to politics and was elected in 1965 from York West and appointed Minister of Commerce.

He was narrowly defeated by Pierre Elliot TRUDEAU in the leadership race of the Liberal Party following the resignation of Pearson and his retirement from politics.

750 people pay to attend a meeting of the fascist Adrien Arcand at Paul-Sauvé Center

750 personnes paient pour assister à un meeting du fasciste Adrien Arcand au Centre Paul-Sauvé


Adrien Arcand - One proof of the Jewish conspiracy

Adrien Arcand:  “Proof of the Jewish conspiracy?  Robert Winters, a newly elected MP and Rothschild power backer in Canada, will be Pearson’s successor! … ”
Adrien Arcand:  “Une preuve de la conspiration juive?  Robert Winters, nouveau deputé, suppôt de puissance des Rothschild au Canada, sera le successeur de Pearson!…

Plus de 700 partisans ou amis du “Parti de l’Unité Nationale du Canada” ont déboursé $3.50 chacun pour assister à un banquet organisé par le parti en l’honneur du chef fasciste canadien Adrien Arcand.

More than 700 supporters or friends of the “National Unity Party of Canada” paid $3.50 each to attend a party banquet in honor of Canadian fascist leader Adrien Arcand.

L’occasion : 25ème anniversaire de l’internement d’Arcand et de ses principaux lieutenants dans un camp de prisonniers pendant la Deuxième guerre mondiale.

The occasion: 25th anniversary of the internment of Arcand and his principal lieutenants in a prison camp during the Second World War.

L’endroit : une salle du Centre Paul-Sauvé, décorée pour la circonstance de deux séries de bannières et d’un drapeau portant le nouveau symbole du PUNC : sur fond bleu et blanc, la croix blanche de Carillon, la croix rouge celtique et la Fleur de lys. Un groupe de jeunes gens portant le brassard du parti assuraient le service d’ordre, et à l’arrière, on vendait les oeuvres d’Arcand, dont son dernier livre “A bas la haine”, ainsi que quelques brochures aux titres évocateurs : “L’admirable juif maître chez nous”,1 “The Jewish question”, “La république universelle”, etc. …

The place:  a room in the Paul-Sauvé Center, decorated for the occasion with two series of banners and a flag bearing the new symbol of the NUPC:  on a blue and white background, the white cross of Carillon, the Celtic red cross and the lily.  A group of young people wearing the party armband were in charge of order, and at the back, Arcand’s works were sold, including his latest book “Down With Hate”, as well as a few brochures with evocative titles:  “Our admirable Jewish Master”1, “The Jewish Question”, “The Universal Republic”, etc. …

Le Public

The Public

L’auditoire était composé d’une majorité de Canadiens-français, d’une cinquantaine de Torontois membres du parti, de petites délégations de Néo-Canadiens, Allemands, Polonais, Italiens, Ukrainiens, etc. … et de quelques membres du clergé, dont un à la table d’honneur.

The audience was made up of a majority of French-Canadians, around fifty Torontonians who are party members, small delegations of New Canadians, Germans, Poles, Italians, Ukrainians, etc. … and a few members of the clergy, including one at the head table.

On remarquait en particulier la présence du fils de M. Réal Caouette, Gilles, candidat défait dans Labelle, et celle d’un candidat progressiste-conservateur dans Maisonneuve-Rosemont défait à la dernière élection, M. Jean Jodoin.

We noted in particular the presence of the son of Mr. Réal Caouette, Gilles, a candidate defeated in Labelle, and that of a progressive-conservative candidate in Maisonneuve-Rosemont defeated in the last election, Mr. Jean Jodoin.

Le complot juif

The Jewish Plot

Adrien Arcand a d’abord parlé quelques minutes en anglais, pour le bénefice des invités torontois, puis il s’est lancé dans le récit de ce qu’il a appelé son emprisonnement injuste de mai 1940 à juillet ’45.

Adrien Arcand first spoke a few minutes in English, for the benefit of the Toronto guests, then he embarked on the story of what he called his unjust imprisonment from May 1940 to July ’45.

A son avis, ce geste inique envers des gens dont on ne pouvait mettre en doute le patriotisme, puisqu’ils avaient offert au gouvernement de lui fournir quatre régiments bien entrainés et encadrés (les fameuses “chemises bleues” d’avant-guerre), était le fait de la juiverie internationale, cause aussi de tous les problèmes du Parti de l’Unité Nationale depuis sa fondation.

In his opinion, this unfair gesture towards people whose patriotism could not be in doubt, since they had offered to the government to provide it with four well-trained and supervised regiments (the famous pre-war “blue shirts”), was the doing of international Jewry, also the cause of all the problems of the National Unity Party of Canada since its foundation.

Ce n’est d’ailleurs là qu’un tort des Juifs qui, selon lui, ont monté une vaste conspiration pour miner et détruire la civilisation occidentale et chrétienne, ce chef-d’oeuvre de la pensée humaine dont son parti s’affirme un fervent défenseur.

This, moreover, is but a wrong of the Jews who, in his view, have mounted a vast conspiracy to undermine and destroy Western and Christian civilization, this masterpiece of human thought of which his Party affirms itself an ardent defender.

La defense de l’Occident

Defense of the West

Rejetant les accusations d’hitlérisme et de nazisme portées contre lui, Adrien Arcand a cependant rappelé que dès 1934 il avait sonné l’alarme et prédit une guerre prochaine “menée par les Juifs et pour les Juifs, dans le but évident d’affaiblir l’Occident chrétien”.

Rejecting the accusations of Hitlerism and Nazism brought against him, Adrien Arcand recalled, however, that as early as 1934 he had sounded the alarm and predicted an upcoming war “waged by the Jews and for the Jews, with the obvious aim of weakening the Christian West”.

Il s’agirait donc d’un immense complot, d’un tragédie en trois actes, dont le premier aurait été la guerre de 14-18, le deuxième celle de 39-45, et le troisième, après deux entractes de 20 ans, sera une nouvelle guerre mondiale, ou bien une guerre civile à l’échelle de la planète.

It would thus be an immense conspiracy, a tragedy in three acts, the first of which was the war of 14-18, the second that of 39-45, and the third, after two intermissions of 20 years, will be a new world war, or a civil war on a planetary scale.

Une preuve ?  Robert Winters, nouvellement député, est la dépositaire au Canada de la puissance des Rothschilds.2  Il sera probablement le successeur de Lester Pearson …

Proof?  Robert Winters, a newly elected Member of Parliament, is the depository in Canada of the power of the Rothschilds.2  He will probably be the successor to Lester Pearson …

Comme barrière contre ce diabolique assaut, Arcand et le PUNC proposent le “corporatisme”, une division du peuple en classes sociales plutôt qu’en partis politiques. Ce système protégerait d’ailleurs la propriété et l’initiative privée, source selon eux de tout progrès, ainsi que le prouve l’exemple des USA depuis un siècle.

As a barrier against this diabolical assault, Arcand and the PUNC propose “corporatism”, a division of the people into social classes rather than political parties.  This system would also protect property and private initiative, which they believe is the source of all progress, as the example of the United States has shown for a century.

Le Concile
et les Juifs

The Vatican Council
and the Jews

Pour rassurer les fidèles contre le doute insidieux, Adrien Arcand a expliqué fort sérieusement que le décret du Concile sur les religions non-chrétiennes est en réalité une condamnation du Judaïsme :

To reassure the faithful against creeping doubt, Adrien Arcand explained very seriously that the decree of the Council on non-Christian religions is actually a condemnation of Judaism:

“En effet, dit-il, les Pères affirment les droits sacrés de la personne humaine douée d’une âme spirituelle.  Or, le Talmud hébraïque dit que l’homme est un animal !  Vous voyez !”

“In effect,” says he, “the Fathers affirm the sacred rights of the human person endowed with a spiritual soul.  Now, the Hebrew Talmud says that man is an animal!   Do you see!”

“Le Concile dit aussi que le peuple juif dans son ensemble ne peut être accusé de la mort du Christ.  Bien sûr, puisque les douze apôtres, les 72 disciples et tous les premiers chrétiens étaient des Juifs!” C.Q.F.D.

“The Council also says that the Jewish people as a whole cannot be accused of the death of Christ.  Of course, since the twelve apostles, the 72 disciples and all the first Christians were Jews!” C.Q.F.D.

Le chef du PUNC a donc conclu qu’il faut instaurer le corporatisme partout dans l’Ouest, appuyer sans défaillance les États-Unis, dernier bastion de notre civilisation, et denoncer la conspiration juive.  C’est ainsi que l’Occident sera sauvé des barbares.

The leader of the NUPC therefore concluded that it is necessary to establish corporatism everywhere in the West, to support the United States without fail, the last bastion of our civilization, and to expose the Jewish conspiracy.  This is how the West will be saved from the barbarians.

1.  La brochure mentionnée, «L’admirable juif maître chez nous», semble être un essai inconnu d’Arcand.  À moins qu’il ne se trouve quelque part parmi les articles de ses différentes revues imprimées.  Si vous l’avez, envoyez-moi une copie, je dois la traduire.  Je lui ai donné un titre provisoire en anglais pour le présent article de La Presse:  «Our admirable Jewish Master».

1.  The pamphlet referred to, “L’admirable juif maître chez nous”, seems to be an unknown essay by Arcand.  Unless it can be found somewhere among the articles in his various print journals.  If you have it, please send me a copy, I need to translate it.  I’ve given it a provisional title in English for the present La Presse article:  “Our admirable Jewish Master”.

2.  Pourquoi Arcand a-t-il lié Robert Winters à Rothschild?  Peut-être une partie de la réponse se trouve dans un livre en ligne, Joey Smallwood:  Schemer and Dreamer de Ray Argyle.  Argyle déclare :  «Robert Henry Winters, un ingénieur né en Nouvelle-Écosse qui avait été ministre du Cabinet sous Louis St. Laurent, a perdu son siège lors des élections de 1957 qui ont mis John Diefenbaker au pouvoir.  Belle figure athlétique d’un homme, il a choisi parmi de nombreuses offres d’emploi pour devenir président de Rio Tinto Mining, la société Rothschild qui détenait des actions de BRINCO.  Le défi de Churchill Falls s’est avéré trop grand pour être ignoré, et en juin 1963, il en est devenu le président et a entrepris d’organiser le plus grand développement industriel de l’histoire du Canada — un projet de 1,5 milliard de dollars qui produirait plus de cinq mille mégawatts d’électricité.  C’était une entreprise plus grande que la construction du chemin de fer canadien du Pacifique ou de la voie maritime du Saint-Laurent.»

2.  Why did Arcand link Robert Winters with Rothschild? Perhaps a part of the answer may be found in a book online, Joey Smallwood: Schemer and Dreamer by Ray Argyle.  Argyle states:  “Robert Henry Winters, a Nova Scotia-born engineer who had been a Cabinet minister under Louis St. Laurent, lost his seat in the 1957 election that put John Diefenbaker in office.  A handsome, athletic figure of a man, he chose from among many job offers to become chairman of Rio Tinto Mining, the Rothschild company that held shares in BRINCO.  The challenge of Churchill Falls proved too great to ignore, and in June 1963, he became its chairman and set out to organize the biggest industrial development in Canadian history — a $1.5-billion project that would produce more than five thousand megawatts of power.  It was an undertaking bigger than the building of either the Canadian Pacfic Railway or the St. Lawrence Seaway.”

Dans le chapitre «At Loggerheads and Waterfalls», nous obtenons un peu plus d’informations sur la connexion Rothschild.

In the chapter “At Loggerheads and Waterfalls”, we get a bit more insight into the Rothschild connection.

«Alors que l’avion volait en cercles étroits, Joey Smallwood a regardé la grande rivière dégringoler d’un plateau rocheux, s’écraser sur un précipice de soixante-quinze mètres et se diriger vers la mer du Labrador, à des centaines de kilomètres à l’est.  Il n’oublierait jamais cette première vue des chutes Churchill, qui était arrivée en 1950, un jour idyllique où le bref été du nord avait illuminé la toundra de fleurs sauvages.  Il était enchanté par la vue d’une des merveilles naturelles du monde, mais son esprit était rempli de pensées sur la façon dont cette vaste cascade, une fois et demie aussi haute que Niagara, pouvait être exploitée pour le pouvoir. Il était convaincu que cela rendrait Terre-Neuve riche.

“As the plane flew in narrowing circles, Joey Smallwood watched the great river tumble out of a rocky plateau, crash over a seventy-five-metre precipice, and churn its way toward the Labrador Sea, hundreds of kilometers to the east.  He would never forget this first view of Churchill Falls, which had comein 1950, on an idyllic day when the brief northern summer had brightened the tundra with wildflowers.  He was enchanted by the sight of one of the natural wonders of the world, but his mind was filled with thoughts of how this vast waterfall, one-and-a-half times as high as Niagara, could be harnessed for power.  He was convinced it would make Newfoundland rich.

Deux ans plus tard, Joey se retrouve dans la salle du Cabinet du n° 10 Downing Street à Londres, face à Winston Churchill, à nouveau Premier ministre après six ans dans un désert politique d’après-guerre.  Joey a déroulé une grande carte — voyagerait-il jamais sans? — montrant les plis et les rebondissements de la campagne brute du Labrador.  “C’est un Empire en soi, monsieur, et c’est britannique”, lui a dit Joey.  Elle avait besoin d’une grande nouvelle société de développement pour que sa richesse soit un jour pleinement exploitée.  Quelque chose comme la Compagnie de la Baie d’Hudson ou la Compagnie des Indes orientales, des noms qui ont résonné à travers l’histoire britannique.  Pendant que Joey parlait, le vieux bouledogue derrière le bureau s’est réchauffé à l’idée.  “Un grand concept impérial”, a-t-il déclaré.  Quelques jours plus tard, Smallwood a présenté le plan à un déjeuner d’hommes d’affaires britanniques.  Ils en ont été captivés.  Les médias londoniens ont été emportés par l’excitation. «LABRADOR CALLING BRETAIN», titrait le Daily Mail.

Two years later, Joey found himself in the Cabinet room of No. 10 Downing Street in London, facing Winston Churchill, once again prime minister after six years in a postwar political wilderness.  Joey unrolled a large map — would he ever travel without one? — showing the folds and twists of the raw Labrador countryside.  “This is an Empire in itself, sir, and it’s British,” Joey told him.  It needed a great new development company if its wealth was ever to be fully tapped.  Something like the Hudson’s Bay Company or the East India Company, names that resounded through British history.  As Joey talked, the old bulldog behind the desk warmed to the idea.  “A great Imperial concept,” he pronounced.  A few days later, Smallwood took the scheme to a luncheon meeting of British businessmen.  They were enthralled by it.  The London media were swept up in the excitement.  “LABRADOR CALLING BRITAIN,” the Daily Mail  headlined.

L’approbation de Churchill était suffisante pour gagner pour Smallwood l’attention de la Chambre des Rothschild, la grande maison bancaire britannique dirigée par Antony et Edmund de Rothschild.  Des investisseurs internationaux ont réclamé de faire partie de la British Newfoundland Development Corporation (BRINCO), créée par une loi de la Chambre d’assemblée de Terre-Neuve le 31 mars 1953.  Avec sa charte, 150 000 kilomètres carrés riches en minerai, en bois et en eau.  Rothschild est devenu un actionnaire important par l’intermédiaire de Rio Tinto Co., son géant minier international.  Les autres grands investisseurs étaient Prudential Insurance, Bowater Corporation, Suez Canal Company, Bowring & Company of Newfoundland, la Banque de Montréal et la Banque Royale du Canada.»

Churchill’s endorsement was sufficient to gain Smallwood the attention of the House of Rothschild, the great British banking house headed by Antony and Edmund de Rothschild.  International investors clamoured to be part of the British Newfoundland Development Corporation (BRINCO), established by an act of the Newfoundland House of Assembly on March 31, 1953.  With its charter went rights to 150,000 square kilometers rich in ore, timber, and water power.  Rothschild became a major shareholder through the Rio Tinto Co., its international mining giant.  Other big investors were Prudential Insurance, Bowater Corporation, Suez Canal Company, Bowring & Company of Newfoundland, the Bank of Montreal, and the Royal Bank of Canada.”

Soldier of Christ, an update:  A Papal Encyclical motivated Arcand’s political fight


Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio (1922)
Urges Catholic Laity to spread the Faith

Adrien Arcand, a handsome young officer

Adrien Arcand, a handsome young officer.  There’s an inscription in English to his wife written at an angle across the photo.  It seems to say:  “For my darling little wife, all my thoughts and my life.  Adrien”.

For my English translation of Arcand’s Inevitability of a Social Reconstruction, I tracked down, quite by luck, the origin in a papal encyclical, Rerum Novarum, of the two-paragraph quote that begins the pamphlet.  Thus, the influence of papal encyclicals on Arcand’s political views became more apparent.

Today, I will do something different.  I will explain Adrien Arcand’s political action by the existence of another encyclical, this one from 1922.  I will demonstrate that a post-WWI encyclical of Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, provides the “legal authority” (the legislative authority of the Catholic Church) that underpins the spiritually motivated political activity of this devout French-Canadian Catholic.

Said author, Jean Côté:

“Judging from all his writings, Adrien Arcand … was more of a missionary who had strayed into politics, a soldier of Christ … He had the feeling and the certitude that through his speeches he was transmitting authentic and indestructible values.”1

There may be more involved than Arcand’s personal “feeling and certitude”.  A command from the Catholic Church appears to have summoned Arcand to his political objectives, and above all inspired his construction of a new constitutional order without political parties.  An interesting statement in a doctoral thesis online gives a meaningful context to Arcand’s religious-political action in his time.  Thesis author, Peter Ernest Baltutis, points out:

“Depression-era Quebec also provided fertile soil for the Catholic Action movement, an organized apostolate of young lay men and women.  In 1922, Pope Pius XI issued the encyclical Ubi Arcano Dei, which organized Catholic laity, under the close supervision of the bishops, to actively spread Catholic values and political ideals through secular society.” 2

But, the Great Depression era is Arcand’s day, Arcand’s Quebec!

Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio3 is a post-war encyclical in the aftermath of World War I.  It is long, and commences with an account of the suffering of those defeated, that of the victors and that of the neutral States.  It is a call to the Laity to spread the Love of Christ in a war-torn world to prevent another war and secure world peace.

Ubi Arcano Dei helps to explain the political action of Arcand and his yearning for a constitution for Canada to bring about the Kingdom of Christ on Earth.  It helps to explain his urgent personal and political action in an effort to warn a naive world that World War II was on the way:

“For several months prior to the Second World War (Sept. 3, 1939), the National Unity Party of Canada campaigned against “a plot to impose a new world war upon humanity…”4

Monsignor Georges Gauthier, Auxiliary Bishop of Montreal (1912)

Monsignor Georges Gauthier, Auxiliary Bishop of Montreal (1912)

We know from Arcand’s correspondence (what little remains after the mass destructive raids of the ‘liberal’ government in 1940) that Arcand closely collaborated with his local priests and bishops.  He sought their help and advice; he fulfilled their requests for action.  Arcand responded to Monsignor Georges Gauthier, the Auxiliary Bishop of Montreal, to fight the unconstitutional Jewish Schools law of 1930.  Quebec historian Robert Rumilly reports,5 in an excerpt from my exclusive English translation (upcoming in a big historical anthology of Arcand’s 1930 public talk, “Christian or Jew?”):

“So, Mgr. Gauthier exerts more influence than it seems.  But this time, the public gesture seems necessary.  Bishop Gauthier reads and comments on his letter (to Premier Taschereau) during a ceremony at Saint Joseph’s Oratory.  He reads and comments with the intensity natural and appropriate to his sacred character.  On the other hand, he enlists a young journalist, Adrien Arcand, collaborator in Joseph Menard’s little newspapers, to fight (the Jewish Schools) bill —

As late as 1965, Arcand’s A Bas La Haine! is linguistically checked by a priest before publication.6

By October of 1966, the “influential bishops” of Quebec7 were Georges-Léon Pelletier (Three Rivers), Charles-Eugène Parent (Rimouski); Georges Cabana (Sherbrooke), and Paul Bernier (Gaspe), known as the “intégristes” (to borrow a term from constitutional law, we might call them “originalists”) because of their rigid opposition to change in the Catholic Church (one wonders what they thought of the far-left Vatican II, although, of course, Arcand in A Bas La Haine! was not about to admit the “change”); and lastly, Canon Lionel Groulx who inspired the “achat chez nous” campaign, a boycott of Jewish merchants promoted by Arcand with cartoons and editorials.

Where did this collaboration come from between Arcand and the bishops?

I believe it came from Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, the first encyclical of Pope Pius XI, delivered in Rome at St. Peter’s on 23 December 1922, calling for “Catholic action” by the laity under close supervision by the bishops:

58.  Tell your faithful children of the laity that when, united with their pastors and their bishops, they participate in the works of the apostolate, both individual and social, the end purpose of which is to make Jesus Christ better known and better loved, then they are more than ever “a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people,” of whom St. Peter spoke in such laudatory terms.  (I Peter ii, 9)  Then, too, they are more than ever united with Us and with Christ, and become great factors in bringing about world peace because they work for the restoration and spread of the Kingdom of Christ.  Only in this Kingdom of Christ can we find that true human equality by which all men are ennobled and made great by the selfsame nobility and greatness, for each is ennobled by the precious blood of Christ.  As for those who are in authority, they are, according to the example of our Lord Jesus Christ, but ministers of the good, servants of the servants of God, particularly of the sick and of those in need.

Adrien Arcand relied on other encyclicals, including Rerum Novarum, when he designed his “Canadian Corporatism,” also called Catholic Corporatism.  He quoted the encyclicals, or echoed their commands in many of his writings.  In his correspondence, Arcand refers to Saint Thomas Aquinas (not to Hitler!) for his political doctrine on unitary or undivided leadership.  (See Arcand’s letter of 13 June 1963 to Hon. Daniel Johnson, Q.C., Leader of the Opposition:  “Do we see an assistant Pope in the Church, an assistant Colonel in a regiment, an assistant Commander aboard a ship, etc.?”)  Pius XI recommends Aquinas in his Ubi Arcano Dei of 1922 where he also underscores the extreme danger posed by political parties.

If we combine Rerum Novarum, the encyclical of Leo XIII in 1891 with the encyclical of Pius XI in 1922, Ubi Arcano Dei, we have the Catholic foundation for Adrien Arcand’s “missionary” work in Quebec and federal politics.

In Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, Pius XI warns about the added “evils” of:

“… contests between political parties, many of which struggles do not originate in a real difference of opinion concerning the public good or in a laudable and disinterested search for what would best promote the common welfare, but in the desire for power and for the protection of some private interest which inevitably result in injury to the citizens as a whole.  From this course there often arise robberies of what belongs rightly to the people, and even conspiracies against and attacks on the supreme authority of the state, as well as on its representatives.  These political struggles also beget threats of popular action and, at times, eventuate in open rebellion and other disorders which are all the more deplorable and harmful since they come from a public to whom it has been given, in our modern democratic states, to participate in very large measure in public life and in the affairs of government.  Now, these different forms of government are not of themselves contrary to the principles of the Catholic Faith, which can easily be reconciled with any reasonable and just system of government.  Such governments, however, are the most exposed to the danger of being overthrown by one faction or another.”

Arcand then writes, under the heading “Destruction of the Pork Barrel,” in Canadian Corporatism, his plan to restructure Canada:

“As Parliament will be composed of representatives of the great classes of the nation and as there will be no more political parties, as the political ideal will be completely changed, there will be no longer any ‘Pork-Barrel,’ any palm-greasing, any partisan patronage.”

Arcand would thus have done away with “robberies of what belongs rightly to the people.”

On another page of Canadian Corporatism, Arcand says:

“The political parties which divide the nation into artificial and useless factions will be all abolished.  There will be only one single political party, the Canadian nation.  All Canadians will be part of it.  The nationalist system in power will recognize no opposition.”

Goodbye factions, goodbye revolution, goodbye risk of overthrow, all of them “evils” warned against by Pius XI.  Stability would be established by means of undivided unity, and undivided leadership as per Thomas Aquinas.  Leadership, not dictatorship; because in Arcand’s corporate system, the top merely ratifies and sees to enforcement of what the social classes themselves decide.

He concludes:

“The government will be truly national, the government of all the people, and it will concern itself with the whole people.”

Elsewhere, Arcand notes:

“Parliamentarianism is not liberal democracy.  The parliament, consultation, discussion existed long centuries before the arrival of liberal democracy.  Formerly parliaments were really national.  With liberal democracy, we have had only partisan or factional parliaments, representing only part of the people, while the other part, defeated in the elections, was punished by the privations of political or parliamentary opposition.”

Arcand then inquires:

“By what shall we replace the system which is slowly foundering in corruption and falsehood?”

It is incredible that Arcand knew Parliament had once been unitary.  It had been, and still is supposed to be, a circle  of advisers to the King.  He probably became aware of it through the Popes, for I am pretty sure he never studied the Constitution.  Pius XI refers to “modern democracies,” emphasizing the danger of “factions”.

Arcand then contrasts the totalitarian system wanted by the Communists with the Catholic-inspired system that he recommends, making it obvious that he doesn’t view his own system as a dictatorship:

“The disciples of the Jew Karl Marx propose the mischievous doctrine of this false prophet under various names:  socialistm, communism, bolshevism, sovietism, anarchy, popular front.  It is materialism pushed to its final conclusions.  It is, moreover, the dictatorship of one class over all the other classes.  It is the definite destruction of Christianity by destroying that which supports the ideas of God, religion, family, private property, initiative, social justice, order, morality, and spiritual values.”4

My very first impression was that Arcand’s desire to eliminate political parties was an attack on the Constitution, a coup d’état.  And since I am sure he didn’t study the Constitution, I thought he didn’t realize what he was doing.  However, I have changed my mind, at least to some degree.

Arcand may have been right about eliminating political parties.  The only question being the process by which he would accomplish his turn-about back to a unitary Parliament.  (We also have the problem of parties in the Provinces; in order to avoid the equivalent of a coup, they would have to be retained, with local unitary governments.)

The doctrine of laches  in Canadian constitutional law allows the correction of constitutional errors at any time; there is no “prescription,” no expiry date after which a constitutional mistake is no longer correctable.  The error never becomes “constitutional” by neglect to deal with it.  In other words, a violation of the Constitution never becomes constitutional.

We had an example of this fact in the Manitoba Language Rights Reference of 1985,8 but I cite the example with caution because procedurally, it was not correct; the “declarations” made by the “court” were not declaratory of the law; they were made in the course of a mere advisory (also called a reference; like the 1998 Secession Reference).  Advisories are non-judicial, so that no binding declaration of law can be made.  Nonetheless, in 1985, a constitutional error over 90 years old was deemed to have been corrected; although, again, genuine litigation and not a mere advisory would be needed to do it.  (One would also have to be under the right Constitution at the time; for, as Judge Brian Dickson, who sat on the fraudulent “Patriation Reference”9 would have known, and as Barry Lee Strayer admitted in 1982 in his Cronkite Lectures,10 Canada had a coup d’état in 1982, not a “constitutional amendment”.

So, if Arcand had gone about it with, say, a declaration from an appropriate court stating that political parties are not constitutional, and he then sought a constitutional amendment  to expressly rectify the Constitution, it might not have been a coup d’état, but the correction of an error, if he could prove the error.

How could Arcand begin to prove the error?

At page 24 of Defence of the Realm11 ― produced under supervision of the late Leolin Price CBE, QC, and published by The Magna Carta Society (United Kingdom) ― the question is put like this:

“The modern disproportionate dominance of the elected House of Commons over the sovereignty of the people, and the erosion of constitutional checks and balances, were first given serious encouragement by Lord Mansfield, a Scottish Jacobite who became Lord Chief Justice of England in the 18th century.  Despite Blackstone’s12 observations, he had no problem with an executive operating within the legislature.

The institutions and practices which have grown up since that time ― collective cabinet responsibility, organised political parties, career politicians, and the whip system which denies politicians the freedom to vote according to their conscienceare not based on legislation, nor on common law, nor on the law and custom of parliament.

Sir Ivor Jennings pointed out in Law and the Constitution that these conventions had never been formally recognised by parliament or the courts.  The courts recognised a constitution based primarily on the Bill of Rights.”

To this, I add a source I have quoted elsewhere in this blog, Lord Shaw of Dunfermline in Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants v. Osborne, [1910] AC 87:

“Take the testing instance:  should his view as to right and wrong on a public issue as to the true line of service to the realm, as to the real interests of the constituency which has elected him, or even of the society which pays him, differ from the decision of the parliamentary party and the maintenance by it of its policy, he has come under a contract to place his vote and action into subjection not to his own convictions, but to their decisions.  My Lords, I do not think that such a subjection is compatible either with the spirit of our parliamentary constitution or with that independence and freedom which have hitherto been held to lie at the basis of representative government in the United Kingdom.”  (Emphases added.)

If, indeed, political parties are unconstitutional, since they violate the basic principle of the independence of the member of Parliament, and the other principle of the unity of Parliament, there necessarily is a way to restore the proper constitution of Parliament.

Lord Shaw’s rather more “contemporary” observation that political parties are not a part of the true constitution of the United Kingdom brings to mind Adrien Arcand’s “Key to the Mystery”.  The Paris edition of 1939 republished the 1938 edition from Montreal, Canada which appeared under the signature and patronage of the Anticommunist Women’s League of Montreal, one of Arcand’s organizations.

The Paris Edition13, at page 8, says (translation):

“In its issue of July 1st, 1880, ‘Le Contemporain’, the great Paris review, published a long article entitled ‘Report of Sir John Readcliff on the politico-historical events of the last ten years.’  It was the text of a speech given at Prague by Rabbi Reichorn in 1869 on the tomb of the great Rabbi Simeon-Ben-Jehouda.”

Further below, Reichorn is quoted in the section ‘A Jewish Plan for World Conquest’ (translation):

“With untiring praise for the democratic regime, we will divide the Christians into political parties, we will destroy the unity of their nations, we will sow discord among them.  Powerless, they will suffer the law of our Bank, forever united, forever devoted to our cause.”

Arcand had not only the Church to motivate his political redesign, but the boast of Rabbi Reichorn that it was the Jews who had somehow divided Parliament in the first place.  And that would be the Parliament in England; for research indicates the first parties emerged in England and “modern democracy” spread from there.

The speech quoted by Readcliff was given in 1869, two years after Confederation, at which time we indeed had political parties.  Lord Mansfield, referred to in Defence of the Realm was active in the previous century.  The Reichorn speech was a ritual repetition of a speech delivered at hundred-year intervals.  That means there must have been a basic text, updated with news at each reading.  This might account for the future tense, “we will divide,” “we will destroy”; which implies that an earlier text predates political parties.

A fascinating article, “The Origin of English Political Parties” by W.C. Abbott in The American Historical Review, Vol. 24, No. 4 (July, 1919), pp. 578-602 (25 pages) (you can find it at JSTOR), supports the idea that parties emerged first in England at the time of the Reformation.  See pages 583-584.

Arcand, who viewed the Reformation as a product of Jewish influence, would be deeply interested.  For, we would then have both the splitting of the Catholic Church and the splitting of our unitary Parliament in the same era by the same aggressor, if Rabbi Reichorn is believed.

In the section “Judaisation through the Reformation” (“Judaïsation par la Réforme”) in his book, Is Christianity Bankrupt? (1954), Arcand writes:

Des chercheurs anglais — chose curieuse, ils sont protestants — se sont dépensés pour trouver l’origine véritable des hérésies qui ont affligé l’Eglise du Christ depuis ses débuts, depuis le simonisme jusqu’à la toute récente secte des Témoins de Jéhovah, en passant par l’arianisme, le manichéisme, le nestorianisme, le catharisme des Albigeois et combien d’autres et leurs statistiques révèlent qu’au moins 95% de ces déviations proviennent directement d’une action juive.  Ces auteurs présentent Calvin comme un Juif de père et mère ; quant à Luther, auteur de la grande Réforme, ils répètent à son sujet le vieil adage :  si Lyrus non lyrasset, Lutherus non saltasset, soulignant que le Nicolas de Lyre en question était un Juif voué à la destruction du christianisme.

English researchers — oddly enough, they are Protestants — have expended themselves to find the true origin of the heresies that have afflicted the Church of Christ from its beginnings, from Simonism to the very recent sect of Jehovah’s Witnesses, by way of Arianism, Manicheism, Nestorianism, the Catharism of the Albigensians, and countless others.  Their statistics reveal that at least 95% of these deviations are the direct result of a Jewish action.  These authors present Calvin as a Jew by both his father and his mother; as for Luther, the author of the great Reformation, they refer to him with the old adage:  si Lyrus non lyrasset, Lutherus non saltasset, emphasizing that the Nicolas of Lyre in question was a Jew dedicated to the destruction of Christianity.


Not only do we see the influence of Pius XI in Arcand’s desire to eliminate political parties, we see it in Arcand’s Miroir  editorials and his Goglu  cartoons of the 1930s.  The attack on corrupt politicians is unrelenting.

It is therefore unlikely that, as Côté said in 1994, Arcand was “more of a missionary who had strayed into politics”.  In the light of Ubi Arcano Dei, Arcand did not “stray” into politics; he strode soldierly, directly into it, determined to “actively spread Catholic values and political ideals” as the 1922 encyclical of Pius XI had summoned him to do.

It increasingly appears that Pierre Trépanier is right when he says of Arcand’s corporatism (translation):

“the single-party regime … would have been subordinated to divine law …. and to the teachings of the social doctrine of the Church.”

Trépanier concludes:

“The French-Canadian version of fascism would have been much closer to a sort of authoritarian and modern Christendom than to the Third Reich.”14

Arcand and the men and women who followed him, and who found themselves in the concentration camps of the “liberals” for doing so, were actively living their Catholic Faith when they formed political movements and local and national parties to preserve “Catholic values and political ideals” for the betterment of Canada.

They were also defending their constitutional right to a Christian Canada and a Catholic Quebec.  These rights were recognized first in the Treaty of Paris of February 10, 1763 at Article 4 (properly today called “Section 4”):

“His Britannick Majesty, on his side, agrees to grant the liberty of the Catholick religion to the inhabitants of Canada:  he will, in consequence, give the most precise and most effectual orders, that his new Roman Catholic subjects may profess the worship of their religion according to the rites of the Romish church, as far as the laws of Great Britain permit.”

The British North America Act of 1867 perfected and secured these religious rights by enacting for Quebec a separate Legislature for the local self-government of the Catholic French-Canadians.

Honorable Solicitor General Hector-Louis Langevin, 1865

Honorable Solicitor General Hector-Louis Langevin, 1865

On that score, the words of Solicitor-General Hector-Louis Langevin in the Debates on Confederation of 186515 make the purpose of Confederation clear, as viewed by the French-Canadians:

“We are considering the establishment of a Confederacy — with a Central Parliament and local parliaments.  The Central or Federal Parliament will have the control of all measures of a general character …, but all matters of local interest, all that relates to the affairs and rights of the different sections of the Confederacy [by sections, he means the Provinces] will be reserved for the control of the local parliaments ….  It will be the duty of the Central Government to see that the country prospers, but it will not be its duty to attack our religion, our institutions, or our nationality, which will be amply protected.”

These rights of the French-Canadians, as of all the Founders, are both religious and political.  Confederation would be worthless if the guarantee were not enforceable; which is the whole point of a constitution.  However, there is a catch.  You must learn your Constitution.  If Arcand had learned his Constitution, he might have enforced it on more than one occasion.
1.  Jean Côté, Adrien Arcand : une grande figure de notre temps, 1994.  ISBN 2-9801677-3-8.
2.  Forging the Link between Faith and Development The History of the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace 1967-1982 by Peter Ernest Baltutis, doctoral thesis, Faculty of Theology, University of Saint Michael’s College and Historical Department, Toronto School of Theology (2012), p. 33.
3.  Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, the first encyclical of his pontificate, delivered by Pope Pius Xi at Rome at St. Peter’s on 23 December 1922.  Read the English:  Encyclical Of Pope Pius XI On The Peace Of Christ in The Kingdom Of Christ, to Our Venerable Brethren The Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, And Other Ordinaries. In Peace And Communion With The Apostolic See.  Read the French:  Lettre Encyclique, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio du Souverain Pontife Pie XI de La Paix Du Christ Dans Le Règne De Dieu.
4.  From “Synopsis of Facts and Events” in a draft dated 1957 of a “Memorandum and Request Re: Claims of Canadian Nationalists Against the Government of Canada for Unjust Internments Submitted by Adrien Arcand” to the federal government of Canada.
5.  “The Jewish Schools Affair (1928-1931),” an exclusive English translation for Adrien Arcand Books of “L’affaire des écoles juives (1928-1931)” by Robert Rumilly, published in the Revue d’histoire de l’Amérique française  102 (1956):  222-233 by the Institut d’histoire de l’Amérique française.  The translation is part of an upcoming historical compendium.
6.  Jean Côté, Adrien Arcand : une grande figure de notre temps, 1994.  ISBN 2-9801677-3-8.
7.  Ibid.
8.  Reference re Manitoba Language Rights, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721.
9.  Re:  Resolution to amend the Constitution, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753.
10.  “Patriation and Legitimacy of the Canadian Constitution,” the Dean Emeritus F.C. Cronkite, Q.C., Memorial Lectures, Third Series, October 1982, delivered at the College of Law, University of Saskatchewan by Barry Lee Strayer, Q.C., Assistant Deputy Minister (Public Law) Department of Justice (Canada) barely six months after the so-called “patriation” of Canada’s constitution from United Kingdom.  In these lectures, Mr. Strayer admits the 1982 patriation was in fact a coup d’état.
11.  Defence of the Realm, A Summary of Evidence to Justify a Petition to The Queen, and Other Matters Regarding the Purported Imposition of Foreign Laws by the European Union on the United Kingdom,” Published by the Magna Carta Society.  First Edition, April 6, 2000; second reprinting June, 2000.  UPDATE 4 DEC 2019:  A scan of the original copy of DEFENCE OF THE REALM has now been placed online for the convenience of readers:  https://www.scribd.com/document/438304144/DEFENCE-OF-THE-REALM-A-Summary-of-Evidence-to-Justify-a-Petition-to-the-Queen.
12.  I think this may be what Price had in mind when referring to Blackstone:  “In all tyrannical governments the supreme magistracy, or the right of both making and of enforcing the laws, is vested in one and the same man, or one and the same body of men; and whenever these two powers are united together, there can be no public liberty. / The magistrate may enact tyrannical laws, and execute them in a tyrannical manner, since he is possessed, in quality of dispenser of justice, with all the power he as legislator thinks proper to give himself.”  (Emphases added.)  Commentaries on the Laws of England, an influential 18th Century treatise on the common law of England, originally published by the Clarendon Press at Oxford, 1765-1769.  (Quote is from the 1916 edition, Book One, pp. 146-147.  I may have modernized the English myself; I can’t find my copy of Blackstone right now to check.)
13.  La Clé du Mystère, F. de Boisjolin, Publisher.  Imprimerie Commerciale Yvetot. 1939.
14.  Trépanier, P. (1991). La religion dans la pensée d’Adrien ArcandLes Cahiers des dix, (46), 207–247. https://doi.org/10.7202/1015587ar
15.  Solicitor General Hector-Louis Langevin, Parliamentary Debates on the Subject Of The Confederation of the British North American Provinces, 3rd Session, 8th Provincial Parliament of Canada, pages 367-68 (bottom right) and elsewhere.  Also see Page 372 et seq.  While you’re at it, grab a free lesson on the Constitution for Dummies:  The Constitution 101:  Canadian Federalism and Self-Government for Dummies<; and in French:  La Constitution 101:  Le Fédéralisme canadien et l’autonomie pour les Nuls.

New eBook: The Inevitability of a Social Reconstruction (1950; 1967), Adrien Arcand

This eBook, along with Canadian Corporatism and other materials to come, marks the 74th Anniversary of the release of Adrien Arcand on July 3rd 1945 from the “longest internment of its kind in the whole British Empire”.  The elements of the celebration are going up one at a time.  Please come back on July 3rd to enjoy them all, and make sure you get your free downloads.
The Inevitability of a Social Reconstruction, Adrien Arcand (1950, 1967) Flash flipbook

The Inevitability of a Social Reconstruction by Adrien Arcand was drafted at least as early as 1950, and marked for publication in 1967.  Download the new free eBook:  Flash flipbook, PDF and ePub, all in one zip file.

The Inevitability of a Social Reconstruction by Adrien Arcand was drafted at least as early as 1950, and marked for publication in 1967.  Download the new free eBook:  a Flash flipbook, PDF and ePub, all in one zip file.

These Two Must be Read Together!

In finalizing an ebook text for The Inevitability of a Social Reconstruction, 1967, my research has allowed me to date the original text to at least 1950, the year when Arcand wrote The Universal Republic.  My research also brought to light a Papal Encyclical of Leo XIII from 1891 which appears to be a foundation for Arcand’s notion of Canadian Corporatism.  All has been explained in my Foreword to the new free eBook, which must be read together with Canadian Corporatism to understand what Arcand was doing, and why he was doing it.  In other words, he wasn’t copying Hitler; he was trying to fulfill the social recommendations of the Catholic Church, in the fight against Communism.

In summary, Arcand seems to have been trying to reestablish the old “abolished” trade guilds on a new footing within a new “protective” structure, his Christian corporate state.  You will see in the eBook that my Foreword and footnotes underscore Arcand’s resort to Catholic doctrine.

I already gave you the French and new English text of “Inevitability” on December 16th, 2018.  I will give you the new Foreword, below.  And you will have to read the eBook to get the footnotes.






L’inévitabilité d’une Reconstruction Sociale by Adrien Arcand was translated by turns in January, September and December of 2018 using a non-official transcript offered in a zip folder online at Balder Ex Libris.1  The transcript looks like an “Aaargh” document, captured and reproduced by somebody else.  The document is dated and signed at the end of the publication:  “février 1967 Adrien ARCAND”.

A catalogue entry at the Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec for a published version of “L’inévitabilité”—described as a 7-page printed book (call number 302.3 A668i 1970, “for consultation only”)—attributes the publication to Adrien Arcand’s Parti de l’Unité nationale du Canada, Service de Librairie.  Date of publication is guessed at in the catalogue entry as somewhere in the 1970s.

<i>Inévitabilité</i>, brouillon (draft) 1950.  Special Collections, Adrien Arcand Collection

Inévitabilité, brouillon (draft) 1950.  Special Collections, Adrien Arcand Collection, Vanier Campus, Concordia University, Montreal.

However, a typed draft of “L’inévitabilité” on long paper with a handwritten date of “—1950—” (in dashes) on the first page above the title, was found among Arcand’s papers in Special Collections at Concordia University.  A copy was purchased on June 4th, 2019.  The fifth and last page of the typed draft bears Arcand’s handwritten initials, “A.A.” at the bottom.  The first writing of “L’inévitabilité” may thus have been closer to the known date of The Universal Republic, also from 1950.

The English translation of “L’inévitabilité” was first published online in blog-post format on 16 December 2018 by Adrien Arcand Books using the Balder transcript.

Dated February 1967, “L’inévitabilité” seems to cap Arcand’s two short essays published in 1966, Communism Installed Here and The Revolt of Materialism.  Extremely important, “Inevitability” makes plain and comprehensible the Catholic nature of Adrien Arcand’s political program for Canada, his Canadian Corporatism.  The two should be read together.

The present English eBook has been re-paragraphed to match the 1950 typed draft.  Slight differences between Arcand’s typed version and the Balder version are accounted for in the footnotes to the present English edition, online as a Flash flipbook, PDF, and ePub.  A change made to the English text since December 2018 has been footnoted.

A major difference between the 1950 typed draft and the Balder document dated February 1967 is the addition in the latter of two extracts attributed to Pope Leo XIII.  On Saturday, 22 June 2019 at 10:59 a.m., a reference librarian at the Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec advised by email that the 7-page printed book in their collection indeed begins with the two-part quote of Pope Leo XIII.

The source of the papal quote is not given, but it can be traced to an Encyclical at the Vatican web site.  The precise identification of the quote is important to understanding Arcand, as I realized on tracking down the Encyclical.  Arcand had a prodigious memory and apparently typed non-stop for hours without consulting documents.  Elsewhere, he quotes a long extract from an article by Churchill, almost verbatim, with small changes that indicate he was quoting from memory.  In like style, as we will see, he quoted Leo XIII from memory, with a few substitutions of words, while maintaining the meaning of the original statement from which the quote derives.



Arcand’s two-part quote is from the Papal Encyclical of May 15th, 1891 entitled “Rerum Novarum, Lettre Encyclique de Sa Sainteté Pape Léon XIII” in French and “Rerum Novarum, Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Capital and Labor”—a slightly different English title for the same Encyclical.  Both are online at the Vatican.  An author by the name of Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu presents the Encyclical under the rubric “socialism and democracy”.  In other words, the Church under Leo XIII is trying to deal with the rise of Communism.  Likewise Arcand, in his day.

We can see that Arcand was quoting from Rerum Novarum by comparing his rendering of the French with the Vatican’s official text.  There is only one slight difference in the first excerpt:  Arcand said “une solution efficace”; the Church said:  “jamais une solution”.

Arcand, February 1967

Vatican, 2019

“La question qui s’agite, est
d’une nature telle qu’à moins
de faire appel à la religion et à
l’Église, il est impossible de lui
trouver une solution efficace.”

“La question qui s’agite est
d’une nature telle, qu’à moins
de faire appel à la religion et à
l’Eglise, il est impossible de lui
trouver jamais une solution.

Arcand, February 1967

Vatican, 2019

“Assurément, une cause de
cette gravité demande encore à
d’autres agents leur part
d’activité et d’efforts; nous
voulons parler des gouvernants,
des maîtres et des riches, des
ouvriers eux-mêmes dont le
sort est ici en jeu.”

“Assurément, une question de
cette gravité demande encore à
d’autres agents leur part
d’activité et d’efforts. Nous
voulons parler des chefs d’État,
des patrons et des riches, des
ouvriers eux-mêmes dont le
sort est ici en jeu.”

For the second part of the quote, Arcand is obviously writing from memory.  He says “cause” instead of “question,” he says “gouvernants” instead of “chefs d’État” and “maîtres” instead of “patrons”.  He frequently uses “gouvernants” in his work, and I usually translate that as “rulers”.  But the fact he recalls a good approximation of the original Encyclical is significant.  It proves he knows at least parts of them, if not whole Encyclicals, by heart.  Which would be no surprise for a priestly Catholic who had managed to convert a Protestant minister while interned in a concentration camp in WWII.  (For the anecdote, see page 14, A Short Study of the Life of Adrien Arcand, free ebook.)

We now turn to the topic of the Encyclical from which Arcand is quoting, “Capital and Labor”.

In the English version of the Encyclical, subtitled “Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor,” we have the purpose of the Church:  “to speak on the condition of the working classes” “to define the relative rights and mutual duties of the rich and of the poor, of capital and of labor” because (and I’m piecing this together from different parts of the opening paragraphs) “the spirit of revolutionary change, which has long been disturbing the nations of the world,” has “passed beyond the sphere of politics and made its influence felt in the cognate sphere of practical economics”.  How does Arcand begin his Canadian Corporatism?  He calls it “A formula for economic and social reorganization”.  In Inevitability, he critiques “political liberalism” as the cause of “economic liberalism”.  And, he says, “Economic liberalism causes social harm through its contempt for the human being…”. (Italics added.)

Then, says the Pope, “the responsibility of the apostolic office urges us to treat the question of set purpose and in detail, in order that no misapprehension may exist as to the principles which truth and justice dictate for its settlement.”  The question being treated is what are the “rights and duties of capital and labor”.  The Pope says:  “Public institutions and the laws set aside the ancient religion.”  (A possible reference to the French Revolution.)  The Pope continues:  “Hence, by degrees it has come to pass that working men have been surrendered, isolated and helpless, to the hardheartedness of employers and the greed of unchecked competition.” (Italics added.)

Says Arcand in Canadian Corporatism:  “Under financial democracy a very large number of our workers after thirty or forty years of honest labour find themselves to-day less advanced than they were when they began their career, having been constantly exploited as employees and as consumers, left without defence at the mercy of middlemen or cunning swindlers; their lives have been ruined.”  Arcand’s “left without defence” echoes the Pope stating “isolated and helpless”. And, Arcand says: “No longer will the great international monopolies fix the prices. It is the national corporation itself, under the supervision of the government which must prevent all and any abuse.” And again: “The producer can live, can devote himself to his specialty without fear of ruin. He can count on the stability of business and the consumer is protected against any exploitation.”

I’m not going to go into a full analysis here of the relevance of Rerum Novarum to Arcand’s views, and to his design of Corporatism for Canada.  But note that in Canadian Corporatism Arcand refers to the “guilds”, and in the Encyclical (Rerum Novarum) the Pope says:  “some opportune remedy must be found quickly for the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class:  for the ancient workingmen’s guilds were abolished in the last century, and no other protective organization took their place.”   (Italics added.)

This is the kind of sentence I would want to use as a point of departure in analyzing Adrien Arcand’s motives for advancing Canadian Corporatism, in which he says:  “Corporatism also is totalitarian, exacting discipline, rules, structures, in everything and everywhere.  It is not the State which fixes these rules and these structures, it is the guilds of National activities which give them to themselves, the State approves.”  (See page 12 in the free eBook.) (Italics added.)

Is Arcand not re-establishing the abolished “guilds” within a new “protective organization” (the State) whose job is to protect, to prevent abuse?  In his Canadian Corporatism, does he not include everyone, all the social classes, to achieve that “settlement,” the “remedy” the Pope said necessary for the new industrial society, to protect and render justice to every social class, most of whom would be liquidated in an orgy of bloodshed by the Communists, on the rise at the time of Leo XIII, and costing millions of lives in Arcand’s time.  Israeli commentator, Sever Plocker, in his article “Stalin’s Jews,” remarks:  “We cannot know with certainty the number of deaths Cheka was responsible for in its various manifestations, but the number is surely at least 20 million, including victims of the forced collectivization, the hunger, large purges, expulsions, banishments, executions, and mass death at Gulags.”  And further on, “Whole population strata were eliminated:  Independent farmers, ethnic minorities, members of the bourgeoisie, senior officers, intellectuals, artists, labor movement activists, ‘opposition members’ who were defined completely randomly, and countless members of the Communist party itself.”  “And us, the Jews?  An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name “Genrikh Yagoda,” the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU’s deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD.  Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin’s collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people.  His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system.  After Stalin no longer viewed him favorably, Yagoda was demoted and executed, and was replaced as chief hangman in 1936 by Yezhov, the “bloodthirsty dwarf.”  “Yezhov was not Jewish but was blessed with an active Jewish wife.  In his Book “Stalin:  Court of the Red Star”, Jewish historian Sebag Montefiore writes that during the darkest period of terror, when the Communist killing machine worked in full force, Stalin was surrounded by beautiful, young Jewish women.”2

Oddly, Arcand’s critics are all opposed not to the communist butchers and the Jewish killing machine, but to Adrien Arcand, who feared that what happened there would happen here.  To-day, as then, pink and red pick-aparts call Arcand “far right,” “anti-Semitic,” “intolerant,” and an anticommunist “bigot”.  But where are the epithets for Stalin’s Jews?  And all the others?

As to Arcand’s unitary corporate State, I leave it to you, the researcher, to deepen the questions.   To do so, you will have to be or become familiar with Papal Encyclicals, Catholic doctrine, Thomas Aquinas, historical context.  All these play into Arcand’s motives.  I think it obvious that Arcand was a devout Catholic trying to restructure society in light of statements by the Popes, to save us from Communism.  As will be seen in the footnotes to Inevitability, Arcand cites Aquinas to support his own reestablishment of a unitary parliament for Canada, free of political parties, free of partisan politics through undivided leadership.

The researcher will have to distinguish Arcand’s abolition of political parties from that of Hitler.  And also ask why an RCMP report on Arcand’s National Social Christian Party stated that it was “undoubtedly organized along the lines of Hitlerism”.  (See the first paragraph of the section “L’avant-guerre” in David Rajotte, “L’État canadien contre le Parti de l’unité nationale et Adrien Arcand”.  Bulletin d’histoire politique, 26(3), 189–211. doi:10.7202/1046920ar.)

Arcand’s inspiration for his military-style organization might be Catholic, it might be from Hitler, who was widely admired prior to WWII.  Whatever Arcand’s military-type of organization, it ought to be distinguished from the apparently Catholic-inspired reorganization of society and of the State proposed by Arcand in Canadian Corporatism.  Self-labeling for “success” by copying a patriotic brand that was popular elsewhere at the time should be placed in perspective, in context on a timeline, beside Arcand’s obviously Church-inspired Corporatism.  Arcand’s early borrowing of symbols (swastika) and titles (Führer) may have misled non-Catholics not steeped in Biblical roots, Encyclicals, or Thomas Aquinas into believing that everything about Arcand was merely a matter of duplicating the German package, or whatever simplistic views were thought to be the package.

This is tricky work, but intellectual integrity and dignity, for Arcand, for the men and women of his Legions, for his disciples and followers, and for the researcher, require that it be done. Said Arcand, in his Inevitability:  “[L]ife is vibrant reality, influencing and influenced”.  For the sake of History, the researcher must clarify Arcand’s own “vibrant reality” rather than impose upon him, after-the-fact, a backhanded and subjective one, whether individual or collective.

In addition to Encyclicals and Aquinas, I recommend the annotated, beautifully embellished, multi-volume Latin and French-language King James version of the Catholic Bible, the “Crampon” Bible, scans of which are online at French Catholic web sites.  Arcand quotes from the Crampon from time to time.

1.  I am using the Balder  version and Arcand’s own draft from Special Collections at Concordia for this eBook because a price of $35 per page was quoted to me by email by the BAnQ to scan the 7-page published booklet, plus covers.  That is several times what it cost me in June 2019 to get a couple of hundred pages out of Arcand’s papers at Concordia University.  It just isn’t within my budget, so I am using whatever is reasonable that I can get my hands on.

2.  “Stalin’s Jews / We mustn’t forget that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish,” By Sever Plocker  |Published:  12.21.06, 23:35

The Inevitability of a Social Reconstruction, Adrien Arcand (front cover)

The Inevitability of a Social Reconstruction, back cover


(Above, front cover, back cover.)  These are important footnotes.  I’m giving them here so they will be picked up by the search engines, for researchers.

Footnote 1:  The mission of the translator, as I conceive it, is to put into English what Adrien Arcand wrote.  He quotes Pope Leo XIII, obviously from memory, as will be shown below.  I will therefore translate Arcand (above), and also give you the official French and English of the Vatican.  First quotation, official Vatican French:  “La question qui s’agite est d’une nature telle, qu’à moins de faire appel à la religion et à l’Eglise, il est impossible de lui trouver jamais une solution.” — Rerum Novarum (15 mai 1891).  Official Vatican English:  “… for no practical solution of this question will be found apart from the intervention of religion and of the Church.”  Second quotation, official Vatican French:  “Assurément, une question de cette gravité demande encore à d’autres agents leur part d’activité et d’efforts.  Nous voulons parler des chefs d’État, des patrons et des riches, des ouvriers eux-mêmes dont le sort est ici en jeu.”; and official Vatican English:  “Doubtless, this most serious question demands the attention and the efforts of others besides ourselves – to wit, of the rulers of States, of employers of labor, of the wealthy, aye, of the working classes themselves, for whom We are pleading.” — Rerum Novarum (May 15, 1891)

Footnote 2:  Arcand spelled the word “ex-équer” in French, with a deliberate hyphen.

Footnote 3:  In paragraph 2 of a one-page letter dated 13 June 1963 to Hon. Daniel Johnson, Q.C., Leader of the Opposition, Arcand said (translation):  “What caused the rapid and sad destruction of Social Credit recently was the simultaneous existence of two heads, a titular head and an assistant head, one saying white, the other saying black.  Double “leadership” can be the most toxic and deadly imaginable in any organization.  Do we see an assistant Pope in the Church, an assistant Colonel in a regiment, an assistant Commander aboard a ship, etc.?  Authority, in principle, must be (according to Saint Thomas Aquinas) personal, single, continual and not divided.” French original:  “Ce qui a fait la rapide et triste destruction du Crédit Social dernièrement, c’est l’existence de deux têtes simultanées, un chef en titre et un chef adjoint, l’un disant blanc quand l’autre disait noir.  Le double “chefferie” est ce qu’il peut y avoir de plus nocif et funeste en toute organisation imaginable.  Voyons-nous un pape adjoint dans l’Église, un colonel adjoint dans un régiment, un commandant adjoint à bord d’un navire, etc.?  L’autorité, en principe, doit être (suivant s. Thomas d’Aquin) personnelle, une, constante et sans partage.”  Source:  Arcand, Adrien.  Letter from Lanoraie, P.Q., [13 June 1963], (C004).  Box number 002, Item number 1123.  Adrien Arcand Collection.  Concordia University Library, Special Collections, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.  Arcand’s idea of a unitary, “undivided” Parliament, and his basic notion of authority appear to come from the Italian Catholic theologian and Doctor of the Church, Thomas Aquinas, and not from Hitler.  Pierre Trépanier was evidently right in 1991 when he said (translation):   “One of these possibilities would be that the single-party regime—corporatism and anti-Semitism in the actualization that Arcand would have given them—would have been subordinated to divine law, the control of the Hierarchy, and to the teachings of the social doctrine of the Church.  The French-Canadian version of fascism would have been much closer to a sort of authoritarian and modern Christendom than to the Third Reich.”  Source:  “La religion dans la pensée d’Adrien Arcand,” Les Cahiers dex dix (46), 207–247.  (https://doi.org/ 10.7202/1015587ar) (Religion in the thought of Adrien Arcand)  A tiny French booklet that I happen to have, Saint Thomas et Nous, by the Fondation St. Thomas d’Aquin du Canada in Montreal (1966), at page 10 informs us (translation:) “In any case, the facts are there:  the Encyclical Aeterni Patris, dated 4 August 1879, ordered all Christian schools to restore the wisdom of Saint Thomas and to propagate it as widely as possible.  On 4 August 1880, while establishing Saint Thomas as the patron of studies, the same Pope recalled his Encyclical of 1879:  Sur la restauration dans les écoles catholiques de la philosophie chrétienne selon l’esprit du Docteur Angélique, saint Thomas d’Aquin.  [Vatican’s English:  “Aeterni Patris, Encyclical Of Pope Leo XIII, On The Restoration Of Christian Philosophy”]  Says the booklet:  “No doubt is thus possible, Thomism is absolutely the ‘official’ philosophy of the Church.  We add that no Pope has revoked this decree of Leo XIII.”  It also would be hard to doubt that Adrien Arcand’s Corporatism for Canada is a Christian system.

Footnote 4:  In the Balder document, the phrase “qu’il y a l’anti-christianisme messianique,” replaces the phrase “qu’il y a la Juiverie mondiale” in the typed manuscript hand-dated “1950“.  In other words, the phrase “that there is messianic anti-Christianity” in the known public version replaced the phrase “that there is world Jewry” in the 1950 typed draft.  The change clarifies what Arcand means when he says “world Jewry”, while maintaining and accentuating the contrasting of opposites, i.e., “universal Freemasonry or the Counter-Church” contrasted, by implication, with the universal Catholic church.

Footnote 5:  In the typed draft dated 1950, the phrase given was:  “Nos sociologues catholiques attaquent avec beaucoup de vigueur” (our Catholic sociologists vigourously attack”.

Footnote 6:  It is obvious that Adrien Arcand’s Corporatism is Christian in character.  Reading his manuscript, Canadian Corporatism, we can see what he is aiming at in the last days of his life while publishing “Inevitability”.  The “great Chris-tian,” Arcand, “desires its triumph”.

Footnote 7:  The phrase “de leurs successeurs socialistes, communistes et marxistes” in the Balder version replaces the phrase “de leurs successeurs socialistes et communistes” in the 1950 typed draft.

Footnote 8:  In the 1950 manuscript, Arcand says:  “En attendant, ce sont encore les poisons des Encyclopédistes, de leurs successeurs socialistes et communistes, qui se partagent la direction politique du monde, sauf dans quelques rares pays comme le Portugal et l’Espagne, et justement bafoués par les deux côtés du “rideau de fer” parce qu’ils sont chrétiens.”  Translating the italics:  “except in those few rare countries like Portugal and Spain, precisely treated with con-tempt by both sides of the ‘iron curtain’ because they are Christian.”   The Balder version, apparently based on the published version, says:  “En attendant, ce sont encore les poisons des Encyclopédistes, de leurs successeurs socialistes, communistes et marxistes, qui se partagent la direction politique du monde tant en Occident que dans les pays situés derrière les ‘rideau de fer’ et de ‘bambou’.”  In italics:  “as much in the West as in countries behind the “Iron” and “Bamboo” Curtains”.  In the Balder version, Arcand clarifies the two main communist areas, but omits any mention of Portugal and Spain.

Footnote 9:  This is an echo of Arcand’s 1954 talk, Le Christianisme a-t-il fait faillite?  (Is Christianity Bankrupt?).

Footnote 10:  Pay close attention:  Arcand’s Corporatism is a Christian system.  In proposing it—obviously—he is countering “anti-Christian messianism”.

Footnote 11:  A change has been made to the English translation since it first went online in December 2018.  The phrase “who will not blush to glory in” replaces the phrase “who do not blush to exalt themselves in”.

Citation, Chicago style, for the 5-page draft text that I used to slightly revise and then to footnote my English translation of “Inevitability”:

Document source:  Author (Arcand, Adrien).  (Draft) “L’inevitabilite d’une reconstruction sociale”  -1950.- Initials A.A. in lower right corner of page, identifier (C004).  Box number 002, folder number or item number 1672-1676. Adrien Arcand Collection. Concordia University Library, Special Collections, location of repository (Montreal, Quebec, Canada.)

Subscribe and check back!  The big 74th is coming with more free downloads!

Abonnez-vous et revenez!  Le grand 74ème arrive avec plus de téléchargements gratuits!

New Free eBook:  Heading for Ottawa!  Canadian Corporatism (circa 1938):  The National Unity Party of Canada

Growing the Trusts

WHEN A LEADER HAS NO PRINCIPLES TO CULTIVATE.  Liberalism, supposed to fight for the underdog, has only aided exploitation of the people under the rotten regime (to use Laurier’s word) of Mackenzie King and Cardin.  This regime, whose principles ought to fight the trusts, does nothing but multiply them, and grow them along with their influence.  All the money is going to tyrannical trusts and the people, without work, poor, miserable, only serve to fatten the modern despots encouraged by Mackenzie King.
QUAND UN CHEF N’A PAS DE PRINCIPES A CULTIVER.  Le libéralisme, supposé combattre tout ce qui opprime le peuple, n’a fait qu’aider à exploiter le peuple sous le régime pourri (suivant le mot de Laurier) de Mackenzie King et Cardin.  Ce régime, dont les principes devraient combattre les trusts, ne fait que les multiplier, les grossir et augmenter leur influence.  Tout l’argent va aux trusts tyranniques et le peuple, sans ouvrage, pauvre, malheureux, ne sert plus qu’à engraisser ces despotes modernes encouragés par Mackenzie King

Arcand’s Goal:  Abolish Poverty

As a constitutional researcher, I had a keen desire to find out more about Adrien Arcand’s notion of a unitary Parliament without political parties, his Corporatist Parliament.  Material I have suggests he may have been onto something (parties may well be unconstitutional in the British system Canada inherited.  More another day.).

But reading Pierre Trépanier’s quite superb article from 1991, “La religion dans la pensée d’Adrien Arcand” (Religion in the thought of Adrien Arcand) in Les Cahiers dex dix (46), 207–247 (https://doi.org/10.7202/1015587ar), another chord was struck.  Critics of Arcand too easily focus on his Anti-semitism (which he himself defined quite differently from the way his critics do).  Detractors of Arcand boil him down to just another Hitler, says Trépanier (translation): “reducing to almost nothing the part played by the social, economic and political reforms that he proposed” (“ramenant à presque rien la part des réformes sociales, économiques et politiques qu’il proposait”).

Most important, Trépanier says that to analyze Arcand “the right way, it would be necessary to multiply precautions, to examine all possibilities and above all to be careful not to draw conclusions with too much certainty.”  He continues:  “One of these possibilities would be that the single-party regime –. corporatism and anti-Semitism in the actualization that Arcand would have given them — would have been subordinated to divine law, the control of the (Catholic) Hierarchy, and to the teachings of the social doctrine of the Church.  The French-Canadian version of fascism would have been much closer to a sort of authoritarian and modern Christendom than to the Third Reich.”1

Indeed, Arcand’s Canadian Corporatism refers to Christian values and to the love of God for His children as the motive to change the system.

When I saw Canadian Corporatism on container list number two in the Vanier Special Collections at Concordia, I remembered Arcand’s countless barbs of the 1930s in Le Goglu against all that oppresses the average individual.  So, below is Canadian Corporatism, a brief presentation of “the social, economic and political reforms” that Adrien Arcand and his National Unity Party of Canada proposed.

Throughout his editorials, and in his life, Adrien Arcand stuck up for the little guy.  He had a political objective:  to eliminate unemployment, poverty (la misère noire), exploitation of the workman, class warfare and financial ruin of the small enterprise by the piracy of speculators.  Arcand promoted a form of corporatism to preserve the Christian “ideas of God, religion, family, private property, initiative, social justice, order, morality, and spiritual values.”

In Canadian Corporatism, published circa 1938 by his National Unity Party of Canada — founded July 1st that year — Arcand explains how corporatism will “eliminate the middleman,” the exploiter and the speculator, in other words trusts and monopolies, and other abusers of the “little fellow.”  Canadian Corporatism would restore to the social classes their dignity, legitimate authority and legislative power in a Corporatist Parliament, says Arcand.

Canadian Corporatism would place wealth at the service of the nation, instead of the other way around.  It would put a fair share of the profits of all production into the hands of those who produced it by legislating a fair price and a fair wage.

In the cartoon above from the July 25th, 1930 issue of Adrien Arcand’s Le Goglu magazine, we see Liberal leader Mackenzie King as a farmer watering all the trusts to make them grow.  Arcand was a fierce opponent of King.  Who was King?  He was a Rockefeller agent working for the world-government crowd while in office, and employed by them in sinecures between his mandates.  King attended Conferences to set up the United Nations, which Saint-Laurent, his Justice Minister, addressed on 13 January 1946, stating it was “the basis of the world government” required to stop the wars.  (But apparently, it has had no effect on the 71-year war of genocide against the innocent Palestinians by the Zionists.)

I hope you enjoy these fascinating political ideas from 1938, explained in Heading for Ottawa! Canadian Corporatism.  The whole text of the pamphlet is below.  You can also download Canadian Corporatism as a free eBook (Flash flipbook, PDF and epub in a zip folder).

1.  Trépanier, in French at page 209 of “La Religion…”:  “En bonne méthode, il faudrait multiplier les précautions, examiner toutes les possibilités et surtout se garder de conclure avec trop d’assurance.  L’une de ces possibilités serait que le régime du parti unique, le corporatisme et l’antisémitisme dans la réalisation qu’Arcand leur aurait donnée auraient été subordonnés à la loi divine, au contrôle de la Hiérarchie et aux enseignements de la doctrine sociale de l’Église.  La version canadienne-française du fascisme aurait ainsi été beaucoup plus proche d’une sorte de chrétienté autoritaire et moderne que du IIIe Reich.”  Trépanier, P. (1991). La religion dans la pensée d’Adrien Arcand. Les Cahiers des dix, (46), 207–247.  https://doi.org/10.7202/1015587ar


Canadian Corporatism:  An English draft version discovered in Special Collections at Concordia University

Canadian Corporatism is presented on the road to the 74th anniversary of Adrien Arcand’s release from WWII internment


It’s hard to find a published English-language copy of Adrien Arcand’s Canadian Corporatism, a brochure produced by his National Unity Party of Canada circa 1938.

However, a nearly-complete English, typed draft with handwritten changes was found in the Adrien Arcand Collection in Special Collections at Vanier campus of Concordia University.  A photocopy of the 26 legal-size (8.5″ x 14″) typed pages was obtained.  Page one is missing.

The 26-page typed draft text of Canadian Corporatism (pages 2 through 27) was purchased along with a small lot of documents in Special Collections on Tuesday, 4 June 2019.

A French version, Corporatisme canadien, was published circa 1938 (BAnQ, National Collection, 324.2710938 A668c 1938 FOL).  The English-language Canadian Corporatism, from Concordia is marked date unknown.  Therefore, I am guessing that the English draft is circa 1938.  The French version was published in three columns per page on ledger-size paper (11″ x 17″), with illustrations.  The French copy was viewed and scanned in the Quebec Archives in Montreal on 16 January 2018.

To supply the missing English page one, I transferred my existing English translation of the corresponding French material from the BAnQ into the English transcript to obtain a “complete” English version of Canadian Corporatism, Adrien Arcand’s political program for Canada.

A word-processed transcript of the Concordia English document was begun on Monday evening, 10 June 2019, at 21:51 and finished at about 6:30 a.m. on Tuesday morning, 11 June 2019.  The handwritten changes were very legible, and were therefore included.  The occasional comma and one or two typographical corrections were added to the word-processed transcript.  For historical color, some of the front-page graphics from the published French edition have been included in the English translation of page one.

A question that researchers might ask about Canadian Corporatism would be, can this program from 1938 be updated in the current western context?

Here’s the citation for the 26-page document, Chicago style:

Document source: Author (Arcand, Adrien). (Draft) Canadian Corporatism / National Unity Party of Canada, [19–], identifier (C004). Box number 002, folder number or item number 402-427. Adrien Arcand Collection. Concordia University Library, Special Collections, location of repository (Montreal, Quebec, Canada.)

Heading for Ottawa! Canadian Corporatism, National Unity Party of Canada, 1938

Canadian Corporatism, National Unity Party of Canada

Canadian Corporatism, National Unity Party of Canada (Flash Flipbook)

Canadian Corporatism, National Unity Party of Canada:  Download the free Flash flipbook, PDF & ePub all in one zip folder.

Canadian Corporatism quickly explains the NUPC programme in 45 clear points.  Get the free eBook in a zip folder with Flash Flipbook, PDF and ePub.

Or read it now, below.  Pagination follows the free eBook.


Published by Adrien Arcand’s National Unity Party of Canada (circa 1938)

Reconstruction from a typed, hand-corrected draft


Canadian Corporatism:  An English draft version discovered
in Special Collections at Concordia University

Canadian Corporatism is presented on the road to the 74th
anniversary of Adrien Arcand’s July 3rd, 1945 release from
WWII internment by the Mackenzie-King Liberals.


It’s hard to find a published English-language copy of Adrien Arcand’s Canadian Corporatism, a brochure produced by his National Unity Party of Canada. However, a nearly-complete English typed draft with handwritten changes was found in the Adrien Arcand Collection in Special Collections at Concordia University. Page one is missing.

The 26-page typed draft text of Canadian Corporatism (pages 2 through 27) was purchased along with a small lot of documents in Special Collections on Tuesday, 4 June 2019.

A French version, Corporatisme canadien, was published circa 1938 (BAnQ, National Collection, 324.2710938 A668c 1938 FOL).  A scan was made of the French copy in the Quebec Archives in Montreal on 16 January 2018. The English-language Canadian Corporatism from Concordia is marked “date unknown”.  So, I am guessing the English draft is circa 1938.  To supply the missing page one, my existing English translation of the corresponding French material from the BAnQ was transferred into the English transcript to obtain a “complete” English version of Canadian Corporatism, originally a pamphlet edition summarizing Adrien Arcand’s political program for Canada.

– i –


The reader would be well advised to take into account that the authors of this document were living in a typical pastoral society of the place and time, subject to religious dictates.  In the early 1930s, poverty and unemployment favored the emergence of right-wing parties around the world.

Adrien Arcand was active between the two world wars of 1914-18 and 1939-45, which caused millions of deaths.  In twenty-five years, the planet experienced an acceleration of violence in all its forms.

The leader of the National Unity Party of Canada, inspired by Father Lionel Groulx, waged a fierce battle against cruel capitalism, liberalism, and Judeo-communism.

The statements above were selected and translated from remarks of author Jean Côté in the opening pages of his 1994 book entitled Adrien Arcand, une grande figure de notre temps, ISBN 2-9801677-3-8, available at Archive.org.

On the same topic, French-speaking readers may find Pierre Trépanier’s Quel corporatisme ? (1820-1965) informative.  See: Trépanier, P. (1994). Quel corporatisme ? (1820-1965). Les Cahiers des dix, (49), 159–212.  https://doi.org/10.7202/1015617ar

Arcand torch Corporatism

Heading for Ottawa! Canadian Corporatism

A formula for economic and social reorganization submitted
to the Canadian people by the


Canadian Corporatism TorchWE SUFFER, complain, are harassed by anxiety and uncertainty in every region of the country, in all milieux.

Governments come and go, each one as impotent as the last. Politicians would like to do something for the people who bring them to power, but they are powerless to keep their promises. The problem is not with the men but with the system. Being unable to do anything for the people, they work for themselves!

Changing the motorman of an outdated tramway or the driver of an old bus is not change. The vehicle itself must be changed. Changing the Members will never be a change if the new arrivals are obliged to do exactly as their predecessors.


The major problem suffered throughout the country, the problem which threatens to swallow us all, comes from two main sources: 1.— the intervention of outside forces into the vital interior wheels of the nation (finance, credit, propaganda, price-fixing, and the control of certain social classes, etc.); 2.— the intervention of politics and government in areas that are not political.

There is too much politics, too much “government”, in economic and social life. Disorganized, deprived of national frameworks, Agriculture, Labor, Industry, Commerce, Fisheries, Mines, etc., are at the mercy of politics and politicians.

Economic and social activities are not political activities. They must be given their autonomy, their powers, their initiative and their right of self-determination. These activities can manage themselves under protection of a government that cooperates and regulates while neither exploiting nor plundering.

Restoring to the great social classes and to vital activities of the country those powers usurped by the politicians is the only way to eliminate the two great sources of problems mentioned above. No other solution is possible.

Canadian Corporatism alone is capable of delivering to the Canadian people this one solution, which must replace the revolting incapacity of the old parties and avoid the disorder and welter of Marxism (hidden behind the names of socialism, communism, bolshevism, anarchism, Sovietism, popular front, etc.).

Canadian Corporatism is the “real change” that the people have been crying out for for nearly twenty years. The National Unity Party of Canada announces this real change which is Canadian Corporatism, within order and lawfulness, by the consent of a free and enlightened electorate.


Canadian Corporatism is the sole and only formula of true liberty and social justice, of security, progress, of prosperity, the control of Canadian life by Canadians. For the greatness of Canada and the happiness of Canadians, the National Unity Party of Canada desires its triumph.


In the seventh chapter of its programme, the National Unity Party of Canada proposes the establishment of a Corporatist system. The present pamphlet is published to give to the people a clear comprehension and a very definite vision of all that will happen when Canadian Corporatism is established.

When the world in 1914 was bathed in blood, it was said that this was to save Democracy. It was a lie, for the consequences of this war caused Democracy to perish in the majority of European countries, both allied and enemy.

Where it is not yet dead, Democracy is at its last gasp. Nothing any longer can save it. It is foundering slowly in corruption, in general disunion, ruin, anarchy, chaos; it will definitely perish. But the people do not wish to perish with it. The people wish to live. The people have not been created to serve political systems but political systems were created to serve the people. When they can no longer function, we change them.

Liberal-democracy is dying from one thing: from not being democracy. True democracy is what we have agreed to call government of the people, by the people and for the people. Liberal-democracy or the Party system is quite the contrary of true democracy. It is the exploitation and ruin of the people by political factions for the profit of the money powers. Present-day democracy is, in fact, the dictatorship of the powers of money. When we go back up all the steps of this organization, we find


this supreme power commanding all the liberal democracies, the International Gold Bank, a Jewish institution.

Liberty! Liberty! Liberty! is the despondent cry which liberal democracy or the dictatorship of the money powers has used to enchain the masses of the people in the slavery of debt and interest, in unemployment, in national disunity, in the cult of hatred, in the gradual ruin of private property. It has been by shouting liberty that there have been taken away from the social classes the organizations and disciplines which protected them, that there has been taken away from national activities their own control, to hand it over to irresponsible politicians, babbling and incapable.

Based on a lie, that of national division, which breaks the organic unity of the people, paralyzes Power and causes decline of Authority, liberal-democracy has dislocated the whole national balance, has soiled all that it has touched, has led to political decomposition and general decadence, has delivered over the weak and defenseless to powerful egoists, has transformed the highest manifestation of civil life (government) into an orgy of corruption.

Springing from materialism, from the spirit of rebellion, from an individualism which denies the common good, liberal-democracy has only managed to realize one single thing: The establishment of the supreme and indisputable power of the Golden Calf, upon the ruins of the social classes which have been hurled against each other. It has made the money-god king of everything and of us all, by betraying truth, by upsetting the moral values and the higher principles of living.

Parliamentarianism is not liberal-democracy. The parliament, consultation, discussion existed long centuries before the arrival of liberal-democracy. Formerly parliaments were really national. With liberal-democracy, we have had only partisan or factional


parliaments, representing only part of the people, while the other part, defeated in the elections, was punished by the privations of political or parliamentary opposition.

By what shall we replace the system which is slowly foundering in corruption and falsehood?

The disciples of the Jew Karl Marx propose the mischievous doctrine of this false prophet under various names: socialism, communism, bolshevism, sovietism, anarchy, popular front. It is materialism pushed to its final conclusions. It is, moreover, the dictatorship of one class over all the other classes. It is the definite destruction of Christianity by destroying that which supports the ideas of God, religion, family, private property, initiative, social justice, order, morality, and spiritual values. We may not therefore believe one single instant that one can save the country or the people by marxism, a system which has done damage wherever it has been tried, which has produced everywhere only bloody ruin, as is proved by the contemporary history of Russia, China, Hungary, Spain, Bavaria, etc.

The only possible solution that remains is Canadian Corporatism, through the National Unity Party of Canada.

Canadian Corporatism wishes to give back their rights, their honor, their dignity, to Power, to Authority, to Labour, to the real producers.

It desires to keep in Canada the gold produced in Canada, to keep in Canada the profits from Canadian resources and from the work of Canadians, to destroy parasitism under all its forms, to force capital to cease being purely speculative, that it may become creative and constructive. And to form national activities into national corporations which will take back the powers which politicians have taken away from them. Just as in the Corporatism of the Bar there is a government of lawyers, by


lawyers, for the welfare of lawyers, so there will be a Corporation of the fisheries by the fishermen, for the good of the fishermen, and the same thing for agriculture and industry. Each national activity must have its own parliamentary representation, must enjoy powers at once social, economic and legislative, under the protection of an essential National State, which will look after the coordination and balance of the national activities, preventing abuses and unjust monopolies.

Canadian Corporatism desires to wed private interest to the common good by making them partners so they can lean upon each other, by making the State and the citizen associates so they will support each other. It desires instead of fighting, to reestablish the political unity of the country, its national unity, to create a national conscience, a national mentality; to fix national goals, to eliminate unemployment swiftly, to make respected the duty and the right to work for one’s livelihood; to revive commerce and industry, to increase property, to decentralize economic activity, to raise up new enterprises, to raise salaries and revenues to the highest level compatible with the needs of a healthy economy, which will no longer be the enrichment of a small exclusive group; to destroy pitilessly corrupt patronage and the system of the pork-barrel, to put each talent in its place and competent people at the vital controls of the country, to restore in all domains the elements of natural law.

IT IS TRUTH WHICH MAKES FREE. We shall regain our freedom when we find truth again. Just as there is a fundamental religious truth, the existence of God, so there is a fundamental political truth. This political truth which the National Unity Party has taken as a guide and a torch is this: all the rights, privileges, advantages, property and profits of a country must serve first and above all the natives of that country. This is the supreme political truth for which all the members of the party work. It is not everything to find truth, you have to make it triumph. We have made of this truth our watchword, our ideal,


our inspiration and our banner, in the short phrase, “Canada for Canadians.”

May all those who believe in this shining truth come and work with us, for its triumph, for the greatness of Canada and the happiness of Canadians, the National Unity Party of Canada.


The program of the National Unity Party proclaims agriculture as the first and most vital of Canadian industries. The program adds that the Canadian Corporatist State will give its first attention to agriculture, will decentralize it, will re-spiritualize it, that agriculture will have the greatest number of representatives in the Corporatist Parliament.

Agriculture or farming is the most vital industry of the country because it nourishes the nation. It furnishes human life with the most important of its primary needs. Moreover, agriculture brings man nearer nature, supplies the most wholesome, the most complete way of life. It gives man the greatest amount of mental rest, of true freedom and sense of security that he can find. It is, more than any other industry, fitted to form the best kind of citizens in the nation.

The nation’s food store must be rich, abundant and varied. Those who work to produce it must enjoy the fruits of their labour. If there are profits to be derived from farming produce, the greatest share thereof must go to the farmer.


Under the system of liberal-democracy, or system of party politics, the farmer does not receive a just share of his yield. He is terribly exploited by the great monopolies which govern the market price, which buy at ridiculous prices and resell to the


consumer at exorbitant prices. These great international monopolies, which we can trace back to the High Jewish Gold Bank, are the masters of prices. They gamble with the harvests of whole countries, playing thus with the fate of those who produce these harvests. He who sets the price of a product fixes the wages of those who make that product.

Who sets the price of timber in Canada? It is not the settler who cuts it, or the small builder who uses it, it is the big monopoly. Who sets the price of Canadian butter? It is not the Canadian producer, or the Canadian consumer, it is the great international monopoly. It is the same with all important goods.


There are groups which are neither producers or consumers, who are not farmers; nevertheless, they have the power to govern prices, and thus to determine the income of the producers. They are more powerful than whole national classes. Why? Because they are organized while producers are not. They are supported by the force which forms the pivot of every liberal-democratic form of government, namely money, the Golden Calf. As money is the supreme master under liberal-democracy, we must not be surprised if agriculture is enslaved to the money powers like all other activities. And as the money powers desire to have ever more money, they extend ever more strongly their control over agriculture, devouring ever larger profits, leaving the small farmer weaker and more despoiled.

It is by thousands in Canada that cultivators have abandoned their farms, saying “farming does not pay.” The farmer is satisfied when he can bring up his family suitably and pay his debts. For twenty years he has had to sell certain products at a loss, while the monopolies which manipulate these products, multi-


ply their profits and their dividends. It is almost impossible for him to pay his debts and to advance his family.

Organized capital is so little eager to help the farmer that the State is obliged to distribute enormous sums in rural credit. The mere fact of State rural credit proves that capital no longer desires to cooperate with the other classes of the nation. It is the same with State credit for the construction of houses in the cities. Capital no longer wishes to help. It wishes to be served. It is the master. It commands and knows no other role. This abnormal chaotic situation has created an imbalance which shows everywhere and which is evident in thousands of evils, thou-sands of forms of misery. It has become intolerable. It cannot last longer if we wish to avoid the bloody revolution so desired by the communists. We have to do something.


The old parties do not want any real change. From time to time they throw a little cool water on the fevered national body, when things get too hot among the people. But they do not wish to go to the roots of the evil because they themselves planted these roots. They do not wish a complete purge be-cause the present state of corruption is called liberal-democracy. They say: “Let us save democracy,” but they never say: “Let us save Canada and the Canadians.” What is it then, according to their idea of democracy, which they so greatly wish to save? According to what the liberal and conservative systems have implanted, maintained, encouraged and tolerated, it is “liberty and tolerance.” What sort of liberty? Equal liberty for the bad and the good, for error and truth, thieves as well as honest men, the exploiters as well as the real workers, equal liberty for the parasite and the victim on whom the parasite feeds, freedom for foreigners as well as for Canadians. Freedom for international forces as well as for the national forces in our country. We must not disturb this liberty, because it is democratic liberty! But in a


system where the Golden Calf is god, it follows that those who have money, alone have strength and liberty; the others, the lit-tle fellows, the workers, the producers endure and submit, and finally are crushed and reduced to slavery.


There are also the disciples of the great Jewish revolutionary, Karl Marx, the “marxists,” who take different names according as they go further. These marxists labour to bring about the socialist system, the communist system, the anarchist system. In democracy a single class dominates, the class of the monied power. In the marxist regime a single class also wishes to dominate all the others, the class of revolutionary workers. This is what they call the dictatorship of the proletariat. The disciplines of the Jew Karl Marx desire freedom only for evil and error. They want to abolish religion, family, property, the idea of country, and establish over the whole earth a universal republic of which Canada would be a simple province.

In the face of the old parties, who neither will nor are able to do anything, and marxism which only wants to do evil, there has risen the National Unity Party.

It is a Nationalist Party, a corporatist party. National Unity is opposed to one class, whether that of the capitalists or that of the workers, dominating the other classes. Each class must be able to guide itself, organize itself, decide its own fate in cooperation with the other classes. This is only possible through the Corporation, by means of the corporatist system, the national system of our new time. It is the only system which can give back to agriculture, as well as to the other national activities, their independence, their freedom, full and entire justice, protection and prosperity.



When the nationalist party of National Unity shall have been carried to power with the consent of the Canadian people, it will immediately set about the task of establishing national corporations.

The corporations, as has been said, will act in a triple role: legislative, economic and social.

The political parties which divide the nation into artificial and useless factions will be all abolished. There will be only one single political party, the Canadian nation. All Canadians will be part of it. The nationalist system in power will recognize no opposition. There will not be a part of the people which will be considered hostile and to which all aid is refused, all help, all encouragement, as do the liberals when the liberals are in power against the cursed conservatives or the conservatives do when in power against the cursed liberals. The government will be truly national, the government of all the people, and it will concern itself with the whole people. Every Canadian will be its child, its ward, the object of its care and devotion. It will no longer be permissible to return to artificial political dissension, to partisan hatred, to the favoritism which causes one part of the people to be neglected for the advantage of another part.

In the body of the nation, each class of workers will receive the rights, importance and respect, the consideration and the aid, which belong to it. Agriculture will be in the front rank of the great Canadian family of workers.

After the disappearance of political parties, the farmer, for example, will have only one general interest, namely Canada, and one main private interest, farming. The country member will not be liberal or conservative in the parliament, he will represent


exclusively the farmers, will be responsible only to the farmers and will concern himself solely with farming.


When National Unity ascends to power by the will of the people, the National Corporations will begin to rise. All growers, without any exception, will be incorporated and will form a system in the great national corporation of agriculture. In the bosom of this corporation they will be subdivided into associations of all kinds according to their immediate interests. The agriculturalist can belong to several associations at the same time, as for instance, to the national association of tobacco producers, the national association of grain producers, the national association of cattle breeders, etc.

Each association will have headquarters and depots in each province. The associations will elect within themselves their officers and their delegates. In their general higher ranks they will form the framework of the great national corporation of agriculture. In their associations and their national corporations, the growers will choose the names of those whom they want to have as federal members in the corporate parliament, and from this list, the whole nation will be called upon to vote when the body of the first corporate parliament shall be submitted for the approval of the people. In the same way the other great national corporations (manufacturing, industry, transportation, professional classes, commerce, etc.) will choose their federal representatives themselves.


The corporation must act a political as well as a social and an economic role, in the sense that producing and professional activities must take back the powers that the liberal-democratic state assumed after the liberal revolution of 1789.


Powers which belong exclusively to the state are those which concern justice, defence of the country (armed forces), internal order (federal police), collection and use of taxes (Ministry of finance), the mails, relations with other countries (external affairs), the guardianship of official wards of the people (Indian affairs), the property of the Crown (public works, domains, etc.)

The ministries of agriculture, of labour, of commerce, of industry, of fisheries, of public health are based on a usurpation of powers which belong to the national categories of interests which these powers concern. These powers were assumed be-cause these national interests were not organized. The state had to make up for the insufficiency or absence of organization of the classes concerned.

The liberal-democratic State has never thought of forming a Ministry of Professions because these managed to keep their framework of organization in the storm of revolution. The professional classes, such as those of the lawyers, notaries, physicians, dentists, engineers, etc., have managed to keep their set-ups and discipline themselves. They were able to resist, only thanks to the compulsory participation (unionism) of their members, drawing up among themselves the conditions of their craft, of apprenticeship, professional conduct, etc. If they have suffered almost as much as the other classes since the end of the great war, this is because of the general situation created by political slackness, economic anarchy, the social chaos resulting from the class struggle. There is no more reason for having a Ministry of Commerce or of Agriculture than there would be to justify a Ministry of the liberal professions.


During the first years of the Canadian Corporatist State, which will be established by the National Unity Party, the National


Corporation of Agriculture will work in immediate conjunction and direct contact with the Ministry of Agriculture. The Corporation of Commerce will do likewise with the Ministry of Commerce, the Corporation of Industrial workers will do the same with the Ministry of Labour, but as soon as they are sufficiently organized the corporations will replace these Ministries which by their nature are not political. Instead of its being politicians, it is the farmers themselves who will govern agriculture, the business men who will direct commerce, the fishermen who will look after the fisheries, and so on. Just as professionals in their corporations may determine the conditions of their professions, give these organizations discipline, a code, just so the other national classes will be able to act in their national corporations. The only real political instrument above the corporations will be the Ministry of Corporations, to coordinate and balance the interplay of the corporations, to see that one does not take advantage of another, that the consumers are not exploited, that the needs of our foreign commerce are respected.

The State being an essentially political and moral body, it must not exceed the limits of its political rights. Economic and social bodies of the nation must evolve as rapidly as possible towards such a state that they can regulate themselves the economy and social life of the country in harmony with the political conditions and needs.


Just as the ministries of the government work by the year, so the national corporations of the Canadian Corporatist State will sit by the year.

The different corporations, each in its federal headquarters, will handle all the problems of their activities as they arise. Thus, the National Corporation of Agriculture will always be working,


studying problems, finding solutions, bringing about betterments, drawing up laws.

The decisions taken by it will be transmitted to the Ministry of Corporations which in its turn will transmit them at once to the other national corporations.

If one of the other corporations, if for example that of Commerce, objects to the decision of the farmers or finds in it cause for complaint then the Ministry of Corporations summons a meeting of the two conflicting corporations and both together must come to an understanding. The representatives of the two great social classes may parley and discuss, criticize each other as much as they wish, but they must come to an agreement. They have all the rights and privileges of parliamentarianism, with this difference, that it is the experts on a question that dis-cuss this question and they discuss it in their particular assemblies.

When a final solution has been found and accepted by the op-posing parties, the Ministry of Corporations informs the national government. The latter must judge in the name of the whole people, whether the final decision is within the framework of the general interest and justice. If it finds no serious objection, the law is passed by decree of the National Government when there is urgency. If the matter is not urgent it will be submitted for the approval of the corporatist parliament met in full session. In any case all the laws and decisions of the corporations must be sanctioned by the Corporatist Parliament.


We are astonished in democratic countries when a corporatist parliament can approve sometimes 250 or 300 laws in a sitting of a few minutes. This is because we do not realize that these laws, which have been studied and prepared by the experts of


the country, would be mutilated as soon as they were submitted to the parliamentary method which permits the ignorant to speak, as well as the experts.

When the national sanction is given to laws in the corporatist system, these laws have already been studied by the people concerned, the experts, the technicians in the matter, then they have been submitted to all the other corporations and to the government. If they are brought before the parliament, it is because there is no longer any objection. All that they need is the supreme national sanction, a simple question of formality.

Corporatism does not allow useless babbling for months on the part of ignorant men. It does not allow, as under our system, doctors to discuss railways, tinsmiths to talk of fisheries, farmers to talk about sanitary or industrial working-class laws, breeders of sheep to speak about airplanes.

Each class has, in short, on the political side of its corporation, legislative powers, which it exercises within the broad lines of the common good and within the limits of national welfare.


Each class must be deeply aware that it is above all a positive and constructive instrument in the service of the whole nation. When the whole nation prospers, the class will prosper, and the more prosperous will be the individual who forms part of it. The individual must discipline himself in his corporation and the corporation discipline itself within the body of the nation. No individual can free himself from his corporation. No corporation can free itself from the nation. Slackness or unlimited free competition cannot be tolerated. Full enjoyment of natural and acquired rights, and fulfilment of the duties which correspond to them, these are the counterweights which in all activit-


ies and in all national spheres are to form the measure of individual and collective action. They are conditions essential to true order, to effective authority, to real responsibility, to equitable justice, to all the prosperity in which each may expect the share due to his contribution of work, the exercise of his talents.


It is not enough for the corporation to have legislative and par-liamentary powers, it must have its economic organization and powers, which melt into its social organization and powers.

The one cannot be without the other. Corporatism must be totalitarian, as liberalism is totalitarian, as marxism is totalitarian.

It is nonsense to try to make, for example, out of “economic liberalism,” a distinct or different thing from political liberalism. Why is there “economic liberalism?” Because there is at the helm of power in the State a political liberalism which has brought about the coming of economic liberalism by its very doctrine of non-interventionism and unlimited liberty, which perpetuates it, encourages it, maintains it. Political liberalism has even become the slave of economic liberalism. It has delivered itself over to the latter on account of its electoral needs. It belongs there. It is now determined, commanded, ruled thereby. There is in fact only one sole and single liberalism, a single germ, a single ferment, which is the same everywhere, acquiring an adjective according to the sphere in which it acts. Liberalism is totalitarian, it imposes its slackness, its lack of discipline, its irregularity in everything and everywhere in the same way. Corporatism also is totalitarian, exacting discipline, rules, structures, in everything and everywhere. It is not the State which fixes these rules and these structures, it is the guilds of National activities which give them to themselves, the State approves.


Economic Corporatism destroys economic liberalism and takes its place. The monopolies which act like gods of the weather as to farming production will be replaced by the great associations of the National Corporation of Agriculture.

The great tobacco monopoly will be replaced by the National Association of tobacco producers. The great monopoly of dairy products will be replaced by the National Association of dairy producers. The great monopoly of meat will be replaced by the National Association of breeders of animals. It will be thus for each product.


Once united in associations and corporations the growers will establish their producers’ cooperatives.

The corporate State will help them to form their cooperatives. It will place at their disposal vast capital in order that these cooperatives may have their stores in the great centres of the country. These cooperatives and their stores will belong to the members of the national associations of the growers them-selves.

Up to now the associations and cooperatives of producers have not had much success because they are optional. Anybody can belong who wants to. There is favouritism. The monopolies in order not to lose their privileges and their control, wage against them a savage, cut-throat battle. Thus, for example, so many dairy cooperatives have been torn from the hands of the farmers and destroyed by the underhand attacks of the monopolies protected by venal politicians.

But obligatory association and cooperation for all cannot help succeeding. All the members, by rules which they establish themselves, are compelled to cooperate; moreover, their most


elementary interests force them to concern themselves actively with their business.

In order to understand the functioning of agricultural corpora-tism in the economic sphere let us take the example of a concrete case. The same case may be applied to all other kinds of organized production. Let us take the case of animals and meats.

All the breeders of animals will belong to the National Association of Breeders which will be a section of the National Corporation of Agriculture.

The principal task of the members of the association will be to produce the best possible quality of domestic cattle and fowl.

The producers’ association will have its storehouses and slaughter-houses. It will control prices and the wholesale distribution of its produce. To acquire or build great modern storehouses, the association will issue bonds which, if necessary, will be guaranteed by the State. The members of the association will hold the majority of these bonds in order that the financial control shall never leave the association.


The producer who has, let us say, ten pigs, two steers, and five sheep to sell, will not have to bother with finding a buyer, he will go and take his animals to the nearest railway station to have them forwarded to the nearest depot or abattoir of his association. He will shortly receive from his association a cheque for the amount of the value of the animals less the cost of transportation. At the depot of the corporation of animal producers the association has its experts who look after classification, packing, forwarding, advertising and exporting. The asso-


ciation also attends to fixing meat prices through the national corporation.

No longer will the great international monopolies fix the prices. It is the national corporation itself, under the supervision of the government which must prevent all and any abuse. The principle which must serve as a basis for the fixing of prices is the cost of production plus a reasonable profit which must aid the progressive growth of the producer’s business.

When a reasonable price is fixed by decree, then all wholesale buyers must pay this price everywhere and under every circumstance for any quantity. Monopoly falls of itself, the trust is no longer capable of dictating its conditions to the producer and the consumer. The producer can live, can devote himself to his specialty without fear of ruin. He can count on the stability of business and the consumer is protected against any exploitation.


The producers’ cooperative eliminates the jobber and the monopolist. From it directly the merchant procures the products which he resells at retail, the wholesale prices being fixed by decree. They are the same for the big as for the small buyer. The great chain stores pay the same price as the small retailer. They can no longer dictate their conditions to the producer. Inevitably they cease to be and in the place of a great regional or provincial grocer we see the number of independent businesses in-crease again, the number of small enterprises and small fortunes replace the large enterprise and the great fortune.

Retail prices, too, are fixed by decree, at the figures decided upon by the national corporation of commerce. These prices are subject to the supervising of the government. They comprise the cost of distribution plus a reasonable profit. The great parasites being eliminated, the consumer pays definitely less.


The producer receives the maximum revenue for his products, the distributer is assured a reasonable return for his service.


The national corporation of agriculture looks after its own protection in the adjustments of the tariff. It instructs the government according to its statistics, its production, its surplus or its needs, regarding the tariff protection which should be fixed for such and such a farm product.

The national corporation of agriculture and the national associations of producers which compose it will have their banks in which they will deposit their money, the earnings of which will be theirs. They will have their credit bodies, their insurance and pension organizations. These instruments for their service being their property, it will be no longer possible for hidden finance to practice its undue pressure or to blackmail the agriculturalists. Agriculture will be, so to say, a national organism complete in itself and it will not suffer from manipulation from outside for external profit. Farm finance will serve agriculture.

Agriculture will not be a State business such as the marxists want. It will not be a source of profit for a few individuals, powerful on account of their money, as is the case under liberal-democracy. It will be a business entirely in the hands of the farmers for the basic advantage of the nation and the personal profit of the farmers. The corporation is the only known formula which weds together the common good and private interest. It is the most modern formula, the most advanced, civilized, just and Christian which has come out of all the attempts and all the experiments which have been made in the world up to our day.

Decentralization, respiritualization, by building a structure on


the needs of the human being rather than on the demands of the Golden Calf, order, authority, discipline, social set-ups which will no longer leave the human being isolated and defenseless; protection, stability, equity, cooperation in living rather than savage struggle for life itself, these are the advantages of the Nationalist Corporation.


We have to stabilize the cost of living as we have to stabilize the income or wages of farm and industrial workers. The corporation alone can give this stabilization which no other system has yet been able to give to the nation.

The corporatist state, acting as a regulator of the national activities, can cause one corporation to intervene to help another when necessary.

Thus, if there is an unsaleable surplus of wheat, the State may on the demand of the national association of wheat producers, transfer the problem to the Industry Corporation by decreeing, for example, that motor vehicle fuel shall contain 20 or 30% of grain alcohol.

A national association of tomato producers would not, as was the case in the autumn of 1938, have allowed to perish in the fields thousands of tons of tomatoes. In its storehouses it would have preserved those tomatoes and the State would have seen to it that these products were exchanged with another country which needed them.

There is no superproduction of anything, there will never be any. There is only a lack of buying power which prevents the national classes from getting in abundance what they could consume. The stabilization of wages and income by the interplay of


corporatism will reestablish, spread, and constantly increase purchasing power.


It is true that national corporatism eliminates certain liberties. It destroys inflexibly the liberty hitherto granted to the powers of money, which must revert to their humble duty as servants of the nation. It destroys the liberty hitherto granted to monopolies, trusts, cornerers, price-raises, to dishonest speculation, to parasitism in all its forms.

But it restores their freedom and self-government to the real producers and the real workers, it restores to them freedom to determine their own fate, the freedom to enjoy before anyone else the fruit of their labours, the freedom to discipline their activities, the freedom to carry on their own affairs, the freedom to create for themselves stable conditions, the freedom to begin an enterprise or to set out on a career without fearing to be stripped or ruined after twenty years, the freedom to set up long range plans with the possibility of realizing them by their work.

Work, a good return for your work, the cost of living proportionate to your pay, an equal opportunity for all to constantly better their lot, provision for each man to suitably bring up his children, protection in all spheres, security, peace of mind, these are the great lost liberties which nationalist corporatism will bring to the Canadian people with the not distant triumph of the National Unity Party.

The joy of living in happiness due to respect for natural laws.

The joy of living as creatures conscious of God and His goodness to His children.

The joy of living as Canadians in our beautiful Canada, masters


of Canada, working for the happiness of Canadians and the greatness of Canada.

The joy of living in a great nationalist and Christian revival, rather than the curse of living in a communist hell or the sorrow of slow decay in a corrupted, ruinous, destructive liberal-democracy, which is a cruel stepmother to the children of the nation.

The joy of living in our own country as our fathers desired it and won it for us by their devotion, their labour, their sacrifice.


For thirty years or more we have been adding to labour laws. We have pushed as far as we could working-class organization.

Are the workers further on to-day?

By hundreds of thousands we may count those who have lost their right to work and have become unemployed. By hundreds of thousands we may count those who work only part time and receive for food, lodging, medical care, clothing, less than a horse unemployed or working part time receives.

As for those who are working, the larger number of them receive wages much below what they need to suitably support their families.

Those who receive a reasonable wage are the minority and even they live constantly in fear of seeing their wages reduced or the shop where they work closed.

As to 90% of workingmen, not only are they unable to save but they do not even receive the minimum necessary to meet the cost of living, according to official statistics.


If there is distress to-day on the farm, the distress is still greater in the working-class in the city. If one is worried, in the country, about interest on a debt due in six months, in the cities in thousands of homes it is a question of how one will eat next week.

Most employers, burdened with ever heavier, worrisome, harmful taxes and realizing that the public purchasing power is constantly being reduced, ask themselves just like their employees, if the instability of business will not force them to close their doors as many others have had to do these last ten years.

All spirit of cooperation has almost completely disappeared be-tween labour and capital, it has even been made almost impossible. Both have been hurled into a surly class struggle fatal to both interests, which after all are only one and the same.

Why is it thus? Because neither employers nor employees are masters of their own activities. Both are at the mercy of what is called the conditions of the market. These are determined by economic anarchy, commercial lack of discipline, cut-throat rivalry, price war, brought about by the indifference of the liberal-democratic State which refuses to intervene, by the tolerance of unbridled and unlimited free competition.

Corporatism will put an end almost immediately to this state of things. It will restore in no time at all the mutual respect of capital and labour, their friendly cooperation, full and complete justice for both sides, an intense, stable and well paid activity for employees and employers.


But the Jews who control the great proletarian organizations, founded by them, and high finance, organized by them, with their propaganda dominated by them, horribly distort corpora-


tism in the eyes of masters and men. They lie, deceive, disfigure, they do not want corporatism even to be known. They do not want the truth to be known because corporatism marks the end of Jewish control over the working class organization, the end of cut-throat business established and exploited by Jews, the end of the control of all classes by high Jewish capital.

Corporatism is the resumption, the re-conquest of all activities, all spheres, all organizations, all advantages, all national profits by the children of the nation and it is the end of economic and financial Jewry. It is the deliverance of all enchained classes, it is the return of order and discipline in which the parasite Jew can no longer live. He must therefore combat corporatism by all means. The crowd must not know it, and if it knows it at all, it must be disfigured, represented as what it is not. This explains the mad, ferocious, merciless struggle which the Jews and all the organizations under their control wage against the National Unity Party, which has decided to establish Canadian Corporatism as soon as it has assumed power at Ottawa. The struggle will be bitter but National Unity will win because Canadian national feeling is stronger than the money of the Jews in Canada, because truth must infallibly triumph over falsehood.


We have seen in its broad outlines how the national corporation of agriculture will function. The national corporation of industry will be similar. This national corporation of industry will be self-subdivided into various corporations or associations ac-cording to the category of industry: metal industry, building industry, manufacturing industry, mining industry, textile industry, hydro-electric industry, etc.

What has hitherto made labour unions so futile is that belonging to them has always been optional. Half the workers agree with the discipline of their unions, the other half refuse to belong.


Corporatism makes compulsory the sharing of the workers in the guilds of their trades. In the same way employers have to be members of the associations which concern their interests.

These guilds of workmen and these associations of employers are divorced from all foreign control, they are entirely free, autonomous, independent and have as leaders only those whom they choose themselves. They have as laws and rules those which they themselves decree. Their bases of support and the discipline which they undergo are fixed by them. The only power above them is that of the National government, which is concerned in preventing any possible abuse as it does for all the other corporations.

After the corporation of agriculture comes the corporation of industry, which has in the federal corporatist parliament the greatest number of members. The list of these representatives to be elected by the whole electorate is drawn up by the labour unions themselves and by the associations of employers. The two groups have their representatives who sit together and draw up the laws concerning their activities. The legislative procedure is the same as that explained for farmers in the preceding chapter.
The federal representatives of industry are responsible only to industry and only concern themselves with industry. Their corporation must eventually replace the ministries of labour and industry when ready to do so.


It is the National Corporation of Industry which fixes prices and working conditions of its members. It fixes the wages of employees and fixes wholesale prices of manufactured products. The employer being certain of a reasonable, stable, protected


sale price, it is easy for him to pay reasonable, stable, protected wages. The Corporation of Industry like all the other Corporations will have its banks, its credit services, its departments for pensions, insurance, aid, leisure, etc.

There will be industrial banks for industry; as well, there will be agricultural banks for farmers, commercial banks for commerce, etc., just as there will be bureaus of credit, developments and aid for the activities concerned. These financial institutions will not be controlled by the State as under Communism, or by a handful of greedy individuals as under liberal-democracy, but they will be owned by the National Corporations. The members of the corporations will deposit their savings in them and will enjoy their privileges and help.


The supreme instrument of finance will be the State bank which will issue the national currency and will control its volume according to the needs of the country. This State bank, property of the whole nation, will, at need, open credits to the corporations which might not have sufficient capital on hand for their necessary development or to meet certain difficult circumstances. The National Corporatist State pitilessly destroys the speculative character of capital and demands that capital, at all times, shall be productive and constructive.

The group of workers’ unions and employers’ associations will form a corporation in which representatives will sit of both employees and employers. They will draw up the laws and statutes of their industries in the interests of all their members. The Ministry of Corporations will see to it that they remain within the framework and general interest of the nation.



The wages and sale prices which they fix will be more than a collective labour contract. They will be national statutes or governmental decrees.

The corporation of industrial employees and employers in which the interests of the two groups hitherto opposed (on account of liberal laisser-faire) will become one single common solid interest, will do more than draw up its own laws. It will supervise their enforcement and impose their application. This will be possible through the discipline which alone compulsory unionism and association can bring about.

Just as the Corporation of the Bar and the Corporation of the Academy of Medicine can punish their members who violate their laws, or take action against external infractions, so the industrial corporation will have its disciplinary courts, will be able to punish its members who infringe its laws or to bring before the courts those who are not members but who harm the corporation.

One element of the national economic life will not be allowed to sabotage the work of another unit, and to compromise, even partially, its existence.

The unlimited liberty granted by liberal-democracy to a certain kind of business, for example, has ruined many industries and thrown on the street a large number of workers.

Thus when a table costs the manufacturer $1.00 and is sold for 90c by a merchant, this brings about a fall in prices and the final consequence is the lowering of wages.



We have seen large distribution agencies sign contracts with cer-tain factories to absorb their whole product. As he no longer has to bother with finding buyers, the manufacturer dismisses his salesmen, his commercial travellers, and can thus sell at a lower price than the others. After a year or two the manufacturer is required to lower his price still further, otherwise his contract will not be renewed. Having lost his former customers, caught with a regulated production, which he can no longer otherwise dispose of, the manufacturer is obliged to yield to the demands of the big buyer or to close his doors. It is always the employee who after all, finally bears the loss though this does not prevent the manufacturer from declining gradually toward his ruin.

With Corporatism this will be no longer possible. An article will not be sold lower than its value. People can no longer play in the name of cut-throat commerce with the honor and dignity of labour, with the fate of the producers.

Each class of workers and producers will receive a just price for his product and each will be able to pay a just price for what he buys. We shall no longer see the parasites ever more prosperous while the producers, ever more exploited and worse paid, harm other producers, by looking for the spoils of the price war. There is no possible stability of wages, of purchasing power, if there is no stability in the price of what the wage-earner produces.

The industry of shoddy, of imitation, of the degraded product which degrades the honor of the craft will disappear; and the housewife will no longer have to say: “I will have to do with the poor stuff, I have not the means of buying the good.” The para-sites, the useless middlemen, the unproductive monopolists and


the dishonest speculators being eliminated, we can get what is good and what is good will not cost dear.


Productive work will be compulsory for all adults physically able. The whole nation will produce. There will be no super-production. There never has been any, there never will be any. What we have suffered from is lack of purchasing power. Everybody needs all sorts of things but not everybody has the means of getting them.

It would not be a luxury for the child of a working man to have three or four pairs of shoes, instead of one, for a worker to have four or five suits, four or five hats, four or five overcoats, instead of one. If everybody could get what is necessary for normal life, without luxury or excess, we should not have enough manufactures or shops to-day.

Let our permanent or part-time two million unemployed be put to work with good pay and right away we shall not have enough from our existing enterprises.

The economic and social corporation of industry will have its political or rather its legislative branches in the national parliament, in which the industrial members elected by the workmen and the employers will form a Chamber, so to say, self-governing in what may concern its particular interests, like the Corporation of Agriculture and the others. The industrial members, as national representatives, will sit also in the full sessions of parliament when it is a question of approving the laws of the corporations and the decrees of the government in the name of all the people.



The workman will have now only one single political party: his nation, his country. He will be called upon to serve the Canadian people and in return he will receive the right to earn his living by working, a just wage and trade organization officially protected.

Labour will be reestablished in the dignity, honor, respect and justice which are due it. It will receive the fulness of its rights and powers. The workman will no longer be merely a toiler taken advantage of, the beaten, defenseless dog. He will be raised to the rank of partner in his nation, associate of his country, free at last from the cruel chains which parasites had soldered upon him thanks to the indifference of a system sold to dishonest finance.

Craft honor will regain its lost rights. There will be plenty of outlets established for the young. The young man who by inheritance or family environment possesses the genius of his father’s trade, may continue the productive work of his father. He may succeed him in the shop or factory. The rights of apprenticeship and guild membership will be reestablished by the free discipline of the corporations, just as apprenticeship has its rights among professional men, whether in the clinics for apprentice doctors or in clerkship for apprentice lawyers. Vocational education which will necessarily be imposed in schools (which) will help the corporations to find the best and aptest subjects.


As the corporations will have the task of inculcating respect for their members’ right to work, and of avoiding all unemployment, they will have to look after the national distribution of work, to find new activities where needed, to think out new de-


velopments. Capital will not be lacking, for the Corporatist State will stop the frightful bleeding of Canadian capital abroad. It will see to it that the gold extracted from Canadian mines shall serve Canada and the Canadians. Merely in interest and dividends paid to the foreigner from the work of Canadian producers and technicians, by the sale of our gold abroad, more than one hundred million dollars a month are leaving Canada at this moment. Why should not the foreigners come to enjoy in Canada these enormous sums produced by Canadian workers with Canada’s natural resources? Why should they not spend this Canadian economic blood within the Canadian organism? The National Unity Party of Canada will promptly settle this problem as soon as it is in power. It will see to it that the economic blood produced in the Canadian National body shall remain in the arteries and veins of this National body. Without borrowing, without importing capital, without increasing the debt of the country, without adding to the obligation of interest and taxes, without inflation, a truly nationalist system can thus get for Canada, for its developments, more than one hundred mil-lion dollars a month. We have only to close the veins, asking those who profit by Canadian activity to spend their gain in Canada, seeing to it that money which is made to circulate and produce shall wholly fulfil its mission.

The Industrial Corporations will have their systems of aid, their arrangements for leisure, their insurance and protection of all kinds.


The shack, the slum, will soon disappear. Little will be said of this but much will be done. It will be the building industry itself which will have to settle this question, in close cooperation with civic authorities. The members of the industry will build for themselves, for their comrades, for the country. They will put all their heart and all their genius into this work of reconstruc-


tion and advancement of Canada and Canadians. Here again it is not capital which will be lacking. Capital will have ceased being speculative. It will have become constructive. There will be no liberal dictatorship of capitalists over all the other classes. There will be no communist dictatorship of the proletariat over all the other classes. There will be honorable, just, disciplined and orderly cooperation of all classes. It is not State collectivism which will lead. It is not the selfish interest of the money powers which will lead. The new law will be the close union and cooperation of the common good with private interest, the association of the citizen with his country, through corporatism, the most advanced and most scientific system of social organization which has been imagined by the human brain after centuries of practical experience, trials, attempts, discouragements and observations, and moreover a system which has succeeded wherever it has been tried.

The State will not be a devouring monster which will sell, betray, despoil and ruin the citizens. The citizen will not be a complaining victim in constant mental revolt against the State. They will be two partners who will help each other, who will cooperate, who will construct, who will progress, supporting each other, leaning on each other.


Taxes will go down and the whole people will be relieved of the burden which is made ever heavier by the democratic mess and the corruption of patronage. When salaries have been readjusted, when two million Canadians have gone back to gainful labour, taxes will be shared by a greater number of taxpayers, and will be lighter. As the corporations will have to settle the social problems which are theirs, the State will be free of them. Everything will be put into its place. The powers usurped by politicians will be restored to the social classes which must hold them. It is true that liberty will diminish or disappear for certain


foreign leaders, certain classes of idle profiteers, unproductive pirates, but liberty will be greater than ever for those who con-tribute to the advancement of the country. They will have freedom of working according to their talent at decent pay and the freedom to make plans and investments without dread of being ruined and left defenseless.


With the great national rebirth brought about by the National Unity Party, after so long a stagnation of business, with the capital produced in Canada at the disposal of Canadian activities, with obligatory work, with new needs, there will be work and income in plenty for everybody. There will be a hundred thousand new enterprises to start. There will be occupation and a future for all our young men. The only danger will be a scarcity of labour but this is a problem which will be settled in good time.

To aid our young people to establish homes, there will be marriage loans. To aid parents brave enough to raise numerous children there will be generous family bonuses. Instead of being, as in financial democracy, almost a curse which imposes heavier obligations on parents who are already poor, the arrival of a child in the home will be what it should always be, a blessing to parents who can live decently.

The national corporations will be encouraged by their modern organizations to establish hunting clubs, fishing clubs, sailing clubs, summer resorts, etc., for their members. The children of the nation must have the first rights to the enjoyment of the natural riches of Canada, of the charms of Canadian nature.


A sustained effort will be made for every Canadian father of a family to be the possessor of a part of the Canadian soil, to be the owner of the home he lives in.


Under financial democracy a very large number of our workers after thirty or forty years of honest labour find themselves to-day less advanced than they were when they began their career, having been constantly exploited as employees and as consumers, left without defence at the mercy of middlemen or cunning swindlers; their lives have been ruined. A system that permits that is a criminal system.

God, who so greatly loves his children, has not wanted them to be unhappy on earth. It is men and their organizations that cause the misfortune of humanity when they allow themselves to be seduced by the errors of evil and the falsehoods of the spirit of revolt which always leads to chaos. As soon as man recognizes the necessity of duty, order, authority, discipline, work, of the giving of oneself to a cause greater than oneself, he becomes free and finds security, protection and justice. Corporatism is the only system of social, economic and political organization which can let him reach this goal.


Hitherto, the goods of this earth have only served the advantage of a small group of powerful financiers. Liberal-democracy, climax of high finance in power, has enchained the unorganized masses and has made them suffer more than any despotic system of antiquity. The fruits of the earth are given by God for all His children to enjoy them. Fruit, meat, cloth, grain, etc., are not made for a few speculators to become millionaires. They are made for their producers to find a fair return for their efforts and for the largest possible part of humanity to have the means


to get the share which it needs. It is upon this principle that corporatism is established. To so do that everyone may earn as much as possible in order to absorb the greatest possible production. To destroy natural or human production in the name of prices, in the name of profits, in the name of the Golden Calf is a crime of liberal-democracy which corporatism will not tolerate for a single instant. Everything is usable in this world and Canadian Corporatism will utilize all that Providence has placed at the disposal of Canadians.


Every social class in Canada will take back the rights which have been stolen from it. Each class will have its frames, supple and well balanced. Each productive class will keep its initiative, its powers and also its responsibilities to the nation. The Canadian Corporatist State will see to these being harmoniously arranged with each other. Conscious of its mission, the National Unity government will not allow foreign agitators to mislead the Canadian masses into the mad myth of the international proletariat, the world labour movement, or the universal republic. It will see to it that everyone shall devote himself to Canada and the Canadians, to the realization in every way of the great motto, Canada for Canadians. This will be the best contribution of our country to world order, world peace and world happiness.


The other national corporations will be organized in like man-ner as those above described.

All the commercial energies of the country, employers and employees, will be grouped in the great national corporation of commerce, which, when well organized, will take over the functions of the ministry of commerce. This corporation, which will


have its representation in parliament, will make the rules and conditions for commerce in Canada, will fix prices and wipe out cut-throat competition which everywhere sows ruin, economic anarchy, and strikes down industry and its employees. It will cooperate with the other great national activities of the country and will serve the nation while giving a decent livelihood to its members. Wholesome and honest trade in which the buyer can have blind confidence will again flourish. Business will become as before formerly, a noble and useful career of public service which will be stable and which will allow those who share in it to make and realize plans for the future.

The professional corporations, independent in themselves (law, medicine, etc.) or connected with other activities (agricultural engineering, chemical engineering, etc.) will play a great part under a system which demands the most competent for the chief positions.

The liberal professions, the scientific professions, the artistic professions, will give themselves frames and rules, will regulate and protect their interests. To serve the best interests of the country, converging with the rest of the nation toward great historic objects to be attained, to assure to all the members of the corporations a minimum of comfort and protection, to constantly raise the level of morality and efficiency in the profession, such are the great primary functions upon which they will build their labour of rebirth.

The professionals will have like the other classes their representation in the corporatist parliament, to legislate on subjects which belong to them, in the interest of the nation as well as in the economic and social interest of the members of their professions. The Corporation of Physicians will finally occupy the Ministry of Hygiene and of Public Health. The Corporation of Engineers and Architects will have the control of the Ministry of Public Works.


All will work for their country and their class, having become associates and partners in common purposes, tasks and interests.


As Parliament will be composed of representatives of the great classes of the nation and as there will be no more political parties, as the political ideal will be completely changed, there will be no longer any “Pork-Barrel”, any palm-greasing, any partisan patronage.

Government contracts will be let not out of consideration for subscriptions to electoral funds, for underhand commissions, or favours granted to interested protectors, but in consideration of the needs of the country and the real price of the value received. Contractors will honestly serve their country, they will not have to serve political parties or politicians. The National Unity Government will make it a highly serious crime to offer, give or receive on either side gratuities or commissions for contracts, jobs or positions. Canada is too great a country to be for sale and the Canadian people are too noble a force to be sold. The time of democratic corruption is past indeed, and over. The National Unity Government will sweep away even its last remnants. Those who will best succeed will owe it to their zeal, their initiative, the use of their talent and not to money.


One of the most thorny problems that Canada has to solve, a problem which is also most urgent is that of the Canadian railways.

The old political parties fear to resolutely apply a solution be-cause their still undeclared solutions are so unjust that they


dread alienating public opinion if they dared make them known. After a long period of “laisser-faire“, the incompetents of financial democracy have hidden behind the policy of “do-nothing”. The leader of the Conservative Party has solemnly declared that the problem is insoluble; a splendid reason for doing nothing, especially from a man who was for five years Minister of Railways! The Liberals, on their side, have been satisfied with piling up gigantic deficits.

Two solutions are currently put forth: that of the great capitalists and that of the collectivists (advanced liberals, socialists, communists).

The great capitalists would like the whole property and the whole power of the Canadian railways to fall into their hands.

The collectivists, or the Reds of all shades, would like the rail-ways to be the exclusive property of the State.

The National Unity Party of Canada rejects both these solutions.

The railways are too great a power to be in the hands of a handful of capitalists, to be a private property. For this power is such that it can be an instrument of blackmail against the State itself.

State socialization pure and simple is moreover a bad solution because it means the definite destruction of all personal initiative in this domain which especially needs it.

For National Unity, it is again the corporatist system which will settle this important problem in the most just way.



There will be, as in the case of the other great national activities, a National Corporation of Transportation. This corporation will be formed of all employees of the railways, technical staff and management, representatives of those who have invested only in the railways and representatives of the public.

This National Corporation of Transportation will take charge of all the railways on Canadian territory. It will issue new shares in exchange for those which have been issued by the old companies. It will be responsible for the financial and technical structures of the railways entrusted to its competence. It will be responsible for operation and service.

The great railway network of the country will not be the business of a few capitalists or the plaything of politicians. It will be in the hands of technicians of industry, it will be directed by experts on the question. All who share in railway activity will be partners working for the country at the same time as for them-selves. Their great National Corporation, self-governing like all the others, watched over by the State, coordinated with all the others and the general purpose envisaged by the whole country, it will itself set the conditions of its interior life and will determine itself its advancement and progress.

The government will not cancel the enormous debts incurred to it by the railways. These belong to the people and they have the right to find their property where they put their money.


The National Unity government will have its railway debts paid by service to the Canadian people. Because, under the forthcoming nationalist system, the Canadian people will use their railways. They will use them extensively. They will learn to


know their country. Canadian youth will learn to know Canada and love it better. Canadian children will early learn to appreciate their wonderful homeland and their fellow-citizens of all the provinces. Thousands of young French-Canadians with their guardians, teachers, doctors and nurses, will go each summer and spend holidays on the shores of the Pacific or Atlantic. Thousands of young Canadians of the Maritime Provinces will go and spend holidays in Ontario. Thousands of Canadian chil-dren from British Columbia will go to vacation colonies set up in the Laurentians or in the Gaspé peninsula, and so on.


Each summer half a million of our Canadian children will have holidays, open air and physical training. As they reach adolescence after several different holidays, they will know what Canada is. They will have a very clear vision of it. They will know the other provinces. They will have learned to esteem their distant fellow-citizens and be esteemed by them. The new generation, by its knowledge of the country and its conception of what it can be and must be will mould national unity for the future.

Our pupils and students will travel and will go and see operating on the spot the different industries to which they may wish to devote themselves.

Our veterans of past wars will have the privilege of travelling free on Canadian railways.

Our railways, by their contribution to this great national work, will thus repay the Canadian people for the billions which it has advanced to them.

The railways will be freed from the intervention of politicians and capitalist speculation. They will no longer know the fatal


results of stock-jobbing or of patronage. They will have guarantees of sure survival. They will be able to protect themselves. They will be able to transform certain unused rights-of-way into super-speedy arteries of motor transportation, which they can develop themselves or hand over to the country to extinguish their debts. Freed from their fetters, they will be able to put to use all that initiative can contribute in the domain of science and progress.

Statism and stock-jobbing capitalism have been tried. They can-not settle satisfactorily our railway problem. Corporatism alone will apply the practical, just and ideal solution.


The old party system, financial democracy, has taken control of the social classes of the country and has practically ruined them all, for the benefit of great international organizations always under Jew control. Financial democracy has driven the country and its public institutions toward bankruptcy.

Farming, labour, commerce, industry, fisheries, transportation, etc., have been directed and ruined by people who know nothing about them and were not responsible to these great national activities.

Each class, each activity, must take back its control, its powers, its initiative, its responsibilities. This is an essential condition of order. Each class is capable of giving itself forms, leaders, staffs and leadership; of finding in its own ability all that it needs to prosper. Class cooperation must replace the democratic class struggle. Only the corporatist system, the political-economic-social system of the new day can bring about these results. The National Unity Party of Canada is the only federal movement which heralds Canadian Corporatism made for Canada in the


Canadian spirit, and this Party alone is able to make it triumph and apply it.


It has been sometimes asked whether it would not be possible to apply Corporatism in democracy, under financial liberalism. This would be a complete impossibility. In the first place, because the corporations would be again divided into all sorts of political factions which would argue about influence within their ranks, would set members of corporations against each other in partisan quarrels, would perpetuate patronage and favoritism. Further, because liberal-democracy demands control of whole classes of the people (agriculture, labour, industry, fisheries, commerce, etc.) by politicians.

Liberal-democracy is “laisser-faire” and do-nothingness, dog-eat-dog competition, while Corporatism is discipline and coordination. To fix salaries and wages, prices and working conditions rigidly is dictatorship, but a dictatorship which each class freely imposes upon itself. Corporatism and laisser-faire are irreconcilable with each other and it is folly to think they can be made to function together, to wed national corporatism with liberal-democracy, authority with lack of discipline, and order with anarchy.


Canada for Canadians.


Subscribe, there’s more great stuff coming up.
Abonnez-vous, il y a plus de bonnes choses à venir.