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.


TRANSLATOR’S FOREWORD FROM

THE INEVITABILITY OF A SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION 

BY ADRIEN ARCAND 1950, 1967

EXCLUSIVE ENGLISH REPUBLISHED AS AN EBOOK ON 28 JUNE 2019


ORIGIN AND DATE OF “INEVITABILITY”

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 USE OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE:
PAPAL ENCYCLICALS & THOMAS AQUINAS

RERUM NOVARUM

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
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html


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

The Inevitability of a Social Reconstruction, back cover

FOOTNOTES FROM THE NEW eBOOK

(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!

“Why Semitism is a Danger”:  Adrien Arcand defines the meaning of “Semitism” in the Goglu of May 23rd, 1930

The Art of Succeeding and Dominating in Quebec

THE ART OF SUCCEEDING AND DOMINATING IN QUEBEC
THE NEWLY ARRIVED JEW FROM PALESTINE:  “You seem prosperous, brother Israelite.  But you appear to be just an employee, because the name on the store isn’t Jewish.” 
THE MERCHANT:  “If I had a Jewish name on the sign, the Christians wouldn’t come in.  So, I take a French name and they all flock like sheep.  These good Christians!  They have no idea how to stand up for themselves, they do their best to weaken their race, and make ours strong and rich so that Israel can dominate Canada faster.  Take my word, brother Israelite, move here, because Quebec is a veritable Promised Land and the government gives us all we demand.”  From The Goglu of June 6th, 1930.
 
L’ART DE REUSSIR ET DE DOMINER DANS QUEBEC
LE JUIF NOUVELLEMENT ARRIVE DE PALESTINE:  “Tu as l’air prospere, frère Israëlite.  Pourtant tu n’as l’air que d’un employé, car le nom du magasin n’est pas juif.”
LE MARCHAND:  “Si j’avais un nom juif sur l’enseigne, les chrétiens n’entreraient pas.  Alors, je prends un nom français et ils accourent tous comme des moutons.  Ces bons Canadiens!  Ils ne savent pas se soutenir, ils font tout en leur possible pour affaiblir leur race, rendre la nôtre forte et riche afin qu’Israël puisse dominer plus vite en Canada.  Prends ma parole, frère Israëlite, installe-toi ici, car Québec est véritablement notre Terre Promise et le gouvernement nous accorde tout ce que nous demandons.” Du Goglu du 13 juin 1930.


FOREWORD

My WordWeb desktop dictionary from Princeton defines the noun “antisemitism” as “The intense dislike for and prejudice against Jewish people”.  The “adjective”, “antisemitic”, we are told, means “Relating to or characterized by anti-Semitism; hating Jews”.

In our day, these words certainly have these meanings, in fact they are clichés. They are not used intellectually, or academically, but as propaganda (in the pejorative sense) by Jews and a legion of others to control public opinion, public behavior; and in other quarters to curry favor with the notorious “Money Power”.

Even a former member of Israel’s Knesset matter-of-factly admits how the term is used.  Shulamit Aloni, an ex-Palmach fighter and Israeli Knesset and cabinet member, gave an interview to Amy Goodman on Democracy Now.  To Goodman’s shocked face, Aloni said:

“Well, it’s a trick, we always use it.  When from Europe somebody is criticizing Israel, then we bring up the Holocaust.  When in this country people are criticizing Israel, then they are antisemitic.”

The “trick” would be used, for example, if you oppose Israel’s full-time illegal military occupation of Gaza, punctuated every couple of years by a good phosphorus bombing, incinerating children to a crisp in their schools and in their beds.  (Now, that’s a Holocaust.)

In other words, if you disagree with the violent domination and ongoing bloody genocide of Palestine by foreign Israel (2019 is the 71st anniversary of this ongoing true Holocaust), you “hate” Jews.  If you advocate the right of the German people to defend their post-war reputation, or the right of any people to defend their reputation against abuse by red smears like “far right”, “white supremacist”, “white privilege”, etc., which all rolled into one are now practically equivalent to “anti-Semite” ― as we will see below ― then the “trick” will be used to smear you.  On the other hand, if you are a Jew who opposes all of this, you may be called a “self-hating Jew”.

That is how the term is currently used, as a political weapon to terrorize the world into enduring and tolerating lies, genocide, civilization suicide, and hyper-control of the rest of us by a handful of Jews who can murder or mass-murder anyone they like at any time with the help of our far-out evangelical, freemasonic, patsy “liberal” governments.

Adrien Arcand published an editorial in the May 23rd, 1930 issue of his Goglu newspaper entitled “Why Semitism is a Danger” in which he defines what he meant by the word “Semitism”.  We therefore know what Arcand meant by “anti” semitism.  However, it is too bad Arcand chose a word that already had a definition, one the media and the left have persistently attached to him:  “Relating to or characterized by anti-Semitism; hating Jews”.

I decided to find out where the term anti-Semitism came from.

The Origin of the term “anti-Semitism”

A search for the origin of the word “anti-Semitism” in an online etymological dictionary yields up something less than a definition and more in the nature of political exploitation of a dictionary for an agenda.  Etymonline has included anti-nationalism in its litany of pejoratives to refer to the man it says authored the term “anti-Semitism”.  Etymonline’s politically loaded etymology of “anti-Semitism” claims the term dates from 1881:

anti-Semitism (n. )
also anti-Semitism, 1881, from German Antisemitismus, first used by Wilhelm Marr (1819-1904) German radical, nationalist and race-agitator, who founded the Antisemiten-Liga in 1879; see anti- + Semite.”

Just look at all those pejoratives in relation to an “anti-Semite”:  “German”, “radical”, nationalist and “race agitator”!

At least Etymonlone makes clear that anti-nationalism is directly connected with Jews (it certainly is:  “cultural pluralism” (multiculturalism), the method of destroying the nation-state, was invented by a Zionist in 1915:  Horace M. Kallen).  What Etymonline does not explain is how Jews themselves end up with a nation-state without being called “radical” “nationalist” “race-agitators” — which they absolutely are!

The terrorism is everywhere.  It is now in your dictionary, rewritten for you by the Ministry of Truth, where armies of Winston Smiths (וינסטון סמית ‘) now busily “rectify” all past news to accord with “truth” as held by the Party.  You can look up your mental and spiritual terrorism, your anti-white ethnic terrorism, your psychological warfare against nationalism in a “dictionary” perverting our languages for left-wing mind control.

Etymonline continues:

“Not etymologically restricted to anti-Jewish theories, actions, or policies, but almost always used in this sense.  Those who object to the inaccuracy of the term might try Hermann Adler”s Judaeophobia (1881).  Anti-Semitic (also antisemitic) and anti-Semite (also antisemite) also are from 1881, like anti-Semitism they appear first in English in an article in the “Athenaeum” of Sept. 31, in reference to German literature.  Jew-hatred is attested from 1881.  As an adjective, anti-Jewish is from 1817.”

Judaeophobia”:  Arcand might have saved himself a little misery with that one.

Etymonline believes that Anti-Semitism means “Jew” hatred.  That, however, is not how Adrien Arcand used the term.  Arcand defined Semitism as everything Talmudic Jews do and believe that is antithetical to the existence and well-being of non-Jews in general, and to Arcand’s Catholic Quebec in particular.  The prefix “anti” then simply means hatred or dislike for things Jews do because of what they believe and that are harmful to other peoples.  It does not mean hatred for Jews as human beings.  Arcand was a devout Catholic who opposed hate, as the diametric opposite of Christian civilization.

In “The Wells of World Hate”, in Chapter I of Down With Hate! (1965) at page 20, Arcand said:

“Le Christ avait dit et prouvé que cette descendance d’Abraham devant régner éternellement sur tout et sur tous était Lui, fils unique du Père, non créé mais engendré parle Père, connu jusqu’alors sous le nom de Iâvé, léhovah, Sabbaoth, etc.”

“The Christ had said and proven that these descendants of Abraham were to reign eternally over all, and above ail was He, the only Son of the Father, not created but engendered by the Father, ever after known by the name of YHVH, lehovah, Sabbaoth, etc.”

In other words, the quite Catholic Mr. Arcand believed the Jews would convert and rule the world under Christ … because Christ had said so (above) in the New Testament.  Arcand therefore could hardly hate Jews as human beings.

Eight years after this Goglu editorial, in 1938, Maclean’s magazine captioned a photo of Arcand with the statement:  “He hates Jews”.1  Would Maclean’s have reconsidered, had they read Arcand’s editorial in English … for the first time, below?


“WHY SEMITISM IS A DANGER”

Adrien Arcand in The Goglu of May 23rd, 1930, page 3

AN EXCLUSIVE ENGLISH TRANSLATION

 

Pourquoi le sémtisme est un péril

“Why Semitism is a Danger”

Ce qui porte le Juif à ne se fondre ni s’assimiler avec aucune autre race. — Indéfectible espérance dans les promesses de l’ancienne alliance. — Civilisation absolument contraire à la civilisation chrétienne.

Why the Jew does not merge or assimilate with any other race. — Persistent hope in the promises of the Old Covenant — Civilization absolutely contrary to Christian civilization.

Israël dominera la terre

Israel will dominate the earth.

Continuant son étude sur la question des écoles juives en cette province, le “Miroir” du 11 mai publiait l’article suivant que nous reproduisons, comme les précédents, pour le bénéfice de nos lecteurs éloignés qui ne reçoivent que le “Goglu”.   Le péril juif est devenu tellement grave, dans notre province, que nos lecteurs voudront bien se mettre au courant de la question, car ils seront appelés avant longtemps à se prononcer sur l’opportunité de confirmer ou rappeler la Loi David.

Continuing its study on the question of Jewish schools in this province, the “Miroir” of May 11th published the following article which, like those previous, we reproduce here for the benefit of our distant readers who only receive the “Goglu”.  The Jewish danger has become so severe in our province that our readers will want to be up-to-date on the issue, as they will soon be asked to decide whether to confirm 2 or repeal the Law David.

Après avoir constaté l’indiscutable dis­sa­tis­faction des évêque au sujet du Bill David des écoles juives, nous avons vu comment ils ont été les seuls à se lever pour nous défendre, au double point de vue religieux et national, contre cette mesure qui modifie la structure de notre système éducationnel.  Pour pouvoir affirmer que les évêques ont DEFENDU la race en cette circonstance, il faut qu’il y ait véritablement un danger à prévenir ou repousser.  Avant de voir en quoi la Loi David constitue un péril, le plus grand de tous ceux qui aient encore menacé politiquement et socialement cette province, qu’on nous permettre d’exposer le péril qu’offre partout le sémitlsme en général.

After noting the obvious dis­sat­is­fac­tion of the bishops with respect to Bill David on the Jewish schools, we saw how they alone rose to defend us—from both the religious and the national point of view—against this measure that alters the structure of our educational system.  To be able to affirm that the bishops DEFENDED the race 3 in this circumstance, there must be a real danger to prevent or repel.  Before we look at how the Law David is a danger, the greatest that has ever politically and socially threatened this province, we take the liberty of exposing the danger offered by Semitism in general.

Il y a deux sortes de Juifs:  le Juif religieux et le Juif irreligieux ou purement athée. Le Juif religieux, comme d’ailleurs le Juif athée dans son enfance, est nourri de l’Ancien Testament et des préceptes talmudlques, qui enseignent que Dieu a fait une alliance avec un seul peuple:  Israël.  Seuls les Israélites ont trouvé grâce devant Jéhova, seuls ils sont de la race bénie.  Les autres sont simplement “enfants des hommes” et le plus souvent sont appelés … “les chiens de Gentils”.  Un Messie doit être donné aux Juifs, qui domineront matériellement toute la terre et assujettiront les autres races. Le Juif est formé dans cet enseignement et cette foi, répudiant et ridiculisant même le Nouveau Testament, alliance nouvelle de Dieu avec tous les peuples et toutes les races dans une union d’amour universelle. [Surbrillance ajoutée.]

There are two kinds of Jews:  the religious Jew and the irreligious or purely atheistic Jew.  The religious Jew, like the atheistic Jew in his childhood, is nurtured by the Old Testament and by Talmudic precepts teaching him that God made an alliance with one people:  Israel.  Only the Israelites have found favor with Jehovah, only they are of the blessed race.  The others are simply “children of men” and most often are called… “dogs of Gentiles”.  A Messiah must be given to the Jews, who will materially dominate all the earth and subjugate the other races.  The Jew is shaped by this teaching and belief; repudiating, even ridiculing the New Testament, the new covenant of God with all peoples and all races in a union of universal love. [Emphases added.]

C’est pourquoi, alors que le Christianisme envoie des missionnaires se sacrifier jusqu’à la mort dans tous les coins de la terre pour gagner toutes les races à l’alliance Évangélique, les Juifs ne font aucun prosélytisme, aucun apostolat, fort de l’alliance exclusive que leur assure l’Ancien Testament.  Ils ne se hasardent dans un pays que lorsqu’il a été policé et civilisé par le travail des missionnaires et des pionniers, quand le temps est favorable à son exploitation matérielle.  Et partout où il va, le Juif s’y rend dans cette idée que les Gentils ne sont pas les enfants de Dieu, qu’Israël dominera un jour toute la terre et aura les autres races pour servantes. [Surbrilance ajoutée]

Thus, while Christianity sends missionaries into every corner of the earth to sacrifice themselves even unto to death to win all races to the Gospel of the New Covenant, the Jews do not proselytize and have no apostolate, shored up by the exclusive Covenant promised to them by the Old Testament.  They venture into a country only when it has been polished and civilized by the work of missionaries and pioneers, when the time is favorable for its material exploitation.  And wherever the Jew goes, he goes with this idea:  that the Gentiles are not the children of God, that Israel will one day dominate the earth and will have the other races for servants. [Emphases added.]

L’Ancien Testament fournit au Juif son inspiration religieuse et surtout nationale, et le Juif n’y voit que la promesse divine d’une ère de conquête matérielle et mondiale.   Dès les premières pages de la Bible, on voit assez quel matérialisme effréné rongeait le coeur de la race Juive, comme de nos jours, et quelles difficultés Moïse eut à surmonter si patiemment pour inculquer un peu de sens religieux à cette race qui, dès qu’elle en avait une occasion, élevait des statues du Veau d’Or et de Baal en signe d’amour de l’or et des richesses.

The Old Testament gives the Jew his religious, and above all, his na­tion­al inspiration, and the Jew sees in it only the divine promise of an era of material and world conquest.  From the very first pages of the Bible, we clearly see the frantic materialism eating away at the heart of the Jewish race, as in our own day, and the difficulties Moses so patiently had to overcome to inculcate a little religious feeling in this race which, at the first opportunity, raised up statues of the Golden Calf and of Baal as a sign of love of gold and wealth.

Les Egyptiens, les Assyriens et les Mèdes ont disparu, de même que les Chananéens et les Coptes; les Celtes, les Francs et les Gaulois ont fait place aux Français, aux Anglais, aux Allemands, aux Belges et autres nations; les Romains sont devenus les Italiens, etc. Mais, pendant que tous ces peuples suivaient l’évo­lu­tion rationnelle du temps, les Juifs ont subsisté sans subir le moindre changement.  Pourquoi?  Toujours à cause do la croyance à l’ancienne alliance exclusive de Dieu avec leur race, à cause de l’espérance que se réalisera la promesse d’as­sushy;jéshy;tisshy;seshy;ment mondial à Israël.  Et cela empêchera toujours les Juifs de se fondre aux autres races ou même d’admettre des Gentils au sein de le leur.

The Egyptians, the Assyrians and the Medes have disappeared, as have the Canaanites and the Copts; the Celts, the Franks and the Gauls gave way to the French, the English, the Germans, the Belgians and other nations; the Romans became Italians, etc.  But while all these peoples followed the rational evolution of time, the Jews survived unchanged.  Why?  Because of their belief in the old exclusive Covenant of God with their race, because of the hope that the promise of world subjection to Israel will be realized.  And this will always prevent the Jews from merging with other races or even admitting Gentiles into their own.

Au Canada comme ailleurs, le Juif caresse donc l’espoir de dominer un jour.  Ce sera sa patrie et il assujettira à sa puissance les “chiens de Gentils”.  S’il devient simplement un Canadien comme les autress, il menace de cesser d’être Juif et de ne pas participer aux promesses de l’anclenne alliance.  Il faut donc qu’il forme une nation au sein de la nation, qu’il forme un groupe à part qui, par tous les moyens recommandâmes ou non, deviendra le groupe le plus puissant et dominera complètement l’autre.  Le Juif ne dit pas ces choses publiquement; au contraire, il est cauteleux, insinuant, chattemiteux; mais au fond de son coeur, il entretient une haine contre les races fortes et un espoir toujours vlvace de les dominer.

In Canada, as elsewhere, the Jew cherishes the hope of one day dominating. This will be his homeland and he will subjugate the “dogs of Gentiles” to his might.  If he simply becomes a Canadian like any other, he risks ceasing to be Jewish and not participating in the promises of the old covenant.  He must therefore form a nation within the nation, he must form a group apart which, by all means, disreputable or not, will become the most powerful group and completely dominate the other.  The Jew does not say these things publicly; on the contrary, he is cautious, ingratiating, self-isolating; but in the depths of his heart, he maintains a hatred of strong races and an everlasting hope of dominating them.

Comme le Juif ne reconnaît que le pacte ancien de Dieu avec Israël; comme il répudie la nouvelle alliance universelle et refuse de reconnaître le Messie chrétien, il a donc des aspirations diamétralement opposées aux aspirations chrétiennes.  Et quand il se trouve dans un pays officiellement chrétien de tradition et de fait, comme le Canada, il travaille contre les aspirations de ce pays, il poursuit un but contraire à celui de la majorité, aussi longtemps qu’il réussit à rester Juif, individuellement comme collectivement. [Surbrillance ajoutée.]

Since the Jew recognizes only the ancient pact of God with Israel; since he repudiates the new universal covenant and refuses to recognize the Christian Messiah, he has aspirations diametrically opposed to Christian aspirations.  And when he is in a country like Canada, officially Christian in tradition and in fact, he works against the aspirations of the country, he pursues a goal contrary to that of the majority for as long as he succeeds in remaining a Jew, individually and collectively. [Emphasis added.]

Quant au Juif irréligieux ou athée, il procède d’une autre façon qui vise cependant au seul et même but.  Comme il n’a pas de patrie et ne peut connaître l’idée d’une aspiration nationale, il cherche à briser cette idée dans le coeur de tous les patriotes, sans se soucier des divergences de traditions, de langue, de climat, voire même d’an­thro­po­lo­gie.  Pour arriver à ces fins, il prêche le neutralisme en tout, il enseigne l’internatlonalisme.  Il veut que tout être humain devienne Juif en ce que, comme lui, il perde le sens pa­tri­o­tique, le sens traditionnel et ce sens émulatif qui constitue le progrès par l’ambition de chaque pays de faire aussi bien sinon mieux que son voisin.

As for the irreligious Jew or atheist, he proceeds in another manner which nonetheless targets one and the same goal.  Since he has no homeland and cannot know the idea of a national aspiration, he tries to break this idea in the heart of all patriots, unconcerned with differences of tradition, language, climate, even of anthropology.  To achieve these ends, he preaches neutralism in everything, he strives for internationalism.  He wants every human being to become a Jew to the extent that, like him, he loses the patriotic sense, the sense of rivalry, the traditional sense and that emulative sense which constitutes progress through the ambition of each country to do just as well, if not better than, its neighbour.

L’on peut donc conclure que le sémitisme a toujours été et est toujours un péril national, même si on ne lui accorde pas l’égalité ethnique.  Il empêche partout l’unité nationale en permettant la for­ma­tion d’un groupe solide, bien uni, exclusiviste, au sein d’une nation.  Et si on considère l’enseignement moral du Talmud en regard de l’en­seig­ne­ment évangélique, on peut conclure que le sémitisme est pareillement un grand péril social, puisque le Talmnd recommande surtout l’affermissement de la seule race Juive et ne considère pas comme un mal le tort causé & un … “chien de Gentil”, comme nous le dé­mon­tre­rons par les textes.  Si le sémitisme est en lui-même un si grand péril pour toute idée nationale et pour la civilisation chrétienne, quel péril devient-il donc quand on lui donne une reconnais¬sance ethnique, statutaire et offi¬cielle, comme vient de le faire la Législature de Québec?  Nous le verrons plus tard. [Surbrillance ajoutée.]

It can thus be concluded that Semitism has always been and still is a national danger, even if it is not granted ethnic equality.  It prevents national unity everywhere, by allowing a solid, strongly united, exclusivist group to form within a nation.  And if we compare the moral teachings of the Talmud to the teachings of the Gospel, we can conclude that Semitism is just as great a social danger, since the Talmud above all recommends the strengthening of the Jewish race alone and does not consider as wrong the harm done to a … “Gentile dog”, as we will demonstrate, using the texts. If Semitism itself is so great a danger for the whole national idea, and for Christian civilization, then how will the danger grow when we give it official and statutory ethnic recognition, as the Quebec Legislature has just done? We will look at this later.  [Emphases added.]

Adrien ARCAND

Adrien ARCAND

__________
 
1.  See Part I of “Fascism in Canada”, a very unfriendly but quite well written article by Frederick Edwards, published in Maclean’s magazine on April 15, 1938; Part II was published on May 1st, 1938.  Nonetheless, the article has some very interesting background on Arcand and his National Unity Party of Canada.

2. Adrien Arcand did not understand constitutional law. The electorate cannot vote to confirm or repeal an unconstitutional law, the law is void if unconstitutional. A court action is required to declare it void. In this case, he is referring to an unconstitutional law of the Quebec legislature under the Liberals which purported to deprive the French-Canadians in Quebec of their exclusive right to self-government under their own Legislature. The Liberals had given Jews coordinate ethnic rights, which destroys Confederation by re-federating Quebec internally while giving Jews competitive control of Quebec law-making, which violates the Constitution. Canada was federalized in 1867 to give each of the founders (ethnic majorities in each former colony being federated) their own legislature for local self-government to preserve their own culture.

3. By “race”, Arcand means the French-Canadians in Quebec.  (The French-Canadian race is found all over Canada, North America, and the western hemisphere.) The Catholic Church had always been their great protector and defender.
 

Subscribe and share! Every now and then, you’ll get a piece of my mind, and a free eBook.

Abonnez-vous et partagez!  De temps en temps, vous aurez un morceau de mon esprit et un eBook gratuit.