Les Relations des Jésuites contiennent 6 tomes et défont le mythe du bon Sauvage de Jean-Jacques Rousseau, et aussi des légendes indiennes pour réclamer des territoires, ainsi que la fameuse «spiritualité amérindienne».

jeudi, mai 24, 2007



'Canadians should keep in mind that little known government agencies like the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) are spending millions of tax dollars to do clandestine work,' Québec lawyer Pierre Cloutier says (Toronto Star, 30 May 1992). 'Who are they spying on?,' he asks Canadians, I would answer.

I ask: Why do we need such agencies in this country at all? And if we do need them, why should they be above parliamentary scrutiny? We are told by Solicitor-General Herb Gray that the main focus of CSIS these days, now that the Cold War is over, is countering international terrorism.... They collect information, analyze it, and gather intelligence to counter suspected threats to the security of Canada. They tap telephones, open mail, break into homes and offices, and examine normally private files such as medical records («CSIS Tales Spook the Whole Country», The Toronto Star, 27 August 1994). Does not this flagrant violation of law and order create rather than counter terrorism? And how many cases of international terrorism have we had in recent years, or indeed in the whole history of our country? Breaking into people's homes, opening mail, examining private files like medical records. Is the basis of precisely that: TERRORISM.

In order to «counter suspected threats to the security of Canada», CSIS, we are told by Solicitor-General Gray, has 2,366 employees and an annual budget of $208 million dollars. Not only do we have the budget of CSIS, but we have the budget of SIRC (Security Intelligence Review Committee), the cabinet-appointed watchdog over the spycatching agency. If the dog needs $208 million a year (and we are not sure whether this includes hardware or not), the watchdog would, I should think, need as much or more: he is after all a bigger dog.

We should ask too: How many spies has CSIS caught? What is the cost of catching ONE spy? And who is he spying for? Canada or the United Nations and the new world order? How has the most notable spy for Canada been treated in this century: Mr. Igor Gouzenko. In 1945, at great risk to his own life, he went to the RCMP and Prime Minister with over a hundred documents showing beyond a shadow of a doubt that a new world order plan had been hatched to take over Canada from within. Gouzenko was treated politely, but the key information that he came to warn us about is still under official seal. Indeed, Trudeau's last act in power was to seal the documents for another twenty years.

In terms of budget, one should also inquire into the amount of taxpayer's money, won by the sweat of their brows, is being siphoned off to CSE every year? I should suspect that since the budget, like the activities of CSE are not subject to the scrutiny of either Parliament or the auditors, they would get at least double what the underdogs get: CSIS and SIRC. This adds up to something in the region of a billion dollars a year to fight terrorism in Canada - every year. Does anybody have any wonder why we are so deeply in debt?

Why do we need an Official Secrets Acts in a democracy anyway? Is the Secrets Act protecting the people or the officials? In terms of national security what assets have we left to secure? Over the years we have given them all away, without the people's consent, and our last great remaining asset, our water, we have just given away without the people's knowledge. A people who remain ignorant of the agencies that have been set up to spy on them will with time be led, like lambs to the abattoir, by the very organizations their representatives have set up to protect them. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes (who will keep watch on the watchers?)

Why has this material been made public precisely at this time, this little drama been put on for the Canadian people now. To clear the decks for the next step? To get the public used to police forces demanding information, that they have a right to go anywhere, brook any opposition, break down any door that impedes them, waving the Official Secrets Act in the name of national security, something rather identical to the primary mission of the newly-created MJTF Police Force in the United States: «house-to-house search and seizure; separation and categorization of men, women, and children in large numbers; the transferal to detention facilities, and the use of those facilities for interrogation purposes» (Professor Robert O'Driscoll, The New World Order in North America: Mechanism in Placefor a Police State, p.31; see also «Mounties Raid Sun» , Toronto Sun, 23 August 1994).



Why, too, should CSIS investigate the CBC to find the names of racists inside the Canadian Airborne Regiment? Were Neo-Nazis planted inside the Airborne?

The Airborne went to Somalia under the United Nations, serving with American Marines: two élite Commandos under one Command in an illegal operation. At approximately the same time, in Canada, CSIS began spying on Somalis living in Metropolitan Toronto. Do the Somalis living in Canada really represent a threat to national security, as CSIS maintains? Could there be a cosmic dimension to all of this? Why should a nationality be hit in their homeland at the same time that its immigrants are 'hit' in their adopted home - Canada? Surely there must be a hidden agenda here! Or, perhaps more sinisterly, a hidden blueprint, known to somebody. We don't know: we haven't been shown the plans.

What threat could the Somalian people pose to the formation of a WORLD PLAN? Or is that race to be the foundation of the plan? Are their blood and their bones to be the mortar and the stones of the Temple that is to be built?

Who will be the floorboards? Canadians, who are not fit, perhaps to form the foundation? Who will raise the roof? And who will be the pillar in this monstrous idol made, like Solomon's Temple, by man's hands and to man's image and likeness.

This may appear idle speculation, but I draw your attention to a Toronto Sun article which is buried in the same issue as some of the CSIS/Heritage Front revelations (24 August 1994). I quote:
Up to 4,000 warrants for immigration offenders who've gone into hiding are finally being put into the Canadian police computer system, immigration workers say. Toronto immigrant officials said some of the warrants have been sitting in boxes since 1991 at a 136 Edward Street office. A special RCMP immigration task force has only nabbed and deported 14 offenders since formed about six weeks ago. Officials said the warrants have been sitting in boxes because of cuts to the enforcement budget. In addition, there's another 10,000 files in a Rexdale warehouse and 7,000 others awaiting a fourth review to stay in Canada. There are an estimated 40,000 illegal immigrants being sought on warrants in the Toronto area.
Are these displaced immigrants to be rounded up, organized, and graded to form the stones for the foundation of THE TEMPLE?



This whole situation becomes all the more intriguing when we realize that earlier this year the Canadian Army set up a Counter Terrorist Force Special Task Force to deal with terrorists. This is the well-tried path of Governments who want to create turbulence and fear among the people: create the crisis, resolve the crisis, and the Government becomes stronger in the process. Let the people catch a glimpse of chaos, restore order quickly so that they will be psychologically prepared for the chaos that, like tomorrow, is certainly coming.

Attention is diverted from the real crisis that the Government is incapable of resolving, the crisis which has been created by the Government.

The parrot-like reiteration of the threat to national security exhibits all of the hallmarks of the classic prestidigitator's law of misdirection,'a fundamental law of magic: put all your attention on my right hand while my left hand works its magic. While police are making a show of knocking on doors and waving the Official Secrets Act like a flag, supposedly searching for information, warehouses full of information on 40,000 people in the Metropolitan Toronto area is about to be fed into a computer by the left hand while the attention of the public is riveted on the Right. Presto! («Warrants Finally on Line», Toronto Sun, 24 August 1994).

Finally, why did the CSIS Federal Agent provide funds to install members of the Heritage Front into the ranks of Preston Manning's Reform Party? Why would Heritage Front members provide Manning with security during two 1991 visits to Toronto («CSIS Mole Eyed Reform», Toronto Sun, 14 August 1994)? There is a reason.


We have only been able to hint here at the concentrated attempts of new world order forces to discredit and disband our most élite fighting regiment, the Airborne. One of the most deadly attempts was in March 1993 in Somalia, when Corporal Clayton Matchee, beat a Somalian prisoner to death and later attempted to commit suicide, and another soldier, Private Kyle Brown, was sentenced to five years in prison for torture and manslaughter.
As always, it takes the truth some time to surface, and it was only today (18 October 1994) - long after the trial - that the real reason for this strange and uncharacteristic behaviour on behal of these Airborne soldiers was revealed by Peter Worthington in
The Toronto Sun.

The troops were given a drug, Mefloquine, which prevents malaria: it also has severe side-effects, and the Canadian troops were given a 21% greater dose than the Americans. Why? Major Barry Armstrong, a doctor with the Airborne in Somalia, reports: «After taking the pill I couldn't concentrate, had unreasonable anger, bad dreams, weird ideas and couldn't think clearly.» Armstrong goes on to note the «neurological side-effects'of mefloquine which include convulsions, psychosis, nightmares, dizziness, headache, confusion, anxiety and depression. One psychiatric casuality had to be evacuated back to Canada.

The Airborne has been severely discredited as a consequence of this incident in Somalia. And yet, it is clear that the soldiers could have been completely innocent. What dark hand is pulling the strings so as to discredit or incapacitate our troops abroad? If the Airborne goes, and with new world order forces almost in command of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force, we shall have precious little defence in this, the most populous part of the country when the final take-over comes. That take-over will be attempted within the next six months. Has, therefore, the time not come for Canadians to catch on to what is unfolding before their very eyes? lt will be no good to say,«Oh, I was asleep», or «I was tending to my own affairs», or «gathering money for my grandchildren». If the base of the country goes, we the once proud citizens of that country will become mere flotsam and jetsam, passive particlesi n a sea we can no longer control, washed over by wave after wave, until we are left ont he shore praying and gaspingfor a rescue that will never come.

502-502 Canada calls for permanent U.N. peace force



UNITED NATIONS - Canada will establish a "centre for peacekeeping research and training to serve as a discussion forum on future directions of the U.N., Foreign Affairs Minister André Ouellet announced yesterday.

The centre, to be located at the former military base in Cornwallis, N.S., will be named after former prime minister Lester Pearson.

The Cornwallis base was one of several to be closed - a body-blow to the local economy - as a result of "peace dividend" military budget cuts announced in February by Defence Minister David Collenette.

Since 1992, when they were the opposition, the party has called for establishment of a peacekeeper training centre at CFB Cornwallis.

Several countries have already expressed their frustration with the U.N.'s structure this week, but Canada was the first nation to table a coherent plan for U.N. reform.

"We do not say that everything must be changed," Ouellet told the Genenal Assembly, noting that reform already in place, such as the creation of a U.N. inspector-genenal to oversee finances, represented steps in the right direction.

But he said Canada's historic post-World War II role as an architect of U.N. peacekeeping gives it a special interest in ensuring the organization continues to fulfil the expectations of its founders.
Ouellet's other proposal included:

  • Improving the U.N.'s capacity for waging "preventive diplomacy" through the early use of economic and humanitarian aid to regions on the brink of civil conflict.
  • Overhauling the organization's jumble of economic and social agencies that often duplicate each other's activities.
  • Streamlining the decision-making process in key U.N. bodies such as the Security Council.
  • Reforming the archaic system of dues and assessments under which member states pay for U.N. peacekeeping and other activities.

At a news conference after his speech, he said the establishment of a rapid-deployment force is one of the keys to improving the management of international crises.

"We need a force able to react quickly if necessary," he sed. Nevertheless, he refused to spell out how Canada will contribute to such a force, saying he wants to wait for the results of the study.
Aides said the review, which would involve foreign as well as Canadian experts, will be sent to all U.N. member states before next year's General Assembly session.

Toronto Star (30 September 1994). George Orwell taught us how to read the 'double speak' of the New World Order: 'peace' equals 'war'.

503-503 Canada to build peacekeeper training centre



UNITED NAIIONS - Warning the United Nations is begining to "drift," Canada has proposed a sweeping shake-up of the organization's peacekeeping and economic assisstance activities.

Foreign Affair Minister André OueHet announced that Canada will sponsor a feasibility study on a permanent U.N. military force, as part of a five-point reform plan to give the U.N "a second wind" for the 21st century.

"Too often, the intervention of the United Nations comes too late, iS too slow and is carried out under inadequate conditions," Ouellet said in a speech to the General Assembly.

"We invest too much energy in activities of marginal use and in unimportant quarrels when there is an emergency right under our noses.

"As a result of our extreme reluctance to implement administrative reform we are handicapping the only institution on which we can depend."

The idea is a military force comprising troops permanently asssigned to the United Nations has won increasing support in the past year from top UN officials and who argue it would have saved lives and avoided bureaucratic snafus in Rwanda and Somalia.

Russian President Boris Yeltsin is the latest national leader to indicate his support during this week's General Assembly debate.

But the United States and several other Western powers have opposed any structure that would control over their peacekeeping troops in the field.

The open support of Canada - one of the U.N.'s foundingding natioris - is bound to place the question on the agenda for next year,s 50th celebration of the world body.

Ouellet said the idea is one of several reforms that could "restore the relevence and leadership of the United Nations system" in the 21st century. Tunning to the U.N.'s system of financing, Ouellet said the organization needs to put in place "sound management" practices.

Our taxpayers do not question the need to coontribute to the U.N, but they quite rightly expect that their contributions will be spent judiciously," he said.

He called for a review of the methods by which individual member contributions are assessed.

Critics have argued that while the United States annually pays more than 30 per cent of the cost of peacekeeping, other wealthy nation contribute far less than they are able to afford.

Canada is among the few nations that have completely paid their U.N. bills.

Toronto Star (30 September 1994). Again Orwell is right: for "peace" substitute "war".



by Larry Maheu
(Richmond Hill, Ontario)
Canada doesn't need CSIS - its own version of the CIA. We already have the RCMP, and it can do all we need. The RCMP can report directly to us, the government. CSIS already acts like the CIA with its own secret agendas, and with the false attitude it can act independently from the federal government. This is unacceptable. CSIS should be dissolved immediately.
This letter appeared in the Toronto Sun (2 September 1994).




We alert Canadians to the look and demeanour of their new Secret Police, ETF (Emergency Task Force), the equivalent of the newly created MJFT Secret Terrorist Police in the United States. Both the Canadian and American forces are directly under the jurisdiction of the United Nations. A large component of the forces comes from overseas. Notice the blue colour they are wearing which indicates nothing less than a UN Swat Team on, of all places, Main Street, off the Danforth here in Toronto.

The object of these photographs, as with the Edmonton Sun photograph that we published in section IV, is to get the public used to the look of such alien forces in our towns and cities. Nearly always they are called in on a false alarm. But they have been seen and photographed. We are deeply grateful to Trish Hickey and the Toronto Sun for permission to publish the photographs. The caption to the photograph reads in the Sun, 'CHEQUE MATE. - Members of the Emergency Task Force surround the manager of a cheque-cashing outlet on Danforth Ave. near Main St. yesterday. What was thought to be a gun incident turned out to be a false alarm.' The story reads.

A cop check bounced after the manager of a cheque-cashing parlor called 911 to
rush over and save him from a gun-wielding exemployee.
But after heavily-armed Emergency Task Force officers surrounded the Cheques Cashed Shop on Danforth Ave., near Main St. at 10:40 a.m. yesterday, both the female suspect and manager emerged - but without a gun.
'There was no gun,' Sgt. Bob Eberle said. 'Through second-hand information, we heard she had a gun and that's why ETF was called in,' said Eberle.
He said that earlier in the day the owner had called the unidentified former employee, 40, to come in and see him about some missing funds.
When she arrived, she told her boss that she took the funds, so he called 911, police said.Traffic along the Danforth was snarled for 45 minutes and hundreds of morning shoppers were stopped in their tracks as more than 10 officers prepared for what looked to be a take-down.
But at 11:06 a.m., a blonde woman with shoulder-length hair wearing a dark blue shirt and blue jeans emerged from the front of the store with her hands raised behind her neck.
A few minutes later, the owner walked out with his hands on his head and both were whisked away in separate cars.
Both were questioned and released.
Police said the owner can file charges against the woman if he chooses.

One of these days those boys are going to appear and it will not be a false alarm. How can home firearms be a defence against these sophisticated weapons? No, the 99.7% of Canadians who are not involved in this Plan to deliver our country to a WORLD STATE DICTATORSHIP must find another way. Write to us.


Professor Robert O'Driscoll
Give a dog a bad name, then hang him - an old saying.

'The one thing you can count on from your colleagues, Bob (long pause) - is their cowardice' (Father John Kelly, President of St. Michael's College, 1958-79; President of St. Michael's College Foundation, 1958-86).


While I was assembling this book, an Investigation was being conducted on me at the University of Toronto. This was commissioned by the Provost's Office a few days after the publication of the second volume of my Armageddon trilogy, The New World Order in North America: Mechanism in Place for a Police State.

The chief section of this book presented a Counter-Intelligence Report of far-reaching significance for the citizens of North America that had been prepared by Mark Koernke of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. At the time I believed strongly, and I still believe, that the substance of this Counter-Intelligence Report should be brought to the attention of Canadians. After ensuring the authenticity of the Report, I prepared an edition of it in July and August of 1993 and published it on a day which has gathered a certain significance for me throughout my 28 years teaching at St. Michael's College: 29 September 1993, the Feast of St. Michael and all his Angels.

Eight days later the Provost's Office announced to the Media that he was initiating an Investigation which was initially called a 'Review of Professor Robert O'Driscoll'. On 31 January 1994 Professor Thomas Adamowski (Department of English) and Principal Joseph Boyle (St. Michael's College) submitted two separate reports to the Provost. These two Reports were then submitted to a third party from outside the University, Mr. John Murray - a lawyer with the firm of Genest Murray DesBrisay and Lamek - who prepared, in his words, 'a summary of the results of the investigation' (referred to henceforth as 'Summary of Investigation 'or simply 'Summary').

On 9 March 1994 - the day after Varsity published a scurrilous account of an 'artistic disagreement' EE and I had almost a hundred miles away (we are after all the ‘fighting Irish'; her people are from the North, mine from the South) - Mr. Murray sent his 'Summary' to the Faculty Association of the University, stating in his accompanying letter that the Reports 'issued to the Provost by Professor Adamowski and Professor Boyle may differ substantially from what I am reporting to you.'

This, surely, is an astounding statement: a lawyer confessing that his 'Summary' of an investigation (which means a life-or-death career verdict for the individual involved) 'may differ substantially' from the original findings of the Investigators.

In any case, The Faculty Association sent the'Summary' on to me. This was followed on March 30 with a letter from the Provost ordering me 'not to enter on either the University of Toronto or St. Michael's College premises 'and that any' violation of this order will mean you are trespassing and the University of Toronto's [sic] or St. Michael's College will respond accordingly.' He went on to state that the Summary 'may lead to the imposition of discipline' and asked for a response rom me by April 15.

I indicated that it was 'impossible' to prepare a response unless I had access to the original documents (to which I am entitled), particularly the 300 or so Student Assessments during the five-year period, and the responses to 140 letters that Professor Adamowski had solicited from my students in connection with the Review/ Investigation. I made a formal request to the Provost that I be given access to the documents. The Provost replied on April 11, saying that there would be no extension in the deadline: he made no reference to the documents I had requested.

In an attempt to find some form of just procedure, I then turned outside the University and engaged Mr. Charles Roach to plead my case. Mr. Roach wrote to the University as follows:

Professor O'Driscoll should like us to submit a comprehensive response to the allegations on his behalf. However, I have advised Professor O'Driscoll that we would be unable to provide a detailed answer and defence based on the information that has been furnished to him.

I understand that Professor O'Driscoll has requested access to certain information but has either been refused or ignored.

Article 10 of the Memorandum of Agreement between the Governing Council of the University of Toronto and the University of Toronto Faculty Association gives Professor O'Driscoll the right to examine all documents pertaining to him. Accordingly, we want to examine Professor
O'Driscoll's entire file or have a copy of it.

Mr. Roach then listed the particular files to which we were seeking access, and concluded as follows: 'Professor O'Driscoll wishes to provide full and complete answers. I have advised him that the investigation, report and threatened consequences appear to be outside the normal procedure for disciplining a tenured professor.'

This letter was sent on 14 April 1994. No response had been received by today - June 21 - and I am still barred from entering my office and the Library. Today Mr. Roach sent yet another letter to the University:

I am concerned that you have not, despite my repeated requests, responded to my letter of April 14, 1994 on Professor O'Driscoll's behalf.

You will recall that on March 9, 1994 you sent Suzie Scotta summary of the reports submitted by Professor Adamowski and Principal Boyle. You indicated that the summary was 'without prejudice' and 'may differ substantially' from the reports 'which may be issued.' We have not seen the reports.
Professor O'Driscoll was sent two letters dated March 30, 1994. In one, Vice-President and
Provost Adel Sedra noted that the 'reports' may lead to disciplinary action and demanded that Professor O'Driscoll respond no later than April 15, 1994.

The other letter, co-signed by Sedra and Principal Boyle, advised that there were 'more reports of alleged misconduct' and as a result Professor O'Driscoll was banned from the campus.

Prior to retaining me, Professor O'Driscoll tried to obtain material that would allow him to respond to the allegations. He asked that the April 15th deadline be postponed. Sedra refused to postpone his deadline and ignored O'Driscoll's request for access to his file.

I responded to the above-noted demand on Professor O'Driscoll's behalf on April 14, 1994
indicating that we could not provide a full and complete answer without further details and access to certain material. We have had no reply.

One must remember in what follows that the Investigation - one unprecedented in the history of the University of Toronto - was initiated to probe my editing and publishing of a particular book, or rather two books. This clearly falls within my employment as an academic, for Article 5 'Academic Freedom and Responsibilities in the Memorandum of agreement between the U of T Faculty Association and the Governing Council,' - and which is mentioned in the Vice-Provost's Media Release of 7 October 1993 - clearly states that 'academic freedom is the freedom to examine, question, teach, and learn, and it involves the right to investigate, speculate, and comment without reference to prescribed doctrine, as well as the right to criticize the University and society at large.'Academic freedom, the Article goes on,

entitles faculty and librarians to (a) freedom in carrying out their activities'. (b) freedom in pursuing research and scholarship and in publishing or making public the results thereof, and (c) freedom from institutional censorship. Academic freedom does not require neutrality on the part of the individual nor does it preclude commitment on the part of the individual. Rather academic freedom makes such commitment possible.
It is clear from the above that it was not I, but the University Administration in the Provost's Office and St. Michael's College, who has violated the critical 'Academic Freedom and Responsibilities' Article which is indeed the raison d'etre of all Universities.

The questions that my commentary will attempt to answer are: Was an outside lawyer hired to shift responsibility from the University for this clear violation of Article 5? Was there external pressure on the University of Toronto to deal with the matter, but internally the Administration did not want to set a precedent - either for the U of T or for Universities elsewhere, some of which would 'blacklist' the University of Toronto for the way it had dealt with the matter?

In any case, the first step was to divert attention away from the books themselves and shift the ground to an extremely slippery terrain - indeed, one that keeps shifting. In the fifteen-page Summary of the Investigation, only a couple of sentences are devoted to the books.

May I say that I would feel remiss in my responsibilities as an academic living at this critical moment in human history if I did not take this opportunity to bring these matters, as well as the other matters addressed in this book, before the Canadian public and other Canadian Universities. At the same time, I should like to respond to the charges contained in the Lawyer's 'Summary', addressing my response directly to the Provost of the University of Toronto rather than through any legal or political intermediary.

Response to: Adel Sedra, Provost of the University of Toronto
From: Professor Robert O'Driscoll
Re: 'Summary of Investigation' by Mr. John Murray
Date: 16 June 1994
'It is important,' a March Memo of the U of T Faculty of Arts and Science reads,'to ensure "fairness" of process and procedure when dealing with an allegation of academic offence. As well, it is important to be aware that the onus is on the University to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that an offence has been committed.... If you suspect that an academic offence has been or is being committed, ensure that you have the supporting documentation to prove the allegation. No proof, no case. It is not sufficient to say you suspect that an offence has occurred - there must be proof of an offence. This applies to cases heard at the departmental level, the decanal or Tribunal levels.'

Such is the ideal of the University of Toronto with relation to academic offenses. The practice, however, as manifested in the 'Report on the Recent Work of Professor Robert O'Driscoll' seems far removed from the principle articulated above. The Report - or at least the part of it most damning to me - is built on hearsay, innuendo, insinuation, slander, second-hand reports, third-hand reports, and allegations that are insusceptible to proof and which are made by individuals who are not identified. The dates on which many of the alleged incidents or offenses took place are not specified, and even when they are identified the wrong dates are given: on one date, for example, no less than four incidents are described in graphic detail and reported to have taken place at St. Michael's College: I can actually prove that I was not near the University of Toronto campus on that day.

In a democracy that takes its legal system from Great Britain, as Canada does, anybody accused of a misdemeanour - let alone of a graver offence - has the right to know who the accuser or accusers are. I am saddened and disturbed that a Professor teaching 28 years at this institution should have been denied this fundamental right.

Archives du blogue