“The hostility oozing out of these French women toward me grew more intense as the days went by.”

THE NEW CANADA: MARGARET TRUDEAU VERSUS THE QUÉBÉCOCRACY

Christopher Richard Wade Dettling (2017)

I don’t think in words … I think in the abstract. Pierre Trudeau¹

All of it seemed beyond reason to me. Margaret Trudeau²

Behold the passage of a half century of intestinal political and economic quarrels, leading the Canadian Heartland nowhere except onto the dunghill of financial, commercial and industrial retardation, especially when compared to America: Some fifty years ago to the day, Margaret Trudeau first conceived of the notion of the Québec Regime in Ottawa and Empire of Paul Desmarais (the White Gold ruling class) in embryonic form. The influence of Margaret Trudeau on the formation of the New Canada, and the demise of the Laurentian ruling classes, outshines them all: Olive Diefenbaker, Maryon Pearson, Maureen McTeer, Geills Turner, Mila Mulroney, and Aline Chrétien. No wonder she was so ruthlessly attacked from all quarters by the élites of the Québécocentric factions in every party.

After being bamboozled at first, and then betrayed, Margaret Trudeau finally rejects Pierre Trudeau and the Québec Regime in Ottawa,³ and in her book, Beyond Reason, she exposes the depraved nature of the early Québécocracy in Ottawa:

“I now settled down to the inflexible routine of the civil service … ‘Ah, Miss Sinclair, just one thing. Would you mind wearing that little black sweater dress I’ve seen you in, and could you perhaps leave off the glasses?’”⁴

In her friendly and lucid language, Margaret Trudeau outlines her experiences of the early Québec Regime in Ottawa and Empire of Paul Desmarais, forging the first truly conceptual elucidation of the Québécocracy grounded in historical events, as a Machiavellian ruling class:

“My job, I discovered, consisted of finding ways of helping misfits ‘rejoin the mainstream of Canadian economic life.’ The chronically poor, the hippies, the unemployed were all placed under our scrutiny as under an enormous magnifying class. I wasn’t totally happy with our way of going about things: Living in our fluorescently lit, wall–to–wall carpeted offices, drawing our generous salaries, and having remarkably little contact with the people whose lives we were supposed to be magically transforming … [the] thing that enraged me was the terribly sexist nature of Canadian provincial politics [1974 federal election] … I was the only woman on the platform.”⁵

In this truly amazing literary and historical treasure, we discover how Margaret Trudeau and her generation were betrayed by the Québécocentric élites in Ottawa, including Pierre Trudeau himself, and follow the tragic narrative of how she escaped from worldly damnation, and found her spiritual salvation.

Margaret Trudeau pioneered the discovery of the world historical conception of the Québec Regime in Ottawa and Empire of Paul Desmarais as the Québécocracy, the notion of which, after some thirty years of intellectual labor, is finally brought to fruition in the American idealistic philosophy.

A Personal Critique of French Chauvinism

Margaret Trudeau comes from a West Coast family of Scottish extraction; her father represented the interests of British Columbia and Western Canada in Lester Pearson’s administration. The young Margaret Trudeau is certainly no French Chauvinist:

“Robert’s Creek is a beautiful place, and perfect for self indulgence. Grandma’s house stood on a bluff overlooking the Howe Sound, a wilderness of wild roses and hedge flowers Where I could sit and day–dream, watching the endless passing of tugs towing the log booms down to Vancouver … When I was a child I often sat on the steps of the cottage, listening to his [James Sinclair’s] stories of the move from Scotland, and of great fishing sagas, or singing sea shanties with him.”⁶

Time and time again, albeit in her own vocabulary, Margaret Trudeau rails against the French Chauvinism of the Québécocracy:

“The first question Wendy [Porteous] put to me was: ‘Do you speak French?’ Pierre didn’t give me a chance to reply. Unwittingly, for we had never discussed my languages, he said, ‘With a good old French name like ‘St. Claire,’ what do you expect?’ ‘Ah bon,’ said Wendy. And, despite the fact that both she and her husband were English–speaking, and that the other guests spoke it perfectly, the whole dinner was conducted in French. The terrible thing was that I didn’t understand a word — I couldn’t speak French at all … No one spoke to me. They were only interested in Pierre and in their own lives … I had never felt so insulted, so betrayed, in all my life.”⁷

Margaret Trudeau positively revolts against the French Chauvinism of the Bonapartist ruling class:

“There is no doubt that the French can be the rudest, most arrogant people in the world … The hostility oozing out of these French women toward me grew more intense as the days went by.”⁸

The Bonapartist ruling class is rude and arrogant, perhaps even the rudest and most arrogant in the world, — autocracy founded on popular consent is rude and arrogant. The French Chauvinism of the Bonapartists is not attuned to the political and economic rationality of the young Margaret Trudeau, and for good reason: She is a Canadocentrist, albeit in embryonic form. The hostility of the Bonapartist ruling class, their French Chauvinism as characterized by Margaret Trudeau, is “oozing out,” — the image of an abscess, a sore, even gangrene, comes to mind. The hostility of the Bonapartist ruling class, increasing in its intensity toward her, is the young Margaret Trudeau’s own personal experience of Machiavellism, as the clash between republicanism and monarchism, unleashed across Europe by the rise of the British Empire and its Industrial Revolution, which caused a revolt amongst the degenerate ruling classes on the continent, producing the French Revolution and leading to the collapse of European modernity in the world wars, — but producing an opposite revolt amongst the superior ruling classes of the New World, leading to the American Revolution and the rise of Globalism.

In the last half of the 20th century, this struggle takes the world historical form of the clash between communism and capitalism: After the collapse of the Soviet empire, in the age of Globalism and world civilization, this selfsame struggle continues in the warfare against Americanism, in the various movements of anti–Americanism, especially in the Middle East. Global civilization spells the end of this world historical contest between superior and inferior ruling classes in the arena of politics and economics, in the reconciliation of the two hemispheres, in the supremacy of Americanism and Global rational political and economic order: This at least is the world historical teaching of the American idealistic philosophy, born from the ashes of German Idealism, — the sublation of Kant and Hegel.

Systematically promoted as the Francophonie and Communauté (the French Empire) by the Gaullist Troisième Voie, and promoted by other modern irrationalists at the Élysée Palace over the years as well, entrenched in the Fifth République and De Gaulle’s Constitution, French Chauvinism is a Machiavellian ploy designed to appeal to the franco–Canadian electorate, in the name of “French Canada,” namely the modern European political and economic irrationalism of the European Bonapartist ruling classes, dressed–up in the traditional franco–Canadian garb:

“My family has always been rouge [Red], Liberal in the free–thinking, anti–clerical, anti–establishment tradition of the nineteenth century … I had become a lawyer in order to become a politician … I was quite left wing when I began in politics. I wasn’t obsessed with making money … My pitch has always been to the working class because the Liberal Party in my riding is supported by the unions and the workers. We were the party that fought Duplessis, and I was an authentic descendant of those gutsy rouges who had fought against the bishops … Politics is a game of friends.”⁹

That Canadian politics under the Québec Regime in Ottawa is a “Game of Friends,” namely the friends of Paul Desmarais and the Power Corporation, equally applies to Trudeau, Mulroney, Chrétien and Martin:

“The deep emotional connection with Laurier and his vision of Liberalism never left him … it was also about a particular kind of politics … My father’s battles … arose from a vision of a very substantially reformed [Canadian] capitalism … in my own career, I have tried to be faithful to my father’s legacy.”¹⁰

Canadian Liberalism, as promoted by Wilfrid Laurier and his government, is the contagion of the modern European political and economic irrationalism of the European Bonapartist ruling classes in Canada:

“We unceasingly approach toward an ideal which we never reach. We dream of the highest good … the immortal soul dwells in the mortal body, so long shall its desires be beyond its means, its actions can never equal its conceptions.”¹¹

In Sir Wilfrid Laurier’s mytho–poetical politologie, we unceasingly approach toward an ideal which we never reach, we only dream of the highest good: Political and economic actions can never equal political and economic conceptions. Rational political and economic order is a pipe–dream, according to Sir Wilfrid: Laurierism is modern European political and economic irrationalism in Canada, namely French Machiavellism, the raison d’état of the Bonapartist ruling classes of Europe.

From whence comes autocracy founded on popular consent, the Napoléonic and French revolutionary conception of right, namely French Machiavellism?

Niccolò Machiavelli: “These principalities … are upheld by higher causes, which the human mind cannot attain to, I will abstain from speaking of them; for being exalted and maintained by God, it would be the work of a presumptuous and foolish man to discuss them … if one could change one’s nature with time and circumstances, fortune would never change … God will not do everything, in order not to deprive us of freewill.”¹²

Higher causes, which the human mind cannot attain to, are exalted and maintained by God, the very highest power. Higher causation and rationality is the realm of the highest power, and is beyond the reach of humanity, civilization, and the rationality of political and economic order. What are the rational determinations of the highest power? We must abstain from speaking of them, for being exalted and maintained by God, it would be the work of a presumptuous and foolish man to discuss them: The highest power of Machiavellism is the Absolute of Kant and the modern irrationalists. The highest power governing human actions, the fountainhead of all justice according to the Machiavellians, the dispensers of modern freedom, is Unknowable: The fountainhead of the Napoléonic and French revolutionary conception of right is modern unreason: “Empiricism began its career with a great bound of energy, starting with Machiavelli.”¹³

The “rationality governing human actions, the fountainhead of justice,” according to Machiavelli, his delusion of rationality and human reason, is modern unreason, the basis of the Napoléonic and French revolutionary conception of right: Autocracy founded on popular consent, the Napoléonic and French revolutionary conception of right, therefore comes from the modern sophistry of Kant, Hume, Leibniz and Locke and then ultimately from Machiavelli. Bonapartism, autocracy founded on popular consent, is Machiavellism in France, the Napoléonic and French revolutionary conception of right: French Machiavellism is modern unreason in the world historical arena of European politics and economics.

Incidentally, the Machiavellian calculations of the Bonapartist ruling classes of Europe have paid–off handsomely over the decades, considering the $Billions from the treasury of Canada that are “invested” (stashed–away) in the vaults of Euroland (far beyond the grasp of Revenue Canada), and the massive European infrastructure projects built at below market costs by the Québec Inc., and heavily subsidized by South Central Ontario and Western Canada. Bonapartism (“autocracy founded on popular consent,” — H.A.L. Fisher)¹⁴ especially in Europe, has been the primary beneficiary of Québec Regime political and economic corruption over the years: We need not rehash the Airbus scandal involving “lying Brian” and his Québécocentric conservatives (and many other scandals, like the helicopters and submarines): After all, Mulroney was exonerated by Jean Chrétien (himself complicit in the similar corruption), who had family ties to his main political backer, the now deceased Paul Desmarais of Power Corporation …

Margaret Trudeau’s Proto–Canadocentricism

Over and over again, Margaret Trudeau demonstrates her political and economic proto–Canadocentric tendencies, probably learned from her family and her Western Canadian childhood, growing up in Vancouver on the coast of British Columbia. In Canadian politics during the early 1970s, the proto–Canadocentricism of the young Margaret Trudeau is opposed to the Québécocentricism of the White Gold ruling class in Ottawa:

“I was learning about politics all right. They weren’t party politics perhaps, but as an observer, reading, listening, talking to the politicians who surrounded us, I was gaining an incredible amount of unpartisan knowledge every day and filing it away in my mind … The political touchstone in this country is Toronto [the Heartland].”¹⁵

Margaret Trudeau’s Politics

“Then I got up to speak. I talked about motherhood, my children and the family, and before long all the moms in the crowd had tears trickling down their cheeks. When I finished, others spoke, and the atmosphere grew better and better. It was all very moving, not just for Pierre and me but for the whole crowd, who sensed how important the occasion was, and rose to it. From that moment I had no doubts that we would win … Next morning was a brilliant sunny day and I sat having my breakfast on the porch of the freedom room watching the white sailing boats in the sparkling bay. I waited for a phone call of thanks, of praise, of something, from someone. I waited; and I waited. It was absurd of me — everyone was exhausted, why should they have thought of me? But something in me broke that day [1974 election]. I felt that I had been used … I was at my lowest ebb, exhausted and feeling somehow betrayed by the election campaign.”¹⁶

A Fresh Eye: How Margaret Trudeau Was Used By the Québécocracy

In order to greatly enrich Paul Desmarais and the Power Corporation, Margaret Trudeau was used as a tool, a “fresh eye,” by the Québécocracy in Ottawa (she was later cast aside and “betrayed”), in order to prolong Pierre Trudeau’s grip on power by winning the 1974 election, which greatly prolonged the life of the Québécocracy in Ottawa, and which saved the Quiet Revolution:

“[Pierre Trudeau] used my fresh eye politically … when he had to make some major decision, like a cabinet reshuffle, and then he would talk it over with me late into the night, rehearsing the arguments aloud, while I tried to ask the sort of questions any unbiased layman might ask.”¹⁷

Margaret Trudeau gave speeches in South Central Ontario in order to bolster Pierre Trudeau’s popularity, which she did, in the 1974 federal election:

“Then I got up to speak. I talked about motherhood, my children and the family, and before long all the moms in the crowd had tears trickling down their cheeks. When I finished, others spoke, and the atmosphere grew better and better. It was all very moving, not just for Pierre and me but for the whole crowd, who sensed how important the occasion was, and rose to it. From that moment I had no doubts that we would win.”¹⁸

Margaret Trudeau helped Pierre Trudeau win the 1974 election:

“I made my own speeches, and canvassed the streets, By then I too had become a Liberal political animal: I knew just what to say when and how and I liked the way I was good at drawing crowds … As the campaign progressed, it became increasingly clear that Pierre had to adopt a new, relaxed, intimate style and [172] I worked away at him. He needed to be down to earth, emotional, committed — not rational [Québécocentric]. It was quite a battle … [Pierre Trudeau] did change his tactics … He asked his ministers to prepare bald policy statements that could be given out to newspapers, and he simply used the words as the basis for his own speech, a real, heartfelt, interesting, imaginative speech that people could follow and even enjoy. He stopped being a professor, and started shouting out the words with real emotion. The effect was dramatic … We were kept going only by a growing sense of victory, a swelling tide of success. Everywhere we went the crowds turned out in their hundreds and thousands. Never had Pierre received such ovations; it was Trudeaumania all over again and I was happy for him.”¹⁹

Margaret Trudeau turned the tide of the 1974 election in favour of Pierre Trudeau and the Québec Regime in Ottawa:

“I was called to the microphone … I was made more courageous by the great roar of welcome that went up from the [Western Canadian] crowd … I went on to talk about the new programs for women and children which the Liberals were embarking on, reminding them of things we had done and trying to inject a note of sincerity into the proceedings … The people, however, loved it, and laughed and cheered.”²⁰

Once firmly established in power and married to Margaret Trudeau, Pierre Trudeau and the Québécocracy used his wife and children to promote the image of Pierre as a solid, upright Christian husband, a devoted family man and traditional father figure, in order to sway the anglophone electorate into their camp, both inside and especially outside of Québec:

“Pierre, everyone agreed, was no party man … he was a statesman, a philosopher–king, with political appeal … the good, Christian philosopher–king who wants to live his life by his will, not by the vagaries of fortune.”²¹

This of course contrasts dramatically with the image of Pierre Trudeau presented to the Québec electorate of so–called “French Canada,” a political and economic abstraction, an inert (outdated) idea, (which is really francophone Canada, the people of which have very little French about them, unless the media empire of Paul Desmarais is French culture in Canada, which is very unlikely, considering the rise of the European Union in the contemporary world since the 1950s, which follows in the footsteps of the American superpower) first created by Cité Libre back in the day: In Québec politics and culture Pierre Trudeau posed for many years as a separatist–independentist–nationalist–sovereignist, depending on the issues of the day and the vagaries of public opinion, often influenced by the media and paper (Consolidated Bathurst) empire of Paul Desmarais, which for many years was based on government handouts (investissement), including cheap, taxpayer subsidized electricity from the Hydro–Québec.

Once in federal politics, Pierre Trudeau presented himself to the Québec electorate as a radical French–Canadian statesman hell bent on defending the special interests of Québéckers and the Québécocratic élites, in the Jacobin tradition of the French Revolution. His task was greatly facilitated by the friends of Jean–Louis Lévesque and Paul Desmarais in the new government of Québec: Through their concerted efforts, the historical falsehood that francophone (“French”) Canadians were somehow treated as second class citizens and exploited by “Les Anglais” became a very fashionable topic of conversation, and was the mode amongst many young Québéckers:

“The effect was amazing. To an English Canadian sitting in the crowded audience, the emotional response that he [Marcel Chaput] evoked was almost a tangible thing, a physical thing. Somehow he expressed the deep and abiding sense of insult — the word is not too strong — that his young listeners felt about the French Canadian minority position in a largely Anglo–Saxon country … ‘I was chairman of a panel discussion that made national headlines. On the panel was Marcel Chaput, the Québec civil servant who worked for the Ministry of National Defense and [who] made no attempt to hide his separatist leanings’ (Brian Mulroney).”²²

No mention is ever really made by these government organs (Laval Université, etc.) about anglophone Canadians, Ukrainians or aboriginals, for instance, ever being treated as second class citizens and exploited over the years by “Les Anglais,” itself an ideological conception of Québécocratic political economy. Of course we use this last phrase with extreme caution, since the science of political economy, as practised in Great Britain and the American colonies during the Industrial Revolution, is the very antithesis of Napoléonic rationality [sic] in the world historical arena of modern European politics and economics (the Bonapartism of the French Revolution), at least until the rise of Lloyd George and his friends:

“The renovation of Parliamentary government, the transformation of the conditions of the ownership and occupation of land, the relations between the Governments at home and our adventures abroad in contact with inferior races, the limitations on free contract, and the rights of majorities to restrict the private acts of minorities, these are only some of the questions that time and circumstance are pressing upon us.”²³

Historiaters will no doubt oppose as tendentious our characterization of British Liberal statesmen in terms of modern European unreason, but American historians like William Manchester tell a rather different tale: “Churchill was never a rational man … in moments of crisis he sought guidance not by reasoning but by intuition.”²⁴

Margaret Trudeau’s Betrayal at the Hands of the Québécocracy

“Something in me broke that day [1974 election]. I felt that I had been used … My rebellion started in 1974. From then, until the day I walked out of 24 Sussex three years later, it built up momentum in fits and starts … the first visible explosions were all directed at the official life … Confusion came when official life intruded … There is no doubt at all that for much of the time I lived with Pierre I was deeply unhappy … there was also a lot that was rotten … I was at my lowest ebb, exhausted and feeling somehow betrayed by the election campaign.”²⁵

Margaret Trudeau’s utility to the Québec Regime in Ottawa ended after the 1974 election, because the Québécocracy was by then firmly installed in power. Margaret Trudeau’s utility to the Québec Regime in Ottawa was very important in the 1974 election, but waned thereafter because (1) in Ontario, the stronger New Democratic Party was benefiting from a crest of increasing popularity under Dave Barrett in the West, and was stealing votes away from the liberals, thus the conservative philosopher king image of Trudeau did not appeal much to young people,²⁶ while (2) in Québec, where the rising Parti Québécois was very busy keeping down the Canadocentric New Democratic Party, the antics of Margaret Trudeau contradicted the Pierre Trudeau strongman image crafted by his Bay Street handlers in cahoots with the Power Corporation. During the 1974 election, which required the Liberal power of Québec, the Québécocracy did not want to lose votes to the Parti Québécois and NDP in the Belle Province, at least not votes enough to deny them power in Ottawa. Thus Margaret Trudeau, after 1974, is eventually cast aside, meaning that her antics are no longer tolerated, that her political work with her husband diminishes, and that her presence in Trudeau’s inner political circle is ultimately considered as an impediment to the longevity of his career and the hegemony of Québec Regime power in Ottawa:

“[Margaret Trudeau] refused to be a rose in her husband’s lapel … Pierre socked her and sacked her.”²⁷

Without René Lévesque and the Parti Québécois to divide the Québec electorate, no Québécocentricism in Ottawa, meaning no more cash secreted for the massive construction projects like the James Bay, and expansion of the vast system of Hydroelectric energy of the Hydro–Québec,²⁸ without which the Bonapartist scheme to make the Government of Québec into a dominant ruling class (the Quiet Revolution) was kaput, and without the Quiet Revolution, the project of sustaining the Francophonie and Communauté was likewise kaput, and the pipe–dream of France as a world power was doomed, which actually only amounted to the Bonapartist domination of Continental Europe,— all of which merely means that certain political and economic irrationalists, a bunch of very wicked people indeed, will satiate their criminal impulses on a very much smaller scale within the realm of finance, commerce and industry in Canada.²⁹

Such grandiose and fantastic considerations of La France (the French Empire) really did agitate the most ambitious Gallic brains of the 1960s and 1970s, the satisfactions of which were, as the most Machiavellian of them perceived amidst the conflict of the age, the surest path to personal fortune and power. After all, had not famous French statesmen, even the good friends of Georges Clemenceau himself as well as the General Pétain, greatly enriched themselves and their families during the war years? At the expense of lost generations, it is nonetheless true …

The key idea is very simple: Make the families that the General de Gaulle has erected into positions of political and economic authority after the fall of Vichy, into the absolute financial, commercial and industrial masters of France, — while taking a nice juicy cut for yourself. This idea, however simple at first sight, at least to the heated Parisian brains of the time, requires certain conceptual and linguistic modifications, otherwise it is quite unacceptable to French voters, because, alas, the electorate is inexorably influenced by the political and economic power of American finance, commerce and industry in France and Europe, — the result of which is entailed by the world historical gravitation of the American superpower.

It will take the Bonapartists of Europe nearly 50 years to admit their own mental impotence (Aron, Merleau–Ponty, Sarte, Althusser, Foucault, Derrida, Baudrillard, Lyotard and Cie), and finally to accept their own inability to create the conceptual and linguistic framework needed to bring their Machiavellian project to fruition in the face of Americanism. Thus they must downsize their ambitions of necessity, which they did at Maastricht after the Cold War, resultant in the European Union. After all, the building of such a vast edifice entails a serious amount of demolition: Spiritual decline is the crime of every satanic ruling class.

The modern distinction between left and right, whether Gaullist or anti–Gaullist, in the modern French and European strife of political parties, is certainly not divorced from its ideological meaning, in light of the distribution of public works and infrastructure contracts, which is the business of left–leaning parties, and then followed by the low–tax agenda, which is the business of right–leaning parties: The same financial, commercial and industrial backers are enriched. In the eyes of inferior ruling classes, the public works cake is far better when crowned with a low–tax cherry, which is sometimes known as modern European Keynesianism, — not to be confused with Keynesianism and rational political and economic order. Thus, in the world historical rise of the European Union as Globalism, the modern “materialist–physicalist–phenomenal” division between superior and inferior human races, propounded by European irrationalism, is no longer operative, itself the erstwhile basis of the sophistical distinction between superior and inferior ruling classes of European modernity, is no longer the supreme ideological motivation.³⁰

Global freedom is not modern freedom. Wherefore? American Idealism is the fountainhead of Global civilization. The teaching of the concept is the inescapable lesson of history: As the historical unfolding of the conceptual rationality of the notion of Spiritual freedom, Americanism is rising upwards in the world of today.

The Québécocracy is Beyond Reason

Margaret Trudeau rejects the political life of the early 1970s, namely the Québec Regime in Ottawa and Empire of Paul Desmarais:

“I didn’t feel involved … I sometimes felt that there were as many ‘nincompoops’ in the Liberal ranks as there appeared to be in the Conservative and National Democratic parties. A heresy, I know.”³¹

In the eyes of the young Margaret Trudeau, the Québécocracy is mortally corrupt, it is beyond reason. The notion of Pierre Trudeau as a cold–hearted puppet of political life, surrounded and totally infected by the mechanisms of the “rotten” power of the Québec Regime in Ottawa, is at the very center of Margaret Trudeau’s embryonic conception of the Québécocracy. The Québécocratic power of Pierre Trudeau is ultimately a force of betrayal, and is therefore a form of enslavement, ending in unreason:

“Pierre kept urging me to seek psychiatric help. Finally, my own will worn so thin that I was happy to take anyone’s advice, I checked into the Montréal General Hospital under a Dr. Boz. Wendy Porteous drove me — the same women who that dreadful evening so long ago had put me down about my French … I see my children for five days every two weeks when I go back home to Ottawa … It is quite possible that Pierre and I could never have made a life together. It wasn’t his age or my inexperience, or even the fact that he was Prime Minister. Pierre likes his life programmed.”³²

The Stalinoid and Machiavellian nature of the Québécocracy is exposed in Margaret Trudeau’s allusion to the inhuman and robotic character of Pierre Trudeau, a man so totally enslaved by the tentacles of political power that he tragically turned his back on the one person who loved him most in the world, his own wife.

Revolt Against Unreason: Margaret Trudeau’s Spiritual Awakening

When Margaret Trudeau revolts against “reason,” what she really means by that word is the “abstract thought” of Pierre Trudeau, which was often used to bludgeon her into political submission, during her conflicts with the Québécocracy in Ottawa, namely the political and economic abstractions of Pierre Trudeau and the White Gold ruling class.

In other words, the endeavour to make Margaret Trudeau become more rational, coming from Pierre Trudeau and the Québécocrats, really means that they wanted her to become more like themselves, namely more Napoléonic and Machiavellian: Phony and out–of–touch with the American world of today.

An honest reading of Margaret Trudeau’s book, attuned to the world of today, the origins of which are found in the not so distant past, proves that her revolt against so–called “reason” is really the most rational thing in the world for a Western Canadian schooled in the ideals of Americanism, and therefore, far from being irrational, her sanity is quite intact. When Margaret Trudeau writes about going “beyond” reason, she means transcending the so–called political and economic abstractions of the Québec Regime in Ottawa, namely, their modern European irrationalism.

We maintain these words (unlike our detractors), not as the result of hearsay, perspectives, outlooks, viewpoints and opinions, but based upon the world historical and biographical facts, as lived and recorded by Margaret Trudeau herself, in the early days of the Québec Regime in Ottawa and Empire of Paul Desmarais, the satanic nature of which is very well–known:

“Claude Frenette, the right hand man of Paul Desmarais … was elected as president of the Québec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada in virtue of the upcoming leadership race: Frenette and Pierre Trudeau elaborated a scheme at the Power Corporation whereby the latter would become the new leader of the Liberal Party and then the Prime Minister of Canada.”³³

Peter Charles Newman, the renowned historian of Canadian ruling classes, documents the corrupt relationship between Pierre Trudeau and Paul Desmarais:

“Among titans, Desmarais is in a class of his own. He is the only major establishment figure whose hold on power has bridged all of my books, having been featured in my first volume, published nearly a quarter of a century ago, just as prominently as he is in this one … One of Desmarais’ favorite collectibles is Pierre Trudeau, who remains on Power Corp.’s international advisory board … plans for Trudeau’s candidacy had first been hatched in early 1968 at the offices of Power Corporation, at Friday–night meetings presided over by then–Power vice–president Claude Frenette. In August of that year, two months after Trudeau swept the country, the new PM flew to visit Desmarais at Murray Bay.”³⁴

Beyond Reason is essential reading in the New Canadian Library: Margaret Trudeau pioneered the discovery of the world historical conception of the Québec Regime in Ottawa and Empire of Paul Desmarais as the Québécocracy, the notion of which, after some thirty years of intellectual labor, is finally brought to fruition in the American idealistic philosophy:

Mentalities die the death of ruling classes, and are not rejuvenated, only overcome …

WORKS CITED

1. Pierre Trudeau in Margaret Trudeau, Beyond Reason, Caroline Moorehead, editor, New York/London, 1979, 59.

See: “Look, I haven’t walked three times around the world for nothing. Don’t tell me which way is right. I don’t get lost.”
Pierre Trudeau in Margaret Trudeau, Ibidem, 65.

2. Margaret Trudeau, 241.

3. See: “Something in me broke that day. I felt that I had been used … I walked out of 24 Sussex three years later.”
Margaret Trudeau, 175–193.

4. Margaret Trudeau, 47–48.

5. Margaret Trudeau, 47–171–171.

6. Margaret Trudeau, 14–19.

7. Margaret Trudeau, 51–52.

8. Margaret Trudeau, 144–145.

9. Jean Chrétien, Straight from the Heart, First Edition, Toronto, 1985, 11–17–22–23.

10. Paul Martin, Hell or High Water: My Life In and Out of Politics, Toronto, 2008, 18–18–19–19–19.

11. Wilfrid Laurier, Lecture on Political Liberalism: Delivered By Wilfrid Laurier, Esq., M.P., on the 26th June, 1877, in the Music Hall, Québec, Under the Auspices of “Le Club Canadien,” Québec, 1877, 11.

The modern political and economic irrationalism of Wilfrid Laurier and his government comes from Louis–Joseph Papineau and the Great Terror of 1837–1838:

Louis–Joseph Papineau, Speech of Louis J. Papineau, Esqr., on the Hustings, at the Opening of the Election For the West Ward of the City of Montreal, on the 11th of August, 1827, and His Reply to Peter McGill Esqr., Translated From the French, to Which Are Added the Speech of His Excellency the Earl of Dalhousie, Governor in Chief, &c., to the House of Assembly on Proroguing the Provincial Parliament, 7th March 1827, and the Address of Certain Members to Their Constituents in Consequence of the Speech, &c., anonymous, translator, (Montreal: Printed By Ludger Duvernay, at the Office of the Canadian Spectator, 1827).

Louis–Joseph Papineau, Les 92 résolutions de l’Assemblée législative du Bas–Canada, (Quebec: House of Assembly, 1834).

Louis–Joseph Papineau, “Histoire de la résistance du Canada au gouvernement anglais,” Revue du Progrès, 1(1 mai, 1839): 436–453.

Louis–Joseph Papineau, Histoire de l’insurrection du Canada, (Montréal: Éditions Leméac, 1968).

See also: “[Roman Law] was the law of the continent of Europe wherever based on the civil law, till the adoption and spread of the Code Napoléon, first among the Latin races, and more recently among the nations of central and northern Europe. The French Code … would thus seem to have swept away at once the entire doctrine dependent upon the Roman system, which was based on a principle exactly the reverse.”
Judah Philip Benjamin, A Treatise on the Law of Sale of Personal Property: With References to the American Decisions and to the French Code and Civil Law, London, 1868, 299–299. [Italics added]

12. Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, Luigi Ricci, translator, Oxford, 1921, 44–44–101–105.

See: “We propose a comparison between the doctrine of Machiavelli, as it emerges from the Prince, and the doctrine of absolutism, which we shall endeavor to discern, not from one or another of the theorists who were its champions, but from all of them … the absolutist doctrines, in their application, lead rulers to the same results as the doctrines of Machiavelli … Machiavellism and absolutism are derived from analogous historical situations. This is the first essential point of our parallel. The historical situation inspires Machiavelli with the idea of ​​the legitimacy of every means aimed at the achievement of public interest and the salvation of the State … those who were able to study Napoléon Bonaparte very closely tell us that he was a very powerful ruler who saw the spilling of blood [sang des hommes répandu] as perhaps the greatest remedy of political medicine … The Prince of Machiavelli and the doctrines of absolutism were born of the same sentiment of profound patriotism, at times and in countries where a powerful sovereign was necessary to put an end to the disorder and turmoil of the day, the causes of national distress … Machiavelli reveals himself as an immoral patriot who wants to save the State, even though his conception of government appears as a policy that is respectful of political freedoms and that is aimed at the happiness of the people.”
Louis Couzinet, “Le Prince” de Machiavel et la théorie de l’absolutisme, Paris, 1910, xix–xxi–xxvii–136–349–352: “Nous nous proposons un rapprochement, une comparaison, entre la doctrine de Machiavel, telle qu’elle ressort du Prince, et la doctrine de l’absolutisme, que nous essayerons de dégager, non pas de tel ou tel des théoriciens qui en furent les champions; mais de l’ensemble de ces théoriciens … les doctrines absolutistes, dans leur application, conduisent les princes aux mêmes résultats que les doctrines de Machiavel … Machiavélisme et absolutisme sont issus de situations historiques analogues. C’est là un premier point essentiel de notre parallèle. Cette situation inspire à Machiavel l’idée de la légitimité de tous les moyens destinés à atteindre un but d’intérêt public et à réaliser le salut de l’État … Tous ceux qui ont pu étudier Napoléon l de près, nous disent qu’il y avait en lui le Napoléon homme d’État, qui voyait dans le sang des hommes répandu un des grands remèdes de la médecine politique … Le Prince de Machiavel et les doctrines de l’absolutisme sont nés d’un même sentiment profond de patriotisme, à des époques et dans des pays où un souverain puissant était nécessaire pour faire cesser, sous sa domination, les désordres et la désunion, causes de la détresse nationale … Machiavel nous apparaît comme un patriote sans scrupule lorsqu’il s’agit de sauver l’État. Dans sa conception du gouvernement il se révèle à nous comme un politique soucieux du bonheur du peuple et respectueux de sa liberté.”

13. Friedrich Meinecke, Machiavellism: The Doctrine of Raison d’État and Its Place in Modern History, Douglas Scott, translator, Werner Stark, introduction, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1962, 345. [1957]

14. See: “There is no mystery about the origins of Bonapartism. It is the child of Napoléon Bonaparte and the French Revolution … the strong executive founded upon the plebiscite which was to be the pillar of Bonapartism; and [Napoléon] had come to the conclusion that legislative assemblies should be merely supervisory, that they should have no power to change the constitution or to interfere with the executive … This is not the place for a detailed examination of the principles of Napoléonic law. It is well, however, to notice that the civil code alone was drawn up during the Consulate, that it is nearer both in time and spirit to the revolutionary law than are the codes which were compiled in a more perfunctory manner under the darker shadows of imperial despotism … in the codes, in the common system of administration, the foundations of a modern Italy were laid. And here the memory of Napoléon was not easily forgotten … The French nation, being consulted for the third time, for the third time by an overwhelming majority ratified its belief in Bonapartism … The guiding principle of Bonapartism was autocracy founded on popular consent, [id est] safeguarding social order and social equality.”
Herbert Albert Laurens Fisher, Bonapartism: Six Lectures Delivered in the University of London, Oxford, 1908, 7–22–39–55–87–120.

See also: “[Nietzsche] developed his understanding of Napoléon as a representative of pagan antiquity and Renaissance virtù, a supreme commander type … Nietzsche evokes Napoléon as an exemplar intended to capture his politics of the future that involves the construction of durable, imperial institutions … I will consider Nietzsche’s [modern sophistry] … as an outgrowth of his reflections on Napoléon [2] Bonaparte’s personality, political reign and method of governance. These reflections begin cautiously in the early 1870s but assume full affirmative force by the early 1880s when Nietzsche exalts Napoléon as the embodiment of the state of exception. Nietzsche begins to think about Napoléon in more coherently political terms in the period 1884–1885 as he begins to cultivate his ideas regarding the philosopher–legislator and the necessity of a new European ruling caste in opposition to the crisis presented by the [false] social question and the steady advance of international socialism. Through invoking Napoléon in the context of this crisis Nietzsche is proposing a theory of leadership and a political solution to combat the ideological forces that produced the Paris Commune … Nietzsche’s political thought … is a species of Bonapartism … Napoléon is the model for the Nietzschean philosopher–legislator who knows how to command; not only in terms of his Renaissance virtù or his martial ethos but also in terms of his political institutions … Nietzsche admired Napoléon because of the psychological control he was able to exert over the masses and social and political classes and institutions hostile to his rule … Nietzsche is imagining a political alliance in which immoralism is mixed with the blood of select European Royal Houses, communicating a transparent diagram for the criminalization of the European ruling class.”
Dom Dombowsky, Nietzsche and Napoleon: The Dionysian Conspiracy, Cardiff, 2014, 1–1–1–1–2–2–2–2–2–5.

See also: “Nietzsche recognized that Napoléon manipulated the democratic process, abandoned the concept of popular sovereignty and undermined the principle of equality, that he was opposed to parliamentary politics but maintained their simulacra, a manoeuvre Nietzsche admired in respect of tactics.”
Dom Dombowsky, Nietzsche and Napoleon: The Dionysian Conspiracy, Cardiff, 2014, 2.

Friedrich Nietzsche, in his greatest works, holds that from out of the French Revolution, the regime of Bonapartism elevates to a higher level the democratic process, the concept of popular sovereignty, and the principle of equality: Napoléon Bonaparte’s tactics are the evolution of the old parliamentary politics to a higher level of political and economic power, — a sublation which Nietzsche greatly admires. Weaklings and degenerates, according to Friedrich Nietzsche, oppose the Bonapartist evolution of modern European power. Americanism in 20th century world history overcomes modern European political and economic irrationalism, in the struggle between superior and inferior ruling classes, as the strife between aristocracy, monarchy and democracy, especially as found in the contagion of liberalism, conservatism, republicanism, nationalism, socialism, and communism, as well as imperialism.

See also: “Bonapartism … gives the masses the illusion of being masters of their masters.”
Robert Michels, Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy, Eden Paul and Cedar Paul, translators, New York, 1959, 220.

15. Margaret Trudeau,162–174. [Italics added]

? Margaret Trudeau,162.

16. Margaret Trudeau, 174–175–230.

17. Margaret Trudeau, 174.

18. Margaret Trudeau, “On the Campaign Trail,” Beyond Reason, Caroline Moorehead, editor, New York/London, 1979, 171–171–173–173–174.

19. Margaret Trudeau, ibidem, 172–172–172–172.

20. Margaret Trudeau, 163–163–256.

21. Rae Murphy, Robert Chodos and Nick Auf der Maur, Brian Mulroney: The Boy from Baie Comeau, Toronto, James Lorimer & Company, 1985, 49–50.

22. John Morley (Lord Morley) in Kant’s Principles of Politics Including His Essay on Perpetual Peace: A Contribution to Political Science, Immanuel Kant; William Hastie, editor & translator, Edinburgh, 1891, xxxviii–xxxix. [Italics added]

23. William Manchester, The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill: Alone, 1932–1940, vol. 2, Boston, Little, Brown & Company, 1988, 664.

24. Margaret Trudeau, 175–193–193–193–229–229–230.

25. Certainly the philosopher king image of Platonism was not welcome discourse in the early NDP intelligentsia: “[Platonic] Ideas are spaceless and immaterial … to assert the contrary, is childish and ridiculous.”
George Maximilian Anthony Grube (1899–1982), “The Theory of Ideas,” Plato’s Thought, London, Methuen and Company Ltd., 1935, 1–50, 49.

The English Machiavellians of Toronto, Lloyd George’s old friends, then absorbed by British Labour, and full of Russell’s paradoxes, were very happy to out–Trudeau Pierre Elliott Trudeau, as the last remnants of the (then reformed) British Imperialist ruling class (British Commonwealth of Nations), at least until their ranks were decimated by the Québec Regime in Ottawa, as their wealth was expropriated, whereupon they joined the Québécocracy, — as Mulronyists and even Raeists!

See: “[George Maximilian Anthony Grube] was also very active in Canadian politics. A leading member of the provincial Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (forerunner of the New Democratic Party), he was president of the provincial party in the 1940s. He served on the Toronto Board of Education and ran unsuccessfully for Parliament a number of times.”
George Maximilian Anthony Grube, Plato’s Thought, Donald J. Zeyl, introduction, bibliographic essay and bibliography, Indianapolis, Indiana, Hackett Publishing Company Inc., 1980, vi.

26. See: “The Hydro–Québec controls the economy of Québec.”
René Lévesque in Richard Le Hir, Desmarais: La Dépossession Tranquille, Montréal, 2012, 19: “Hydro–Québec est le navire amiral de l’économie québécoise.”

See also: “‘Probably very few people would know Canada produces the second most hydro in the world’ … Hydroelectricity accounts for the majority of renewable electricity, with 60 per cent of all electricity in Canada coming from hydro.”
Mia Rabson, “Two Thirds of Electricity in Canada Now Comes From Renewable Energy,” Calgary Herald, 3 May 2017.

See also: “Hydro–Quebec, a provincial Crown Corporation, is Canada’s largest electric utility and, judged by assets ($25 billion in 1983), Canada’s largest corporation. More than 95% of its production is from renewable hydroelectricity. First created as a legal entity in 1944, Hydro–Québec did not become a major force until the early 1960s. René Lévesque then resources minister to the Liberal government of Jean Lesage, oversaw the nationalization of the province’s larger private electrical utilities. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Parti Québécois governments led by Lévesque further reorganized Hydro–Québec. The utility enjoys formidable economic advantages: Once dams are in place, operating costs are very low; furthermore, it has a contract to buy power from the Churchill Falls project in Labrador at 1969 prices until the year 2041. Hydro–Québec can thus underbid Ontario Hydro in the US export market, provide cheap power within Québec and still pay a dividend to the provincial government.”
André Bolduc, “Hydro–Québec,” The Canadian Encyclopedia, vol. 2, James Harley Marsh, editor, Edmonton, 1985, 853.

See also: “The main drawbacks of conventional, large–scale hydroelectric power are the initial high capital cost, the long construction period and the environmental effects of flooding.”
Edward W. Humphrys, “Hydroelectricity,” The Canadian Encyclopedia, vol. 2, James Harley Marsh, editor, Edmonton, 1985, 853–854.

See also: “The Power Corporation, the conglomerate which is controlled by Paul Desmarais, was able to infiltrate the highest levels of the Québec Government: Executives of the Power Corporation are also executives of the Hydro–Québec … Michel Plessis–Bélair, vice–president of the board of the Power Corporation, has sat on the board of the Hydro–Québec.”
Richard Le Hir, Desmarais: La Dépossession Tranquille, Montréal, 2012, 15: “Power Corporation, la société que controle Paul Desmarais, était parvenue à s’immiscer aux niveaux les plus élevés de l’appareil décisionnel du Québec, au point meme d’etre représentée au conseil d’administration d’Hydro–Québec … Michel Plessis–Bélair, le vice–president du conseil d’administration de Power Corporation, siege en effet à celui d’Hydro–Québec.”

See also: “The aim of this meeting concerns the question of the transportation of electrical energy over long distances between the provinces. From our vantage point, this question is a purely provincial matter … The province of Québec, though determined to use its natural resources for its own development, welcomes mutually beneficial inter–provincial agreements, but in this matter Québec will not be subjected to any federal authority whatsoever [la tutelle du gouvernement fédéral].”
Jean Lesage (1962) in Karl Froschauer, White Gold: Hydroelectric Power in Canada, Vancouver, 2011, 31: “Cette conférence aurait pour objet une discussion sur le transport à longue distance de l’énergie électrique entre les provinces. Nous considérons cette question de jurisdiction provinciale … La province de Québec, tout en étant déterminée à utiliser ses richesses naturelles pour favoriser son développement économique, est bien disposée à faire avec ses provinces soeurs des arrangements d’interêt mutuel mais elle n’entend pas accepter de le faire sous la tutelle du gouvernement fédéral.”

By the phrase, “la tutelle du gouvernement fédéral,” Jean Lesage means the Canadian statecraft of the British Imperialistic ruling class of the generation of Lester Pearson as well as the Canadocentric ruling class of John Diefenbaker: The political and economic power struggle between ruling classes in Canada is also the clash between the owners of White and Black Gold, since both involve Crown Lands, which are the purview of federal and provincial politics. For this reason the Hydro–Québec is the ultimate bastion of Québec Regime power: The tentacles of the Hydro–Québec are the lifeblood of the Québec Regime via the Québec Inc., as the Québécocracy in Ottawa.

See finally: “The division of power under Canadian federalism [Québec Regime in Ottawa 1968–2006], whereby provinces control the development of natural resources and the federal government controls their export, has reduced the possibility of formulating national electrical policies. The federal Department of Natural Resources Canada and Section 92A of the Constitution Act, 1982, asserts that trade in electricity and the installation of international transmission lines is subject to the prevalence of federal jurisdiction (with concurrent federal and provincial powers over inter provincial trade), whereas the planning, development, and distribution of hydroelectric resources within the provinces is the responsibility of each province.”
Karl Froschauer, White Gold: Hydroelectric Power in Canada, Vancouver, 2011, 51.

27. Charles Lynch, Race for the Rose: Election 1984, Toronto, 1984, 52. [Italics added]

28. See: “Careful investigation leads to the discovery of more and more French diplomats, politicians, and state officials active in the cause of Québec separatism during the past thirty–five years … By 1967, when de Gaulle made his notorious fourth visit to Québec on 23–26 July, he had already worked out a general plan of attack … Having launched a cold war campaign in Québec, de Gaulle then turned his attention to the smaller French–speaking community of Acadians in the Maritime provinces … there was no mistaking his [General de Gaulle’s] hostility to the Canadian confederation … the two world wars of this century had the strongest influence on the Gaullist mind. But behind their impact lies the imperial tradition established by Napoléon, and followed by his nephew, Napoléon III who ruled the Second Empire … Political movements for the independence, or sovereignty, of Québec can be traced back into the 1950s, but the first with any permanence and influence was the Rassemblement pour l’Indépendence Nationale (RIN), established in September 1960. Its founders were Raymond Barbeau, who in 1957 had launched a similar but short–lived movement called the Alliance Laurentienne … they worked to spead the idea that Québec ought to become an independent republic, ‘free, French and democratic’ … By 1960, when de Gaulle made his visit to Canada, the Lesage liberals, the RIN, and other nationalists were forming a neo–nationalist movement … The neo–nationalist were typical of what has become known as the Quiet Revolution … in its narrowest meaning the term applies to a series of reforms carried out by the Lesage government … when Duplessis died, Québec was seized with an outburst of liberal and national sentiments that led to changes so profound that they may justly be described as revolutionary. Educated Frenchmen, such as Charles de Gaulle and his staff, were immediately at home amid the liberal and national aspirations of the Quiet Revolution in Québec. Every French republic, even the Fifth, is founded on liberal and nationalist ideas that are an ideological legacy of the French Revolution … De Gaulle’s regime in France and Jean Lesage’s neo–nationalist government in Québec had a common desire to use the social revolution of their time to transform their societies … both were investing or planning — or hoping — to invest in regional development, new factories, electrical and nuclear power plants, airports and seaports, aircraft industries, railway and telephone systems, highways, mass housing projects … De Gaulle for his part saw collaboration as a means for promoting the power and influence of his country and expanding French civilization in the world … the ruling élites in France and Québec found it easy to collaborate in economic development because they were both prepared to act via powerful government leadership.”
John Francis Bosher, The Gaullist Attack on Canada: 1967–1997, Montréal/Kingston, 1999, 4–5–5–5–6–11–13–14–18.

See also: “In 1956, Trudeau helped organize the Rassemblement pour l’Indépendence Nationale (Assembly for National Independence). The group’s 600 members worked to explain democracy [Québec separatism] to the people of Québec and to persuade them to use it. Trudeau served as vice–president, then director, and finally president.”
Paul Douglas Stevens, “Pierre E. Trudeau: Prime Minister of Canada, 1968,” The World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 18, Chicago, 1971, 380a–381, 380b.

See also: “[Pierre Elliot Trudeau] was a separatist like the others were, like the élite was … he really carried things as far as he could, he became one of the leaders in that sort of thing.”
Monique Nemni in Anonymous, “New Book Traces Trudeau’s Separatist to Nationalist Shift,” CTV News, 13 November 2011.

See finally: “De Gaullism is a phenomenon originating in fascism. It is a political movement born at a time when Nazi ideology was victorious in France and in the rest of Europe. It is the Pétainism of the exile. The German armies have been defeated. But German ideas have not. They are adapting themselves to the new situation. Under many guises they have found a lodgement in the Allied victory. De Gaullism is a form of fascism that placed its stakes on the winning side. It is a fascism that glibly uses the language of Democracy, while despising and hating it. It is a fascism that digs into the structure of the Republic as Italian fascism, at an earlier date, dug into the Monarchy.”
Henry de Kerillis, I Accuse de Gaulle, Harold Rosenberg, translator, New York, 1946, 259–260. [Italics added]

29. See: “I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites.”
David Hume in Christopher J. Berry, Hume, Hegel and Human Nature, The Hague, 1982, 108.

See also: “It is entirely fair to think poorly of Hume for the view that he does express. Though ‘le bon David’ no doubt had many virtues, ability to rise above the racial prejudices of his day was not one of them. But in condemning him in this regard, as I think we should, we ought not to make the mistake of believing that Hume’s philosophy itself is somehow racially coded. There is no reason to believe with Eze, that when Hume spoke of human nature he ‘meant only a white ‘we.’’ Indeed, Hume’s philosophy — especially his emphasis on the universality of human nature — is incompatible with the racialism he expresses … Hume, it is true, was a racialist, and perhaps a racist, but Humeanism is neither.”
Andrew Valls, editor, “‘A Lousy Empirical Scientist’: Reconsidering Hume’s Racism,” Race and Racism in Modern Philosophy, Ithaca/London, 2005, 144.

Hume’s philosophy is incompatible with the racialism he expresses (Andrew Valls); if Western philosophy is sophistry, them this is indeed the truth; but philosophy is not sophistry:

“Ego cogito, ergo sum, sive existo … ea enim est natura nostrae mentis, ut generales propostiones ex particularium cognitione efformet.”
Cartesius, “Secundæ Responsiones,” Œuvres de Descartes: Meditationes de Prima Philosophia, vol. 7, Charles Adam & Paul Tannery, éditeurs, Paris, 1904, 140–141. (How very clear and distinct are the ideas of Cartesius, coming from his very own hand, although his best translators are also clear and distinct, but less clear and less distinct than the very words of Cartesius himself, as found in his very greatest works, since his Latin is now a dead language, while his modern interpreters fail to elucidate the rational foundations of their sophistical critiques.)

The philosophies of Cartesius, Spinoza, Berkeley and Hegel are the world historical refutations of modern irrationalism, the sophistry of Locke, Leibniz, Hume and Kant. This at least is the teaching of the American idealistic philosophy, the stronghold of Pure Hegelianism in the world of today.

See also: “Hume’s rejection of ethical relativism is an important indicator of the tenor of his thought, because it shows the definite limits to his acceptance (and appreciation) of the significance of social differences. In this regard, Duncan Forbes drives too substantial a wedge between Hume’s sociological relativism and his (admitted) abjuration of ethical relativism. In terms of Hume’s intellectual situation the abjuration signals the attenuated character of his sociological relativism. Though Hume’s position (as interpreted by Forbes) is of course defensible, it requires a sophistication in distinguishing the ethical from the social for which Hume himself had no need. As noted above, Hume is able to treat the whole issue of understanding an alien culture as unproblematical for, as this study is aiming to show, it is post–Humean development of a contextualist [Hegelian]theory of human nature that makes this issue contentious by rejecting the uniformitarianism that made all human activity explicable (comprehensible) on the same non–societally specific principles.”
Christopher J. Berry, Hume, Hegel and Human Nature, The Hague, 1982, 107.

See also: “It is now known that unlike Kant, Hegel was despised by the Nazis.”
Yitzhak Y. Melamed and Peter Thielke, “Hegelianism,” New Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Game Theory to Lysenkoism, vol. 3, Maryanne Cline Horowitz, editor in chief, New York, 2005, 977.

See also: Charles W. Mills, “Kant’s Untermenschen,” Race and Racism in Modern Philosophy, Andrew Valls, editor, (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 2005), 169–193.

Robert Bernasconi, editor, “Who Invented the Concept of Race: Kant’s Role in the Enlightenment Construction of Race,” Race, (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2001): 11–36.

Bernard R. Boxill and Thomas E. Hill Jr., “Kant and Race,” Race and Racism, Bernard R. Boxill, editor, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 448–471.

Robert Bernasconi, “Kant As An Unfamiliar Source of Racism,” Philosophers on Race: Critical Essays, Julie K. Ward & Tommy L. Lott, editors, (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002), 145–166.

Robert Bernasconi, “Will the Real Kant Please Stand Up: The Challenge of Enlightenment Racism to the Study of the History of Philosophy,” Radical Philosophy, 117(2003): 13–22.

Robert Bernasconi, “Kant’s Third Thoughts on Race,” Reading Kant’s Geography, Stuart Elden & Eduardo Mendieta, editors, (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 2011), 291–318.

See also: Michael H. Hoffheimer, “Race and Law in Hegel’s Philosophy of Religion,” Race and Racism in Modern Philosophy, Andrew Valls, editor, (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 2005), 194–216.

See also: “Hegel’s own course notes and those of his students should be used with caution to clarify and illustrate the meaning of the texts he published during his lifetime … In general, the student notes written during or after Hegel’s classes should be used with caution … According to Leopold von Henning’s preface (pp. vi–vii) in his edition (1839) of the Encyclopädie of 1830, the editors of the Encyclopedia sometimes changed or completed the sentences in which the students had rendered Hegel’s classes.”
Adriaan Theodoor Basilius Peperzak, Modern Freedom: Hegel’s Legal, Moral, and Political Philosophy, Dordrecht, 2001, xvi–27–29.

See also: Leopold Dorotheus von Henning, Hrsg., “Vorwort des Herausgebers,” Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Encyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften im Grundrisse — Die Logik: Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Werke, Vollständige Ausgabe durch einen Verein von Freunden des Verewigten: D. Ph. Marheineke, D. J. Schulze, D. Ed. Gans, D. Lp. v. Henning, D. H. Hotho, D. K. Michelet, D. F. Förster, Erster Theil, Erste Auflage, Sechster (6) Band, Berlin, 1840, v–viii.

See also: Leopold Dorotheus von Henning, Hrsg., “Vorwort des Herausgebers,” Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Encyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften im Grundrisse — Die Logik: Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Werke, Vollständige Ausgabe durch einen Verein von Freunden des Verewigten: D. Ph. Marheineke, D. J. Schulze, D. Ed. Gans, D. Lp. v. Henning, D. H. Hotho, D. K. Michelet, D. F. Förster, Erster Theil, Zweite Auflage, Sechster (6) Band, Berlin, 1843, v–viii.

See also: “The transcripts known today for all the Berlin lecture series are consistently, even surprisingly, reliable testimonies … It may indeed be disconcerting that only today do we doubt — and not everyone does — that Hegel’s lectures … are actually reproduced authentically in the published [Berlin] edition … that did not become full–blown for more than a hundred and fifty years. We can hardly examine here all the reasons for this circumstance.”
Annemarie Gethmann–Siefert, “Introduction: The Shape and Influence of Hegel’s Aesthetics,” Lectures on the Philosophy of Art: The Hotho Transcript of the 1823 Berlin Lectures, Robert F. Brown, editor and translator, Oxford, 2014, 32–46.

See also: “Locke was heavily involved in the slave trade, both through his investments and through his administrative supervision of England’s burgeoning colonial activities … The attempt to reconcile Locke’s involvement in the slave trade with his reputation as a philosopher of liberal freedom has a long history, beginning shortly after the abolition of the slave trade … Locke’s readers are faced with the problem of how he could have been so intimately involved in promoting an activity that he apparently knew to be unjustified … We are disturbed by the ease with which some commentators excuse Locke of racism or minimize its significance … to advocate, administer, and profit from a specifically racialized form of slavery is clear evidence of [Locke’s] racism, if the word is to have any meaning at all.”
Robert Bernasconi and Anika Maaza Mann, “The Contradictions of Racism: Locke, Slavery, and the Two Treatises,” Race and Racism in Modern Philosophy, Andrew Valls, editor, Ithaca/London, 2005, 89–89–90–91–91.

Those idéologues whose sophistry stands condemned in the eyes of world history because of its connexion to Lockean irrationalism (“empiricism”) in the realm of modern European politics and economics, endeavor to make the philosophies of Cartesius, Spinoza, Berkeley and Hegel into irrationalism, in order to drag the school of Western metaphysics down to their own level, in the gutter, whereupon they throw their hands up in mock despair, as if to say, “these Europeans, in Britain and the Continent, they were mostly racists.” Sophists thus abandon the rational distinction between the Western and Eastern worlds in the universal historical arena of politics and economics: Thus they debase the notion of American Liberty. Thus they seek to exonerate themselves from the charge of propagating modern unreason, because, as they imply (falsely), “Western philosophy itself is tainted with unreason.” Thus they conveniently ignore and neglect the sophistical inheritance of their inexact historiography. Their sophistical interpretations of Cartesius, Spinoza, Berkeley and Hegel, wherein they seek to drag the school of Western metaphysics down into their own cesspool of unreason, are themselves based upon the sophistical delusions of the modern irrationalists, Locke, Leibniz, Hume and Kant:

“Racial prejudice is the substance of Kant’s comments about blacks … Racial discrimination was embodied in the electoral laws in France (before and after the Revolution) … Racist ideology presupposes a theory of races. What we know about the eighteenth century is that the thesis of naturally distinct races was being theoretically and empirically elaborated by some of the most prominent natural historians and medical and anthropological thinkers of the European Enlightenment … [Sophistical] historians of philosophy [2] began to exclude peoples they deemed too primitive and incapable of philosophy.”
Peter K.J. Park, Africa, Asia, and the History of Philosophy: Racism in the Formation of the Philosophical Cannon, 1780–1830, Albany, New York, 2013, xii–xii–xiii–1–2.

The modern sophists must abandon their sophistry and irrationalism, at least in their philosophical interpretations of Cartesius, Spinoza, Berkeley and Hegel: Surprise of all surprises, in the light of rational philosophical hermeneutics and universal history, as found in the American Idealism of today’s world, especially in Washington and the Pentagon, the sophistical endeavour to drag Western metaphysics down into the cesspool of unreason and make American Liberty into modern European freedom, thus collapses in the face of Global historical truth and reality: John Locke was heavily involved in the slave trade, but Renatus Cartesius was not involved in the slave trade. The Empiricist tradition is tainted with Machiavellism, but the Cartesian tradition is untainted by the same modern European political and economic irrationalism, and for very good reason: The modern sophistical conception of Europe is the basis of modern European Eurocentricism, especially as found in the Napoléonic and French Revolutionary conception of right. Western philosophy in the Constitution of the United States of America is not modern European sophistry.

Messieurs sophistes, the Constitution of the United States of America is not the Napoléonic Code of Bonapartist Europe and the French Empire! Bonapartism in America perished in the flames of the American Civil War: Bonapartism in Canada, as in Mexico, is withering away: Some of the modern sophists dream of a unipolar world, with the European Union at the center, in accordance with their Napoléonic delusions of right; others, their softer brethren, even harbor the more delusional pipe–dream of a bipolar world with the European Union and Washington side by side, modern irrationalism in harmony with Americanism, — a very impracticable situation in the world of today, considering Europe’s proximity to Asia, which is the creator of dangerous schisms in the European center and periphery. In other words, the flabby minds of Europe want their Napoléonic brethren in America to rule Washington! The modern European sophists are dreamers, but the political and economic strife they create amongst themselves, and especially amidst their American followers, means their sophistry is useful in the advancement of Americanism in Europe: Their sophistical calculations are themselves absorbed in the computational power of the dialectical–algorithm of the World Mind’s worldline, as the developmental unification of the coaxial integration of the American world. Unable to perceive the concretization of the Absolute Idealism of the genuine Hegel in universal history and the minds of American statesmen, especially in the Civil War, the modern sophists’ outdated conception of the world is the gravedigger of European modernity: Otherwise they believe that by distorting historical truth and reality, they secretly advance their own cause, whereas their distortions are themselves merely the necessary illusions that serve the interests of the superior ruling classes, — which they wield as weapons of their own spiritual hegemony.

The world historical conception of Western philosophy is Global and therefore not Eurocentrical, whereas the modern European viewpoint of Western philosophy is not universal, but is rather Eurocentrical: Western philosophy as the fountainhead of world civilization is not Eurocentrical, and therefore is not modern European irrationalism. Global freedom is not modern freedom. The universal rationality of Global civilization, as found in the sciences, philosophy, history as well as religion, literature and art, is not the irrationalism of European modernity. The sophistical historiography of Eurocentricism is itself Eurocentrical, because it seeks to portray the modern European perspective of freedom as universal, and thereby empower autocracy founded upon popular consent: Modern freedom is historically based upon the Napoléonic and French Revolutionary view of right, namely Bonapartism. The European Union itself is not the result of modern freedom, but rather the historical creation of Americanism, namely the 20th century result of the idealistic philosophy of Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower and the American people, as exemplified in the Magna Carta and the Constitution of the United States of America.

In 20th century world history, the Western philosophical conception of Liberty, found in the Constitution of the United States of America (eines welthistorischen Volks), and inherited from Athens and Jerusalem, divides the Western democracies (das Herrschende) from the barbarism of the inferior ruling classes of Asia: Communism is truly a primitive “philosophy.” Western philosophy therefore, rightly understood in the light of exact historiography and world history, had no intercourse with the slave trade and was not born from out of slavery: The Industrial Revolution in America and the rise of Global civilization wrought the end of slavery in the Western world.

Western philosophy and the birth of world civilization (Herrlichkeit), in the struggle between superior and inferior ruling classes (die erscheinende Dialektik der Endlichkeit), in the collapse of European modernity and rise of Globalism, is not modern sophistry and barbarism, and therefore exact historiography is not sophistical historiography: This at least is the verdict of the philosophy of history of the American idealistic tradition.

“The history of mind is its own act.” Hegel

30. Margaret Trudeau, “On the Campaign Trail,” Beyond Reason, Caroline Moorehead, editor, New York/London, 1979, 161.

31. Margaret Trudeau, 235–255–256.

32. Robin Philpot, Derrière L’État Desmarais: Power, 2e édition, Montréal, 2014, 14–15: “Claude Frenette, adjoint de Paul Desmarais … a été élu président de l’aile québécoise du Parti libéral fédéral en vue du congrès au leadership et, dans les bureaux mêmes de Power Corporation, avec Pierre Trudeau, il a établi le plan qui mènerait celui–ci à la direction du Parti libéral et au poste de premier ministre du Canada.”

33. Peter Charles Newman, “King Paul,” The Canadian Establishment: The Titans, How the New Canadian Establishment Seized Power, vol. 3, Toronto, 1998, 164–189; 166–172–172.

Thanks Margaret for the truth: The New Canadian Library salutes you.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS CITED

Anonymous, “New Book Traces Trudeau’s Separatist to Nationalist Shift,” CTV News, 13 November 2011.

Judah Philip Benjamin, A Treatise on the Law of Sale of Personal Property: With References to the American Decisions and to the French Code and Civil Law, (London: Henry Sweet, 1868).

Robert Bernasconi and Anika Maaza Mann, “The Contradictions of Racism: Locke, Slavery, and the Two Treatises,” Race and Racism in Modern Philosophy, Andrew Valls, editor, (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 2005), 89–107.

Christopher J. Berry, Hume, Hegel and Human Nature, (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1982).

John Francis Bosher, The Gaullist Attack on Canada: 1967–1997, (Montréal/Kingston: McGill–Queen’s University Press, 1999).

Renatus Cartesius, “Secundæ Responsiones,” Œuvres de Descartes: Meditationes de Prima Philosophia, vol. 7, Charles Adam & Paul Tannery, éditeurs, (Paris: Léopold Cerf, 1904), 128–159.

Jean Chrétien, Straight from the Heart, 1st edition, (Toronto: Key Porter Books Limited, 1985).

Louis Couzinet, “Le Prince” de Machiavel et la théorie de l’absolutisme, (Paris: Librairie Nouvelle de Droit et de Jurisprudence, Arthur Rousseau, Éditeur, 1910).

Dom Dombowsky, Nietzsche and Napoleon: The Dionysian Conspiracy, (Cardiff: University of Wales, 2014).

Herbert Albert Laurens Fisher, Bonapartism: Six Lectures Delivered in the University of London, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1908).

George Maximilian Anthony Grube (1899–1982), Plato’s Thought, (London: Methuen and Company Ltd., 1935).

Immanuel Kant, Kant’s Principles of Politics Including His Essay on Perpetual Peace: A Contribution to Political Science, William Hastie, editor & translator, (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1891), xxxviii–xxxix.

Henry de Kerillis, I Accuse de Gaulle, Harold Rosenberg, translator, (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1946).

Wilfred Laurier, Lecture on Political Liberalism: Delivered By Wilfrid Laurier, Esq., M.P., on the 26th June, 1877, in the Music Hall, Québec, Under the Auspices of “Le Club Canadien,” (Québec: The Morning Chronicle, 1877).

Charles Lynch, Race for the Rose: Election 1984, (Toronto: Methuen, 1984).

Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli, The Prince, Luigi Ricci, translator, (Oxford: Humphrey Milford, 1921).

William Manchester, The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill: Alone, 1932–1940, vol. 2, (Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1988).

Paul Martin, Hell or High Water: My Life In and Out of Politics, (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 2008).

Friedrich Meinecke, Machiavellism: The Doctrine of Raison d’État and Its Place in Modern History, Douglas Scott, translator, Werner Stark, introduction, (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1962). [1957]

Yitzhak Y. Melamed and Peter Thielke, “Hegelianism,” New Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Game Theory to Lysenkoism, vol. 3, Maryanne Cline Horowitz, editor in chief, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2005), 975–977.

Robert Michels, Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy, Eden Paul and Cedar Paul, translators, (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1959).

Charles W. Mills, “Kant’s Untermenschen,” Race and Racism in Modern Philosophy, Andrew Valls, editor, (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 2005), 169–193.

Rae Murphy, Robert Chodos and Nick Auf der Maur, Brian Mulroney: The Boy from Baie Comeau, (Toronto: James Lorimer & Company, 1985). [1984]

Peter Charles Newman, “King Paul,” The Canadian Establishment: The Titans, How the New Canadian Establishment Seized Power, vol. 3, (Toronto: Viking Canada, 1998), 164–189.

Peter K.J. Park, Africa, Asia, and the History of Philosophy: Racism in the Formation of the Philosophical Cannon, 1780–1830, (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 2013).

Robin Philpot, Derrière L’État Desmarais: Power, 2e édition, (Montréal: Livres Baraka Inc., 2014).

Mia Rabson, “Two Thirds of Electricity in Canada Now Comes From Renewable Energy,” Calgary Herald, 3 May 2017.

Paul Douglas Stevens, “Pierre E. Trudeau: Prime Minister of Canada, 1968,” The World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 18, (Chicago: Field Enterprises Educational Corporation, 1971), 380a–381.

Margaret Trudeau, Beyond Reason, Caroline Moorehead, editor, (New York/London, Paddington Press Ltd., 1979).

Margaret Trudeau, “Acknowledgement,” Beyond Reason, Caroline Moorehead, editor, (New York/London, Paddington Press Ltd., 1979), 11.

Margaret Trudeau, “Picture Credits,” Beyond Reason, Caroline Moorehead, editor, (New York/London, Paddington Press Ltd., 1979), 12.

Margaret Trudeau, “Prologue,” Beyond Reason, Caroline Moorehead, editor, (New York/London, Paddington Press Ltd., 1979), 13–16.

Margaret Trudeau, “Growing Up,” Beyond Reason, Caroline Moorehead, editor, (New York/London, Paddington Press Ltd., 1979), 17–29.

Margaret Trudeau, “On the Hippy Trail,” Beyond Reason, Caroline Moorehead, editor, (New York/London, Paddington Press Ltd., 1979), 30–39.

Margaret Trudeau, “A Secret Courtship,” Beyond Reason, Caroline Moorehead, editor, (New York/London, Paddington Press Ltd., 1979), 40–56.

Margaret Trudeau, “Preparing for the Wedding,” Beyond Reason, Caroline Moorehead, editor, (New York/London, Paddington Press Ltd., 1979), 57–80.

Margaret Trudeau, “On Becoming Chatelaine,” Beyond Reason, Caroline Moorehead, editor, (New York/London, Paddington Press Ltd., 1979), 97–111.

Margaret Trudeau, “Official Residences,” Beyond Reason, Caroline Moorehead, editor, (New York/London, Paddington Press Ltd., 1979), 112–122.

Margaret Trudeau, “Family Life,” Beyond Reason, Caroline Moorehead, editor, (New York/London, Paddington Press Ltd., 1979), 123–139.

Margaret Trudeau, “Saved by Protocol,” Beyond Reason, Caroline Moorehead, editor, (New York/London, Paddington Press Ltd., 1979), 140–160.

Margaret Trudeau, “On the Campaign Trail,” Beyond Reason, Caroline Moorehead, editor, (New York/London, Paddington Press Ltd., 1979), 161–175.

Margaret Trudeau, “If You Can’t Please Everybody, Please Yourself,” Beyond Reason, Caroline Moorehead, editor, (New York/London, Paddington Press Ltd., 1979), 193–213.

Margaret Trudeau, “False Protection,” Beyond Reason, Caroline Moorehead, editor, (New York/London, Paddington Press Ltd., 1979), 214-.

Margaret Trudeau, “The Dreams Go Sour,” Beyond Reason, Caroline Moorehead, editor, (New York/London, Paddington Press Ltd., 1979), 229–243.

Margaret Trudeau, “Taking Off,” Beyond Reason, Caroline Moorehead, editor, (New York/London, Paddington Press Ltd., 1979), 244–253.

Margaret Trudeau, “Epilogue,” Beyond Reason, Caroline Moorehead, editor, (New York/London, Paddington Press Ltd., 1979), 254–256.

Andrew Valls, editor, “‘A Lousy Empirical Scientist’: Reconsidering Hume’s Racism,” Race and Racism in Modern Philosophy, (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 2005), 129–149.

©2017 Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, The New Canada: Margaret Trudeau Versus the Québécocracy. All rights reserved. This work is only for MEDIUM and its users: Users are not permitted to mount this writing on any network servers. No part of this writing may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the author, except for reading and browsing via the World Wide Web.