Order out of chaos: How the Ukraine conflict is designed to benefit globalists

 By Brandon Smith from Bob Livingston's Personal Liberty 

There is now a direct military conflict in Ukraine, with Russia now openly supporting and recognizing separatist groups in the Donbass region on the eastern edge of the country and apparently positioning to aid them militarily in separation. This is not the first time Russia has sent military units into Ukraine, but it is the first time since 2014 and the annexation of Crimea that the threat of military action has been overt rather than covert.

When a more major conflict erupts, you are going to see a swarm of media stories in western nations trying to outline the complexity of the relationship between Russia and Ukraine since the fall of the Soviet Union, while ignoring certain inconvenient truths. You will see many of these stories construct a narrative that then oversimplifies the situation and paints Russia as the monstrous aggressor. The goal will be to convince the public that our involvement in Ukraine is a moral and geopolitical necessity. There will be attempts to gain American favor and a call for U.S. military involvement. Joe Biden will be at the forefront of this push.

The surface trigger for the confrontation is obviously rooted in the 2009 decision by western powers and Ukrainian officials to consider the country for membership in NATO. Most of Russia's actions when dealing with Ukraine can be owed to NATO involvement in the region, including the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014. 

Strategically, it makes sense. Imagine if Mexico suddenly announced it was joining a military alliance with China and that Chinese military assets were going to be transferred near the U.S. southern border? It probably would not end well.

To be sure, Russia has a history of hypocritical behavior when it comes to its involvement in the affairs of its neighbors. For example, only a few months ago Kazakhstan was facing mass protests which the government claimed were caused by "foreign manipulation." Zero proof was presented to justify this assertion. However, the claim was enough to rationalize the deployment of 2300 Russian troops over the border to shut down the protests.

In reality, citizens of Kazakhstan were angry over a spike in inflation and high gas prices which continue to grind down the middle class and those in poverty. In 2019, only 4% of the population lived under the official poverty line. In 2020, that number exploded to 14% of the population. Accurate numbers are difficult to find for 2021, but it is likely that poverty levels are now closer to 16%-20%. The reasons for civil unrest were obvious and justified, but the Kazakhs were accused of being pawns of foreign enemies. As I have noted in many articles lately, this is a typical strategy of governments trying to retain power when the people rise up to rebel for legitimate reasons.

Again, imagine if the Canadian government under Trudeau asked for US military assistance in scattering the trucker protests against his draconian vaccine mandates? We need to look at these decisions in context in order to grasp how insane they really are.

Ironically, Russia is happy to support the unrest of separatists in Ukraine while helping to silence unrest in Kazakhstan. Keep this pattern in mind because it will help in understanding how events surrounding Russia reflect a global trend that might affect Americans in the future.

The diplomatic mess between Ukraine and Russia can be blamed in part on both sides, and it's this kind of historical ambiguity where globalists tend to thrive. The fog of war helps to obscure their activities and often it is hard for people to see who is truly benefiting from the chaos until it's too late. It is my belief that the Ukraine problem is at least partially engineered and that it is designed as a first domino in a chain of intended crises.

I don't think there is anything unique to the Ukraine conflict for the globalists; they could have just as easily tried to initiate a regional war in Taiwan, North Korea, Iran, etc. There are numerous powder keg countries that they have been cultivating for a couple of decades. We should not hyperfocus on who is to blame between Ukraine or Russia, but on the effects that will result from any major regional disaster and how the globalists exploit such catastrophes to further the agenda of total centralization of power.

The Ukraine scenario could be easily defused if both sides took some basic diplomatic measures, but this is not going to happen. NATO officials could take a step back from the pursuit of adding Ukraine to the ranks. The U.S. could stop pouring cash and weaponry into Ukraine to the tune of $5.4 billion since 2014. Over 90 tons of military equipment has been sent to the country in 2022 alone. Russia could stop sending covert special operations units into the Donbass and be more willing to come to the table to discuss diplomatic solutions. The reason these things do not happen is because they are not allowed to happen by the power brokers behind the curtain.

We are all aware of the globalist influences behind US and NATO leaders, we present undeniable evidence of this on a regular basis. Biden's penchant for globalist institutions is well known. But what about Russia?

There are some in the alternative media and the liberty movement who falsely believe that Russia is anti-globalist. Nothing could be further from the truth. As with many political leaders, Putin will sometimes use anti-globalist rhetoric, but his relationships tell another story. In Putin's first autobiography, titled First Person, he discusses with fondness his first encounter with New World Order globalist Henry Kissinger as a member of the FSB (formerly the KGB). As Putin rose through the political ranks, he maintained a steady friendship with Kissinger and to this day they have regular lunches and Kissinger has been an adviser to multiple branches of the Kremlin.

It doesn't stop there, though. Putin and the Kremlin have also kept a steady dialogue with the World Economic Forum, the project of the now notorious globalist Klaus Schwab. In fact, only last year Russia announced it was joining the WEF's "Fourth Industrial Revolution Network" which focuses on economic socialization, artificial intelligence, the "internet of things" and a host of other globalist interests which will all lead to worldwide technocracy and tyranny.

Again, the Russian government is not anti-globalist. This claim is nonsense and always has been. I would attribute the fantasy of Russian opposition to a steady stream of propaganda and what I call the False East/West Paradigm. The fraudulent notion that the globalist agenda is a purely Western or American agenda and that countries like China and Russia are opposed to it. If you look at the close interactions between the east and the globalists, this idea completely falls apart.

It's important to understand that most conflicts between the East and the West are engineered conflicts and the leaders of both sides are not really at odds with each other. Rather, these wars are Kabuki Theater; they are wars of convenience to achieve covert ends while mesmerizing the masses with moments of terror and calamity. For anyone who has doubts about this, I highly recommend they read the thoroughly researched and evidenced works of professional historian and economist Antony Sutton, who quite accidentally stumbled onto the facts surrounding the globalist conspiracy and went on to expose their habit of playing both sides of nearly every war over the past century from the Bolshevik Revolution to WWII and onward.

The strategy of order out of chaos is nothing new, it's something the globalists have been doing for a very long time. The number of open revelations post-COVID about the "Great Reset" that globalists have publicly admitted to is so staggering that their plans can no longer be denied. Anyone who does at this point should be suspected of having a single-digit IQ.

So, now that we have established the reality of globalist involvement in both the West and in Russia, we need to ask ourselves how they benefit from initiating a crisis in Ukraine? What do they get out of it?

It appears to me that Ukraine is a Plan B attempt to conjure more smoke and mirrors where the COVID pandemic in many respects failed to satisfy the Great Reset plan. As Klaus Schwab and the WEF have constantly asserted, they saw the pandemic as the perfect "opportunity" to force the Fourth Industrial Revolution on the world. As globalist Rahm Emanual once opined in the wake of the 2008 economic crash:

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before."

The WEF is an old hand at this tactic. Klaus Schwab also used the same exact language right after the credit crash of 2008 as he has used after the spread of COVID, always trying to sell global governance as the solution to every disaster:

"What we are experiencing is the birth of a new era, a wake-up call to overhaul our institutions, our systems and, above all, our thinking, and to adjust our attitudes and values to the needs of a world which rightly expects a much higher degree of responsibility and accountability," he explained. "If we recognize this crisis as being really transformational, we can lay the fundaments for a more stable, more sustainable and even more prosperous world."

- Klaus Schwab on the Global Redesign Initiative, 2009

Schwab jumped the gun back then just as he jumped the gun in 2020 when he declared the Great Reset an inevitability in the face of COVID. The globalists must have expected a much higher death rate from the virus because they were practically dancing in the streets, elated over the amount of power they could steal in the name of "protecting the public from a global health threat." If you look at the WEF and Gates Foundation simulation of a COVID pandemic, Event 201 which was held only two months before the real thing happened, they clearly expected COVID to do way more damage, predicting an initial death tally of 65 million. This never happened; it isn't even close.

It's hard to say why an obvious bioweapon like COVID failed to do the job. Viruses tend to mutate rapidly in the wild and behave differently than they do in a lab setting. I would even consider the possibility of divine intervention. Whatever the reason, the globalists did not get what they wanted and now they need yet another crisis to oil the gears of the Reset machine. With the already tiny death rate of COVID now dropping even further with the Omicron variant and half the states of the U.S. in full defiance of the vax mandates it is only a matter of time before the rest of the world asks why they are still under medical authoritarianism?

War in Ukraine and the mere threat of that war expanding beyond the region could accomplish a number of things COVID has not. It provides an ongoing cover for the stagflationary collapse which is now in full swing in the U.S., the supply chain problems that continue globally, as well as the destabilization of the European economy. In particular, the EU is strongly reliant on Russian natural gas in order to heat homes and maintain its economy. Russia has strangled natural gas supplies to Europe in the past and they will do it again.

War is always a distraction from economic sabotage. Even though the seeds of financial crashes are often planted and watered well in advance by central banks, the banks never get the blame because international conflicts take center stage. By extension, global economic crisis causes mass poverty, mass desperation and mass hysteria, and globalists will say that it requires an international solution that they will happily provide in the form of centralization.

In the U.S. and in many other western nations which have a large number of people still defending individual freedom, the globalists clearly want to use tensions with Russia as a means to silence public dissent over authoritarian policies. Already, I am seeing numerous instances of establishment officials and leftists on social media suggesting that liberty activists are "pawns of the Russians" and that we are being used to "divide and conquer." This is nonsense backed by nothing, but they are trying out the narrative anyway to see if it sticks.

I have no doubt that any rebellion in the U.S. against the globalists will be blamed on foreign interference, exactly as Trudeau blamed the few US donations made to the Truckers' Freedom Convoy as "foreign" influence requiring Emergency powers. 

As mentioned earlier, the last thing the elites want is movements of free people obstructing the Reset in the name of liberty. We witnessed this in Canada where Trudeau announced unilateral emergency powers against the trucker protests, giving himself totalitarian levels of control. Even the Russian government has intervened in such public actions to prevent any kind of activist momentum. Biden will try to do the same thing, and war, even a smaller regional war, gives him a rationale to oppress public dissent in the name of public security.

Interesting, martial law in the U.S. is also much easier to legally and historically justify for the government as long as it is done in response to the invasion of a foreign enemy. The Russian influence narrative may very well be in preparation for martial law within America. Whether or not this actually succeeds is another matter.

The consequences of a shooting event in Ukraine would be far reaching well beyond a distraction for the American public; my intent here is not to suggest only Americans will be affected. My point is that there are certain places in the world that are naturally resistant to the globalist scheme, and freedom-minded Americans are a primary obstacle. If there is a large-scale rebellion against the Great Reset, it's going to start here. The globalists know this as well, which is why the U.S. will undoubtedly be centrally involved in the Ukraine quagmire. While the event would be disastrous for Ukrainians and probably many Russians, there are deeper and more dangerous underlying threats intended for the U.S.

- Brandon Smith -

Crime Sinister’s update

 

Today, Justin Trudeau and the Liberal government provided an important update on the work being done to end the ongoing illegal blockades and occupations across the country – and the support that Canada is providing to Ukraine in the face of continued Russian aggression.

This important update can be watched here, and his full remarks are below. Prime Minister's remarks regarding the Emergencies Act, blockades, and Ukraine Check against delivery

Je suis accompagné aujourd’hui de la vice-première ministre Freeland, et des ministres Mendicino, Blair, Lametti. Je suis ici pour faire le point sur les barrages illégaux. Je veux aussi parler de nos efforts pour soutenir l’Ukraine face à l’agression russe. Commençons par la situation ici au Canada. We’re entering the third week of illegal blockades that have been disrupting the lives of too many Canadians. Here in our capital city, families and small businesses have been enduring illegal obstruction of their neighbourhoods. Occupying streets, harassing people, breaking the law: this is not a peaceful protest. At the borders in different places in the country, the blockades are harming our economy and endangering public safety. Critical supply chains have been disrupted. This is hurting workers who rely on these jobs to feed their families. Yesterday, the Ambassador Bridge was reopened between Windsor and Detroit. Our team and I have been working with Ontario and the city of Windsor around the clock. Want to thank officers on the ground, including the RCMP, who played an active role. We now have a responsibility to make sure the bridge remains open. With each illegal blockade, local law enforcement agencies have been acting to keep the peace within their jurisdiction. Despite their best efforts, it is now clear that there are serious challenges to law enforcements’ ability to effectively enforce the law. On Friday, Ontario invoked a state of emergency to respond to the blockades – this was the responsible and necessary thing to do. Today, to continue building on these efforts, the federal government is ready to use more tools at its disposal to get the situation fully under control. After discussions with Cabinet and caucus. After consultation with premiers from all provinces and territories. And after speaking with opposition leaders. The federal government invoked the Emergencies Act to supplement Provincial and Territorial capacity to address the blockades and occupations. I want to be very clear: the scope of these measures will be time-limited, geographically targeted, as well as reasonable and proportionate to the threats they are meant to address. The Emergencies Act will be used to strengthen and support law enforcement agencies at all levels across the country. This is about keeping Canadians safe, protecting people’s jobs and restoring confidence in our institutions. Here’s how the measures we’re taking today will help get the situation under control. The police will be given more tools to restore order in places where public assemblies constitute illegal and dangerous activities, such as blockades and occupations, as seen in Ottawa, the Ambassador Bridge, and elsewhere. These tools include strengthening their ability to impose fines or imprisonment. The government will designate, secure and protect places and infrastructure that are critical to our economy and people’s jobs, including border crossings or airports. We cannot and will not allow illegal and dangerous activities to continue. The Emergencies Act will also allow the government to make sure essential services are rendered, for example, in order to tow vehicles blocking roads. In addition, financial institutions will be authorized or directed to render essential services to help address the situation, including by regulating and prohibiting the use of property to fund or support illegal blockades. Finally, it will enable the RCMP to enforce municipal by-laws and provincial offences where required. That is what the Emergencies Act does. Let me be equally clear about what it does not do. We are not using the Emergencies Act to call in the military. We are not suspending fundamental rights or overriding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are not limiting people’s freedom of speech. We are not limiting freedom of peaceful assembly. We are not preventing people from exercising their right to protest legally. We are reinforcing the principles, values, and institutions that keep all Canadians free. Après des discussions avec le Conseil des ministres et le caucus. Après avoir consulté les premiers ministres de toutes les provinces et tous les territoires. Et après avoir parlé avec les chefs de l’opposition. Le gouvernement fédéral invoque la Loi sur les mesures d’urgence pour compléter les pouvoirs provinciaux et territoriaux visant à gérer l’occupation et les barrages illégaux. Je veux être très clair : ces mesures vont être limitées dans le temps et ciblées géographiquement. Elles vont être raisonnables et proportionnelles aux menaces à la sécurité du Canada. La Loi sur les mesures d’urgence va renforcer et soutenir le travail des policiers. On ne se sert pas de la Loi des mesures d’urgence pour déployer l’armée. On ne suspend pas les droits fondamentaux prévus dans la Charte des droits et libertés. On ne limite pas la liberté d’expression, ni le droit de manifester pacifiquement. Ce qu’on veut, c’est d’assurer la sécurité des Canadiens, protéger les emplois des travailleurs et rétablir la confiance dans nos institutions. The Emergencies Act is not something that’s been used ever, but it exists for a reason. Invoking the Emergencies Act is never the first thing government should do, or even the second. The Act is to be used sparingly, as a last resort. Right now, the situation requires additional tools not held by any other federal, provincial or territorial law. Today, in these circumstances, it is now clear that responsible leadership requires us to do this. These measures must be, and will be, compliant with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Indeed, the Emergencies Act was created in the eighties to flow from, and uphold, the Charter. We’ll always defend the rights of Canadians to peaceful assembly, and to freedom of expression. But these blockades are illegal, and if you’re still participating, it’s time to go home now. On a separate track from the Emergencies Act, I want to reassure people that the Canadian Border Services Agency is already turning back non-Canadians trying to enter Canada to participate in blockades. Of course, while we get the situation under control, we’ll continue to have Canadians’ backs. I want to remind affected businesses that, if you’re facing revenue losses, support is available through our wage and rent subsidy programs. We know that downtown Ottawa businesses in particular have been hard hit by these illegal activities. In the coming days, we’ll be launching specific support for these businesses. I know that everyone is tired of the pandemic. We’re hearing your frustration with COVID, and with the temporary measures we had to put forward to keep people safe. I know people are frustrated, I hear it. You have the right to express that frustration, and even your anger with the government. It’s something we’ll always defend in this free and democratic country. But blockading streets and critical infrastructures, and depriving your neighbours of their freedoms is a totally different thing. It has to stop. Tout le monde est fatigué de la pandémie. Il y a d’autres façons de vous exprimer que de participer à des activités illégales et dangereuses. Comme le ministre Duclos l’a dit la semaine passée : les mesures de santé publique sont constamment réévaluées et on va continuer de les modifier en fonction de la science. On va justement avoir quelques annonces à faire à ce sujet dans les prochains jours. Today, I also want to talk about our support for Ukraine. On Saturday, I spoke with President Zelenskyy to reaffirm Canada’s steadfast support and to continue whatever we can to assist Ukraine. Durant la fin de semaine, j’ai aussi eu des appels avec le président du Conseil européen, Charles Michel, avec le chancelier Scholz de l’Allemagne, et avec le président Duda de la Pologne. As part of the collective G7 response to support Ukraine’s economic resilience, today we’re announcing that Canada will offer a loan of up to $500 million to the Government of Ukraine. I want to thank Deputy Prime Minister Freeland for her leadership on this file. This is in addition to the $120 million loan offered earlier in January. On top of financial support, Canada has already taken steps to help Ukraine defend itself, including with the extension of the training mission, Operation UNIFIER. In light of the seriousness of the situation and following conversations with our Ukrainian partners, I’ve approved the provision of $7.8 million worth of lethal equipment and ammunition. This responds to Ukraine’s specific request and is in addition to the non-lethal equipment we’ve already provided. The intent of this support, from Canada and other partners, is to deter further Russian aggression. En raison du sérieux de la situation et après avoir soigneusement examiné la question, j’ai approuvé la demande de l’Ukraine de leur envoyer de l’armement et des munitions. Le Canada se joint donc aux États-Unis, au Royaume-Uni, à la Bulgarie, la République tchèque, l’Estonie, la Lettonie, la Lituanie, aux Pays-Bas et à la Pologne dans l’envoi d’armement. Le but de ce soutien de la part du Canada et de nos autres partenaires est de dissuader la Russie de poursuivre son agression contre l’Ukraine. We’re not seeking confrontation with Russia. But the situation is intensifying rapidly and we’re showing our resolve. It’s important for Canadians and the world to know that Canada will continue supporting Ukraine and its independence, integrity, and sovereignty, including its right to defend itself. Merci.

Liberal Party of Canada

50 Years Later - The True Story Behind the October Crisis of 1970 Must Be Told

From here:

https://canadianpatriot.org/2022/02/11/the-true-story-behind-the-october-crisis-of-1970-must-be-told/

50 Years Later: The True Story Behind the October Crisis of 1970 Must Be Told

by MATTEHRET POSTED ON FEBRUARY 11, 2022

On June 15, 2019 the strange fact was made public by Canada’s National Post that the entire 40 year CSIS dossier compiled on Canada’s most famous Prime Minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau was destroyed by Canada’s spy agency in 1989: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/csis-destroyed-secret-file-on-pierre-trudeau-stunning-historians?r

How this embarrassing fact could have gone un-noticed for so long is tied to access to information laws in Canada which make all government dossiers available on any public or private citizen 20 years after their deaths. With the 20 year anniversary of Pierre Trudeau’s death just around the corner, and the 50th anniversary of the October Crisis, hungry historians searching for a story filed early applications to read this long awaited dossier which was supposed to be awaiting scrutinizing eyes in the Archives of Canada. The answer they received from CSIS and the National Archives was that the massive treasure of documentation was destroyed because it did not “meet the threshold set out by the CSIS Act to justify being kept in service’s active inventory. The file also fell short of criteria for preservation set out by the national archives”.

Many are now wondering if the secrets CSIS wished to remain hidden are tied to its own subversive behaviour, or if it relates to potentially embarrassing information on the role played by Canada’s third longest standing Prime Minister within the context of Britain’s geopolitical “Great Game” against the world.

As we will briefly review here, by looking at the global transformation underway during Pierre Trudeau’s reign, and the specific “inside job” played by Trudeau and Anglo-Canadian Intelligence agencies during the “October Crisis” in 1970, we will discover that both answers are likely close to the truth.

This exercise is especially important at this time of crisis, as developments in Ottawa and Canada are pointing to new dangers of a repeat of a tyrannical crackdown on peaceful protestors demanding the return of their freedoms.

Sovereignty or Technocracy: A Tale of Two Revolutions

Until 1947, Canada was known as “The Dominion of Canada”.  While its title of “Dominion” has changed, Canada is still not an independent nation, but a Monarchy ruled by the British Queen and Privy Council. Until the 1960s, the French Canadians, who form the overwhelming majority of the population of Quebec, were in the main confined to manual labour and low-level clerical jobs, while the upper echelons of society were occupied by the descendants of the British colonial elite. The question for honest leaders in Quebec at that time was “How can a society so long kept economically and culturally underdeveloped be brought into a state of self-government, skills and dignity”?

October Crisis - Faced with that conundrum, Quebec Premiers Paul Sauvé (1959), Jean Lesage (Liberal Party 1960-65) and Daniel Johnson Sr. (Union nationale 1966-68) had, between 1959 and 1968, instituted policies that had led to a great economic revolution in Quebec centered on scientific and technological progress. This was done by the creation of an advanced engineering culture of Quebec and an international outlook towards ending colonialism under French President Charles de Gaulle’s leadership.

This was, however only one current that shaped the 1959-68 period of Quebec. There was a second, much more evil current that also shaped that period. WIthout an understanding of both currents, then no comprehension of the true purpose of the October crisis of 1970 and its effects were at all possible.

The Deconstruction and Reconstruction of Society

October Crisis - The De Gaulle-Johnson-Lesage nation-building momentum had been an inspired attempt to outflank the British Malthusian movement that was then attempting to impose the program which Fabian Society leader H.G. Wells described in detail in his 1930 book the “New World Order” of depopulation, eugenics, and one world government. In his book, H.G. Wells states:

“It is the system of nationalist individualism that has to go… We are living in the end of the sovereign states… In the great struggle to evoke a westernized World Socialism, contemporary governments may vanish….Countless people…will hate the new world order….and will die protesting against it.”

Later on, in 1932, Wells, ever the devout eugenicist stated that all progressives and social reformers must become “liberal fascisti… enlightened nazis.”

The strategy of the synarchist figures who ran both the October Crisis and the secularization of Quebec was to bring society under a system of perfect predictability and control outlined by Wells and other Fabian socialists decades earlier. For this deconstruction of pre-existing values to occur, Wells and other Fabian thinkers reasoned that society would have to be purged of its traditional Judeo-Christian values, love for the general welfare, and especially scientific and technological progress. In this sense, all forms of individualism that Wells refers to, which are in harmony with patriotic nationalism are simply causes of uncertainty and uncontrollable change in the mind of a social engineer and hence must be purged. Only a materialist society motivated by selfish impulses under a system of fixed resources can Georges be controlled in a predetermined fashion. The outcome of this social purging came later to be known as the “rock-drug-sex baby boomer counterculture”. Quebec, during this period was a battleground for the soul of western civilization.

Using the hypocrisies and corruption in the old Duplessis order as a moral lever to direct social anger towards the existing established order, the social engineering program that had been gaining steam from 1946-1960 under the control of Georges-Henri Levesque at the Université Laval, blew up with what had later come to be dubbed the `Quiet Revolution`.

October Crisis - While the nation-builders attempted to guide this transformation into a constructive direction, terrorist separatist groups such as the FLQ were created throughout the 1960s leading to the implementation of the War Measures Act on October 16th 1970, and then to the Emergency Measures Act under the leadership of Fabian Socialist Pierre Elliot Trudeau (Trudeau had been recruited to the Fabian Society under his tutelage of Fabian Leader (((Harold Laski))) at the London School of Economics from 1947-49 before being set up in the Ottawa Privy Council Office which has been a control center of Canada since Confederation). The latter act, somewhat less drastic than the War Measures Act, was voted up by the Canadian Parliament on December 1st 1970, and remained in force for five months.

Introducing Pierre Vallières

October Crisis - Many of the resources utilized in the following report are derived from a book written by a journalist called Pierre Vallières, L’exécution de Pierre Laporte, les dessous de operation Essai (Editions Quebec-Amériques, 1977). Beyond what he writes in this book, Pierre Vallières himself is an important clue in the true story behind the true top down agenda of the Synarchy which organized the various intelligence organizations that effectively ran the October crisis.

Vallières was a major player in the events of October 1970. He came from the separatist left wing, and was a leading member of the Front de Libération du Quebec (FLQ), the movement that was held responsible for the bomb attacks, and the kidnapping of British diplomat James Cross, and Quebec’s Deputy Premier, Pierre Laporte. Vallières’ connection to the FLQ and his first hand account of the events surrounding the October Crisis are only truly useful if we take into account what he leaves out. By intentionally omitting a series of important facts, Vallières deflects the reader of his book from acquiring a sense of causality in the same way that September 11 “Inside job” reports may seem impressive in their knowledge of the mechanics of controlled demolitions, yet always leave out the role of the Saudi and British governments (through BAE Systems) in sponsoring the operation.

It is for that reason that it is vital to take into consideration the higher dynamics that Vallieres omits before plunging into the important mechanics which Vallière’s work accurately portrays regarding the fallacy behind the official narrative surrounding the FLQ and the October Crisis. Thus, before proceeding, we must first look at a relationship between Pierre Vallières and a magazine called Cité Libre.

The Cité Libre-Vallières-Trudeau Connection

Cité Libre was an influential journal foundedby none other than Pierre Elliot Trudeau and Gérard Pelletier while both young men were employed in the Ottawa Privy Council Office in 1951. Cité Libre served as an important organizing tool used to attract young leftist élites of Quebec around an existentialist “personalist” ideology [1]  and plan for overthrowing the catholic regime of Maurice Duplessis and the Vatican influenced Union National party that ran Quebec from 1945-1960. In fact, Vallières even received the reins of Cité Libre directly from Trudeau in 1965 taking over Trudeau’s job as Editor-in-Chief and thus freeing Trudeau up to become a federal Member of Parliament under the newly re-organized Liberal Party banner. The Federal Liberal Party had, by that time, been purged of all C.D. Howe influences, and had become the chosen host which leading Fabians and Rhodes scholars chose to take over to advance their agenda. The Liberal Party was chosen due to the simple fact that the Fabian Society of Canada (New Democratic Party) demonstrated itself incapable of gaining the necessary political power [2].

Within merely five years of this transfer of editorship of Cité Libre, Vallières was credited for leading Quebec into a state of crisis, while Trudeau (by now Prime Minister) used the chaos of Vallière’s organization as an excuse to implement the greatest psychological trauma on the Quebec population in history by declaring Marshall Law. This act also served to break the will of may Gaullist forces who were still resisting the technocratic Fabian reforms as late as 1970.

Several other Cité Libre operatives who rose to prominence in Quebec or Federal politics leading up to or after the October crisis include René Levésques, founder of the Parti Quebecois, Gérard Pelletier, Jean-Louis Gagnon, Marc Lalonde, Jean Marchand and Jean-Pierre Goyer.

Jean-Pierre Goyer was a frequent contributor to Cité Libre becoming an MP alongside Trudeau, Marchand and Pelletier in 1965, and then becoming appointed Solicitor General by Trudeau, overseeing the entire RCMP during the October Crisis. When the RCMP became too scandal ridden to be of any use, having been caught creating FLQ cells, robbing dynamite, conducting extortion and theft throughout the 1970s, Goyer played an instrumental role in creating CSIS alongside Trudeau`s right hand man and Privy Council Clerk Michael Pitfield in 1984. Pitfield himself had been active with the Cite Libre nest in the early 1960s translating the group’s influential “Manifesto pour une politique fonctionelle” of April 1964.

Jean-Louis Gagnon not only served as Managing editor of La Presse (alongside Gérald Pelletier), but Deputy Cabinet Minister and then head of Information Canada under Trudeau during the period of the October Crisis, while Gérard Pelletier was appointed Pierre Trudeau`s Secretary of State. The Oxford trained Marc Lalonde became Principle Secretary to Trudeau (and later his Justice Minister), Jean Marchand (who was dubbed by the Quebec press as one of the “Three Doves” (Pelletier and Trudeau being the other two) also became a Cabinet minister during this period. The vast majority of Cité Libre figures who rose to prominence were members of the Fabian Society’s Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (renamed NDP in 1960) before joining the Liberals.

This is the same group that brought in a cybernetics overhaul to the Canadian government [3] as well as the Malthusian Canadian branch of the Club of Rome, whose Privy Council sponsorship under Trudeau, Pitfield and Lalonde directed government funds to the study which later came to be called Limits to Growth (1972). It was this fraudulent work that became the gospel of the neo-Malthusian revival and was used to justify the “post industrial paradigm of depopulation, and empire.

As you will come to realize in due course by the mere presentation of the elementary facts regarding the October Crisis of 1970, everything you have ever been told about the FLQ and the greater October Crisis which resulted from their activities is a lie.

Endnotes

[1] The personalist ideology which formed the basis of Cité Libre was built around the thinking of Jacques Maritaine and Jean Mounier. Maritain and Mounier were part of the “Catholic” variety of the discrete collaborators with Vichy during WWII, after the integrist Pope, Pius XII, had signed a Concordat deal with Hitler. Maritain was an Ultramontane integrist type of fascist who revived Thomas Aquinas with the purpose of instituting a “New Middle Ages” with the collaboration of the Dominicans. 

Maritain and Mounier were the leaders of the very Catholic “Ordre Nouveau” under Vichy. (See Pierre Beaudry’s Synarchy report on the DOMINICAN FASCIST YOUTH MOVEMENT in Book II: The Modern Synarchy 

Movement of Empire 

www.amatterofmind.org/Pierres_PDFs/SYNARCHY_I/BOOK_II/2._SYNARCHY_MOVEMENT_OF_EMPIRE_BOOK_II.pdf.) 

Maritain was the most important French philosopher of the war years in France and later in America. 

The entire Maritain, Mounier, and Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange salon at Meudon was anti- De Gaulle, during and after the war. They were “Catholic personalist communitarians” who oriented against individualism and materialism for the benefit of the Revolution Nationale of Petain.

[2] Before 1960, the New Democratic Party was known since its 1933 creation as the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF). The CCF was created as the political party of the League of Social Reconstruction, founded in 1932 by six Oxford Rhodes Scholars (F.R. Scott, Eugene Forsey, King Gordon, Escott Reid, David Lewis and Graham Spry), and two Fabians (Frank Underhill and Leonard Marsh). The purpose of the LSR and its spawn CCF was to implement a scientific dictatorship under the model set forth by H.G. Wells as a “solution” to the great depression of 1928-1933. It is thus not a coincidence the first CCF leader J.S. Woodsworth was a leading advocate of eugenics. F.R. Scott ecame a leading recruiter and lifelong controller of Trudeau upon the laters’ return to Canada in 1950. The LSR, CCF leadership worked closely with the Canadian Institute for International Affairs and founded the Canadian Forum.

[3] Speaking of his love for Cybernetics and systems analysis at a Harrison, Ontario Liberal Conference on November 21, 1969, Trudeau said:

“We are aware that the many techniques of cybernetics, by transforming the control function and the manipulation of information, will transform our whole society. With this knowledge, we are wide awake, alert, capable of action; no longer are we blind, inert powers of fate.”

It was Trudeau, Pitfield, Lalonde, Maurice Lamontagne and  Rhodes Scholar Governor General Roland Michener, along with a batch of Malthusians from the Privy Council Office who founded the Club of Rome Canada in 1970 which established the zero growth depopulation agenda which would be pursued for the next 40 years by the oligarchy.

The October Crisis of 1970: A Carefully-Prepared Plot

By Benoit Chalifoux and Matthew Ehret-Kump

The list of structures and institutions that follows shows clearly that some in official circles had anticipated the October 1970 crisis, which crisis had been concocted to lead into the War Measures Act and a consolidation of power in the hands of the “new technocratic elite” that had taken control of the Quiet Revolution after the death of Quebec Premier Daniel Johnson in 1968 and the ouster of both Jean Lesage and Charles de Gaulle from political power in 1969.

The purpose of the following report, which relies heavily upon accounts by Pierre Vallières, taken from his 1977 book L’exécution de Pierre Laporte, les dessous de operation Essai (Editions Quebec-Amériques, 1977) , is not to establish the cause of the October Crisis, but to sufficiently demonstrate that the official narrative commonly used to explain this period is not true. Not only that, but as the facts will show, the cause of these terrible events were organized by more powerful institutions both within and above the Canadian government.

At the Federal Level (Ottawa)

Based at Ottawa, the Strategic Operations Centre (SOC), was the channel from the army to the Trudeau Government.  Its existence became publicly known only in 1975, like that of the Centre national de planification des mesures d’urgences (C.N.P.M.U.), that worked closely alongside the SOC.  In the light of what we now know, one can well imagine that the tasks of those centres was to draft, and implement, scenarios that could lead to promulgating the War Measures Act.

Establishment of the Comité du 7 May 1970:  set up by the Federal Government in the wake of the elections on April 29th 1970, as we shall shortly see.  The decision was disclosed only on December 23rd 1971, by the Toronto daily The Globe and Mail.

In Quebec

Opération Essai (Operation Trial), derived from an initial plan, first drafted in 1960, by the Planning and Operations Section of the Quebec Command.  That same year, 1960, Jean Lesage became head of the Quebec Government, and launched the «Quiet Revolution» which was a process that had a bipolar character. This process became a key battle ground between two opposing forces. The first had aimed at installing a technocratic elite in Quebec while secularizing the province in preparation for a new Malthusian culture that could be reconstructed to the will of the oligarchy. The opposing force was represented by those nation-building, largely Catholic forces then centered around Lesage and Daniel Johnson who desired to direct the revolutionary energy then embracing Quebec around an anti-imperial strategy of republicanism and technological progress.

1966:  the Infantry, Air Force and Navy were regrouped, and a new Mobile Army Command was set up at the Federal Military Base of Saint-Hubert.

1969:  the Mobile Army Command set up its Civil Emergencies Section, whereby contacts with the army were to be restricted to carefully selected political figures.

7 June 1970:  Michel Côté, the City of Montreal’s Head of Litigation, was secretly appointed to head the Combined Anti-terror Team – Escouade combinée anti-terroriste or C.A.T..  His job was to keep an eye on Jean Drapeau, then Mayor of Montreal.

 Chronology of the October 1970 crisis

The chronology below challenges the official thesis, and points up a great many contradictions.

1966:  Daniel Johnson is elected Quebec Premier giving the anti-Malthusian catholic forces a new opening to regain their lost power on the continent. This coincides with the rise of Robert F. Kennedy to greater prominence in preparation for his 1968 announcement of his plans to revive his brother`s policies in his bid for the Presidency.

1967:  Charles de Gaulle visits Quebec on Johnson’s invitation at which point deals are struck between the two leaders based on advanced technology, infrastructure, space technology and cultural programs. Many components of this arrangement were based upon the French-Quebec assistance of technology and training to former African colonies now gaining their independence. The French President was invited to return at the end 1968 for the Francophone Summit.

26th September 1968: Daniel Johnson dies under unusual circumstances mere hours before the unveiling ceremony of the Manicouagan-5 Dam that Johnson had put into motion a decade earlier alongside then Premier and nation builder Paul Sauvé. Officially, he suffered a fatal heart attack. By 1969, De Gaulle is forced out of office in an anarchistic mock referendum in France. De Gaulle himself had survived over 13 assassination attempts run largely by the Montreal-based Permindex which was also at the center of the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963. Two of the three previous Union National Premiers before Johnson met identical fates and died of heart attacks while in office in a period of 6 months. Maurice Duplessis died on September 7, 1959, while Paul Sauvé died on January 2, 1960.

1968: Daniel Johnson’s two greatest enemies: Pierre Trudeau and Rene Lévesques, both agents of the of the technocratic reforms of the Quiet Revolution steered by Georges Henri Lévesque’s Université Laval are set up to polarize Canada between two false notions of nationalism and install a new form of Malthusian power structure on both provincial and federal levels. Trudeau is set up as Prime Minister and Lévesques founds the Parti Quebecois (two weeks after Johnson’s death), later to emerge as Premier of Quebec (1976-85). The PQ absorbs many of the saner independence forces who advocated Johnson’s formulation of “Independence if necessary, but not necessarily independence”.

1968-1970:  violent demonstrations break out in Montreal.

The Civil Emergencies Section predicts « grave disturbances » during the April elections, and states that the army might have to be called out to « protect the democratic vote ».

April 29th 1970: Provincial elections held whereby the separatists win 23% of the vote.

February and June 1970:  two kidnapping plots are uncovered by the Montreal police force (police de la Communauté urbaine de Montreal, CUM).  One plot, to be launched in June 1970, was to be an FLQ attack on the US Consulate, launched by FLQers Lanctôt and Marcil.

27 May 1970:  an article in La Presse appears, on the army’s rôle in putting down civil disturbances in Canada.  According to the article, military operations were be run out of the Saint-Hubert base.

In Pierre Vallières’ view « by late summer 1970, everything was in place, and liaison between the army and the police forces concerned had moved onto a weekly, sometimes daily basis ».  He adds that « by June, the contents of the October manifesto had already been printed in some newspapers, following the abortive ‘Lanctôt-Marcil’ plot against the US Consulate; the FLQers demands had become known, and, finally, the FLQ’s operational bases (save for the flat rented in September in Northern Montreal by Cossette-Trudel) had been dismantled or had become known to the police.  The FLQ-1970 was under control in October, and no surprise was possible ».

James Cross is kidnapped

5th October 1970:  the British diplomat James Cross is kidnapped.  The police’s first step is to go straight to the Greek Consul’s place of residence!  The kidnappers’ trace is lost.  The kidnappers demand that the FLQ’s manifesto be published, and that their political prisoners be freed.

7th October:  one o’clock in the afternoon.  Mrs. Cross is shown police photographs and identifies Jacques Lanctôt as one of the kidnappers.

8th October:  the FLQ manifesto is published, but negotiations continue over the freeing of political prisoners.

Pierre Laporte is kidnapped:  the crisis intensifies

10th October (five forty in the afternoon):  the Quebec Justice Minister announces that the authorities have decided to categorically reject the demands made by Cross’ kidnappers, nor will they free the political prisoners

10th October (six eighteen in the afternoon):  Pierre Laporte, Vice-Premier of Quebec  and Minister of Labour and Immigration, is kidnapped in front of his home, just as he was about to play ball with his nephew.  Pierre Laporte was second in command of the Quebec Government, and as such, was, allegedly, afforded special police protection.  But the first thing the police did – having been notified of the kidnapping within two minutes of the event – was, yet again, to go straight to the wrong place!

Vallière reports that « the  six eyewitnesses of the kidnapping of Pierre Laporte (his nephew, his wife and their neighbours) are unanimous:  the kidnappers were ‘clean cut’ and well dressed, a fact sergeant Desjardins confirmed to journalists that evening (…) Another witness, who worked in a petrol station on Taschereau boulevard, stated that shortly before the Minister was kidnapped, strangers had asked him how to get to rue Robitaille. ‘I thought they were policemen’, he said, because one was carrying something that looked like a walkie-talkie’ ».

Night of October 12th to 13th:  the Army Mobile Command sends an emissary to Quebec’s Justice Minister, Jérôme Choquette, demanding he sign, in the name of the Bourassa cabinet, a letter requiring intervention by the armed forces.  The cabinet was not then prepared to sign, and Choquette announces he would continue his efforts to persuade the reluctant elements.

15th-17th October:  « for appearances’ sake» the Canadian Parliament debates the opportunity of proclaiming the War Measures Act.  The Opposition puts up a show of protest until Saturday October 

17th.  Pierre Laporte’s body is thereupon discovered, « proving » a posteriori that the measures unleashed on October 16th had been needful.

15th October (two in the afternoon):  the Canadian army begins to deploy in Quebec, at Bourassa’s request.

15th October (nine in the evening):  Bourassa ups the ante, and lays down a six-hour deadline for the kidnappers to hand over James Cross and Pierre Laporte.

16th October (in the night):  Quebec Premier Bourassa signs a letter written by Federal Justice Minister Marc Lalonde, instituting the War Measures Act.  Several thousand soldiers were already deployed in the streets of Quebec and in the Federal Capital Ottawa.  Through the War Measures Act – whose application need not be voted up by Parliament and that has NEVER been abrogated since – the curfew came down, civil liberties were suspended, and, inter alia, search of private domicile without warrant became lawful.  Over four hundred people were arrested.

16th October (four in the morning):  Meeting in Council, the Governor General, the Queen’s direct representative in Canada, approves the proclamation of a state of emergency, pursuant to which the War Measures Act comes into force automatically.

17th October (four in the afternoon):  a member of the Cell that calls itself “Dieppe (Royal 22°)” (this is the name of a French Canadian regiment but that was not, oddly enough, at Dieppe in WWII, where many French Canadians died) calls into the CKAC radio station.  Purportedly, this is a third and heretofore unknown FLQ cell.  The caller announces that Pierre Laporte has been murdered.  The earlier communiqués had all come from the FLQ cell known as Libération, that held James Cross, and that spoke on behalf of the Chenier Cell, the members of which were presumed to be the Pierre Laporte’s kidnappers. The Libération cell, that seemed to find the “Dieppe (Royal 22°)” business disturbing, put out a communiqué at mid-day, calling upon the press to blow the whistle on a “montage” (coup monté) by the Federal Government.  The police prevented that communiqué from being published until December 8th.

Pierre Laporte’s body is found in the boot of the very car used to kidnap him (witnesses had taken down the car’s registration number at the time) later in the evening on the Saint-Hubert military base (!), right next to the Army Mobile Command.  Given the prevailing State of Emergency, who, I ask, could have driven the car onto the base without being stopped and searched?

Credibility is stretched well beyond the breaking point here.

In the hours following on the death of Pierre Laporte, the authorities put out a description of Paul Rose and Marc Carbonneau, but not that of Jacques Rose, Francis Simard or Bernard Lortie.  Paul Rose, Jacques Rose and Francis Simard (presumed to be members alongside Bernard Lortie of the Chénier cell, while Marc Carbonneau and Jacques Lanctôt were part of the Libération cell holding James Cross) had been on police files and monitored since no later than 1968.  The three had been in Texas (or perhaps Mexico) since September 1970, and had raced back to Quebec after James Cross was kidnapped.  The many trips by Chénier cell members during the time Pierre Laporte was held (and the temporary gaoling of Jacques Rose and Francis Simard between October 15th and 17th) lead one to presume that it could only have been someone quite different keeping watch over the Minister, and that the actual role played by the cell in kidnapping and murdering him was secondary, perhaps even notional.

19th October:  the house where Pierre Laporte was held and murdered, or so goes the official thesis, is « discovered »:  5630 rue Armstrong at Saint-Hubert, near the aforesaid military base bearing that name.  That very house had been ransacked by police whilst the Minister might have been there, but nothing was turned up.  Bourassa told Mrs. Laporte on 14th October that the police had found the place her husband was being held:  « he will be freed within hours, we await the opportunity to do so without endangering [him] ». The question remains:  was that safehouse 5630 rue Armstrong?

2nd November:  the Federal Minister John Turner proposes an Emergency Measures Bill, based on the War Measures Act.  The Emergency Measures Act was voted up on December 1st and came into force for five months.

3rd December:  the Emergency Measures Act is signed into law by the Queen.  The crisis was, at least apparently, over.  Why the fresh Emergency Measures?

At that very moment, James Cross is freed, and his kidnappers in the Libération cell are given a safe-conduct to Cuba.

Late December:  Paul and Jacques Rose, as well as Francis Simard are arrested.  The coroner’s report is based upon unsigned confessions.  Paul Rose never acknowledges, not even verbally, the confession attributed to him.  Although he was actually firmly in police custody at the time, to avoid any risk whatsoever that he spill the beans in open Court, he was, unbelievably, tried in absentia!

31st March 1971:  Paul Rose, Bernard Lortie and Francis Simard are sentenced to life imprisonment. Jacques Rose, who was tried later, was acquitted.  The Prosecution Service declines to appeal.  Jacques Lancôt and Marc Carbonneau were already in exile in Cuba.

If we are to go by the explicit terms of the War Measures Act, the entire country was about to go down in murder and mayhem.  The truth is rather different:  the FLQ was a tiny, two-cell organisation with a total membership of about ten!  But we read, at Article 2 of the War Measures Act:

“EVIDENCE OF WAR

The issue of a proclamation by Her Majesty, or under the authority of the Governor in Council shall be conclusive evidence that war, invasion, or insurrection, real or apprehended exists and has existed for any period of time therein stated, and of its continuance, until by the issue of a further proclamation it is declared that the war, invasion or insurrection no longer exists.”

Until 1970, the War Measures Act, first promulgated in 1914, had been proclaimed only twice before: when Canada entered the World War I, in 1914, and World War II, in 1939.  Here, we are to take the  Governor General’s personal opinion, as “conclusive evidence” of a State of War, that absolutely did not exist.

What did the victim himself think about all this?  All that is known for certain, is that in none of his letters to Robert Bourassa whilst kidnapped did Pierre Laporte ever refer to the FLQ, nor did his wife, or most of his friends, ever buy the official story. A Royal Mounted Canadian Police (RCMP) report dated March 3rd 1971 states that Mrs. Laporte’s opinion was that the authorities had executed her husband.

There is a dreadful similarity between the Laporte kidnapping and murder, and that of former Prime Minister Aldo Moro in 1978, down to the detail of the police wandering about in circles in the vicinity of the safehouse.  In both cases, subsequent events show that the real intention was never to free the kidnap victim, but to use the crisis to shift the balance of power in the country, in favour of rentier-finance interests.

The Material Ease of Terrorists

It is rather astonishing that so many players from that time, have risen to positions of material ease and social prominence.  Precisely at the point the synarchy has launched a fresh wave of strategy of tension in Europe and the Americas, they appear to want to keep a tight grip on the main players in the events of October 1970, in order to avoid their disclosing what really went on.

Ex-FLQer Jacques Lanctôt now owns his own publishing house, with a large stock-in-trade on cultural, sociological and psychological issues, and essays on the separatist movement.  On March 28th 2004, Télé-Quebec broadcast a documentary called Hostage (Otage), comprised of interviews with Jacques Lanctôt, who kidnapped James Cross, and the Cross family. The documentary was finished in early 2004. 

Lanctot is now a leading journalist with Canoe Inc. which is owned by Quebecor (whose Vice Chairman is none other than Brian Mulroney)

From 1996 to 2002, Paul Rose had achieved such a miraculous boost of success that he became the head of the Quebec wing of the New Democratic Party of Quebec! This Party merged with the Union des Forces Progresistes which in turn merged with two other organizations to become Quebec Solidaire which currently holds 7.6% of the seats in Quebec’s National Assembly. On March 14, 2013 Quebec Solidaire spokesman MP Amir Khadir introduced a resolution into the National Assembly to honour Paul Rose: https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/political-party-wants-to-honour-paul-rose-late-flq-kidnapper-following-his-death-1.1195522