By Matthew Ehret

“Canada originally was put together by two groups of people who didn’t have much in Common, but did not want to be Americans”

The above words taken from a 1973 interview of George Grant present a remarkable irony: One of the most influential founding fathers of the “new nationalism’ which arose with Canada’s 1963 ouster of Prime Minister John Diefenbaker and rise of a New Liberal Party under Walter Gordon, and Lester Pearson, is a man who never described what Canada is in any positive measure, but merely what it wasn’t. Grant’s influential, lie-ridden life’s works culminated in his 1965 Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism, and served as an attack upon the collective psyche of young Canadians who were in the midst of watching a post-JFK America fall under the influence of a British-steered imperial policy, and economic policy beginning with the war in Vietnam.

In order to fully comprehend the paradox of the Canadian identity sculpted by Grant in this and similar works, is to take a brief look at the man, as an imperialist, as a representative of an oligarchical Canadian family, a Rhodes Scholar, a Nietzschean/Straussian and a hater of scientific and technological progress represented by the best traditions of America.8-c-Grant in 1973

George Grant was among the members of a growing hive of Rhodes scholars which had infiltrated most all branches of policy making, business, media and academia in Canada since the foundation of the scholarship in 1902. Grant’s philosophical thoughts were broadcast in all forms of print, radio and televised media from 1949 to the end of his life in 1988. Born into two interconnected ‘elite’ families of Canada, Grant’s destiny was relatively predetermined by forces which were in a certain sense beyond even his control, and a brief survey of some key family members and their assigned roles in the misshaping of Canada and the world will be useful before addressing the lies embedded in the life’s devotion of George Grant. This exercise will also help the modern historian to get a better sense of the pedigree of Canadian oligarchism, its evil culture as peons of an older, more powerful strain of Anglo-Dutch oligarchism and the currents which have caused the distorted nationalism now so heavily conditioning Canadian perception and behaviour.

A Family of Imperialists

George’s paternal grandfather George Munro Grant was a lifelong advocate of Imperial Union and a key figure in ensuring8-c-Ignatiev the inclusion of the Province of Nova Scotia into the 1867 Confederation which ensured that Canada would not adopt a constitution similar in substance to that of its republican neighbour. For his services to the British Empire, Grant was made Principal of Queen’s College from 1877 until his death in 1902.

George Grant’s maternal grandfather was the infamous imperialist George Parkin, the Canadian whom Lord Alfred Milner had later credited with providing aim and mission to his life during their mutual stay at Oxford in 1873-1874 (alongside a young Cecil Rhodes). Parkin made himself a world’s leading voice for imperial union, explaining in his 1891 gospel Imperial Federation that such a program was the only means to save the British Empire, then on the verge of collapse during the second half of the 19th century. George Parkin became Principal 8-c-Parkin and Milnerof Upper Canada College in 1895, and left his post to become the first secretary of the Rhodes Scholarship Trust after the death of Cecil Rhodes in 1902.  The Rhodes Scholarship was designed to fulfill the intention of Rhodes’ seven wills which called for domination of the “inferior races” to Anglo-Saxon superiority, and the ultimate recapturing of America by creating a controlled indoctrination system for young talent from around the world that would receive their conditioning in the halls of Oxford University.

Parkin maintained this powerful position until his death in 1922. From this post, Parkin worked closely with Lord Alfred Milner in setting up Round Table movements across all British colonies beginning officially in 1911. Each Round Table branch was controlled by a central Round Table command post in London’s Foreign Office. In this way, a common strategy for shaping an imperial policy for the colonies (then longing for sovereignty modelled on the American System), could be attained. It was through this vital instrument that the British Empire was able to coordinate the 1911 ouster of the Lincoln-inspired Prime Minister of Canada, Wilfrid Laurier. [3]

Parkin had early on encountered a talent in the form of a young Canadian aristocrat named Vincent Massey. In 1911, Massey who was then a student in Ontario became instrumental in forming youth branches of the Round Table Movement at the University of Toronto. After his valuable services to the Empire, Massey was then sent by Ontario-based Round Table controller Arthur Glazebrook to Oxford to be trained directly under Alfred Milner, a self-described “race patriot”[4] and collaborator of George Parkin,  who was already renowned for seducing young Oxford men to the quasi-religious cause of the British Empire[5]. Massey went on to become the most influential of George Parkin’s sons-in-law when he 8-c-Masseymarried one of Parkin’s four daughters 1915. Massey not only a played a key role in shaping Canada’s political and cultural landscape for the next fifty years, but also gave a young George Grant his first major promotion as a scholar after World War II.

Aside from Massey, a brief overview of the Parkin daughters and their husbands provides the historian with a valuable insight into the breeding habits of a Canadian oligarchical dynasty which has vastly misshaped the evolution of Canada during the following century.

George Parkin’s second daughter Maude married the son of George Munro Grant named William. William Grant was the Beit Lecturer at Oxford (1906-1910) and later Massey teacher at St. Andrews University. He was the headmaster of Upper Canada College, and a major guiding force of the Round Table Movement. After 1919, William became the head of the Canadian Branch of the League of Nations Society[6], and also a director of the Massey Foundation after its formation in 1918 [7]

George Parkin’s third daughter Marjorie married a Rhodes Scholar named J.M. Macdonnell who went on to become both a financier as President of National Trust as well as the head of the Canadian Rhodes Scholarship Selection Committee, recruiting another Rhodes Scholar to become Secretary of the Rhodes Trust by the name of Roland Michener [8]. Macdonnell became a Cabinet Minister under the Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, where he worked alongside fellow Rhodes Scholar and Minister of Justice Davie Fulton to undermine Diefenbaker’s “Northern Vision” program for Arctic development, W.A.C. Bennett’s program for continental water management with the United States and Daniel Johnson’s program for Hydro Power development in Quebec [9].

George Parkin’s fourth daughter Grace married Henry Wimperis, a leading British aeronautical engineer who played an influential role working for the 1946-1950 Atomic Energy Study Group for the Royal Institute for International Affairs (Chatham House) [10].

George Parkin’s only son named George Raleigh Parkin, who also became a major financier heading up Sun Life Insurance after returning home from his Oxford indoctrination, and then becoming a leading member of the Canadian Institute for International Affairs (CIIA).

George Grant’s New Nationalism and Vincent Massey

As early as 1945, while the Canadian identity was increasingly being shaped by the United States’ four term Roosevelt Presidency’s belief in scientific and technological progress and unbounded growth, Grant was making a name for himself as an exponent of a new model of Canadian nationalism founded not upon cooperation with America, but rather by solidifying its “British Conservative” traditions against trends of American progress. Writing in “Have we a Nation?”, Grant wrote:

“For unless we know why we exist, unless we know what we are trying to build here in Canada, unless we make a conscious effort to build it- we will inevitably be shaped by the REPUBLIC. There always has been and always will be an alternative to building a Canadian nation. And that is submerging of our nation in the USA”. [11]

What Grant is describing is a trajectory that had gripped the Canadian imagination as an effect of the close collaboration which Canada shared with Franklin Roosevelt before and especially during the course of World War II known as “continentalism”. Having nothing to do with the perverse continentalism of NAFTA[12] and the World Trade Organization promoted today, but rather the continentalism which posed such fear and hatred in the hearts of the Rhodes Scholarship nests and their London masters. This continentalism represented an outlook based upon the large scale application of scientific and technological progress to overcoming obstacles to human development that exceeded mere national barriers. From the period of 1945-1963, the policies of large scale water management as seen in the Quebec hydroelectric power projects and B.C.’s Columbia River Treaty as a gateway to NAWAPA were among the most ambitious programs which Canadian patriots, working alongside their American colleagues were excited about building. Similarly, Arctic development powered by a full nuclear power system as the new frontier of human civilization and a space-based economy founded upon exploration and discovery were also a high priority for North American nation builders and the world.

Grant’s reputation as an enemy of both continentalism and scientific and technological progress, resulted in his being catapulted to national recognition by the procurement of his services by his uncle Vincent Massey in 1949. Grant’s service came in the form of a commissioned appendix to the Royal Commission on the National Development of the Arts, Letters and Sciences chaired by Massey and his French Canadian collaborator George Henri Lévesque. Lévesque was a Dominican priest and Belgium trained social engineer who was charged with the task of secularizing the province of Quebec to prepare the culture for integration into a Brave New World [12].

In his 1949 essay, Grant called for the overhauling of the Canadian educational system in accordance with the political agenda that UNESCO’s Julian Huxley had assigned to Massey and which later resulted in the creation of the Canada Council in 1957. This Council, modelled on a British template, was necessary in order to “scientifically” manage Canadian culture and education. The imperialists’ justification of this overhaul of education, used a technique of asserting, without any relevant proof whatsoever, that there exists an absolute dichotomy between the mankind’s emotional nature and thinking character, or in the language of Grant, of the “contemplative/static life” and the “active/changing life” [13]. After such a dichotomy was assumed between the “two cultures” of arts, and applied science, then an argument could be constructed upon which the amplification of the static life and diminishing of the active life in the composition of society as a whole could be arranged. For this purpose, Grant fulfilled his role to the full satisfaction of his uncle and British masters.

Grant notes ruefully: “In some universities in English-speaking Canada, there are four times as many people teaching physics as teaching philosophy, and three times as many people teaching animal husbandry… the prime reason, no doubt for this state of affairs in Canada is the fact of our short history, most of which has been taken up with the practical business of a pioneering nation. Such a society must put its energies into those pursuits that will achieve material ends. The active rather than the contemplative life perforce becomes the ideal. Anything that will effectively overcome hardship must be welcomed with enthusiasm. That concentration on material ends and admiration for the man of action continues for a long while after it has ceased to be a necessity.” [14]

After asserting that the unfortunate idealizing of the active life is both purely materialistically (and not philosophically/spiritually) driven, Grant assumes again without any evidence, that a time can come whereby action ceases to be a necessity. This assertion made, Grant goes on a full frontal attack on the very notion of optimism, and manifest destiny itself:

“…A pioneering society in which there are obvious material accomplishments open to all men of average intelligence leads to an optimism about the universe much like the optimism associated with youth. The tragedy and complexity of maturity are not so evident as in an ancient and more static society. When the spiritual difficulties of maturity arise, the cry of ‘Go west, young man’ can help individuals to avoid them. It is out of a sense of tragedy and uncertainty more than anything else that the need for philosophical speculation arises. A young nation in its sureness and confidence is thus basically unphilosophical.” [15]

Thus Grant’s conclusion is that not only does the optimism in the universe and mankind stem from a naïve and unmatured spirit, but that the pioneer spirit itself is merely an escape from thinking about the tragic complexity of life confronted by the likes of such “matured” British conservative thinkers as Charles Darwin and Thomas Malthus. In Grant’s world, an active life imbued with a sense of universal optimism in conquering the obstacles of nature through progress, is intrinsically un-philosophical! Compare that to the pioneering spirit of Abraham Lincoln’s economic adviser Henry C. Carey who directed his energies to destroy this fallacious assumption of British thinkers by attacking both Malthus and Darwin by name in his 1871 Unity of Law:

8-c-Carey““Here was further proof of the universality of natural laws- the course of man, in reference to the earth at large, being thus shown to have been the same that we see it now to be in reference to all the instruments into which he fashions parts of the great machine itself. Always commencing with the poorest axes, he proceeds onward to those of steel; always commencing with the poorer soils, he proceeds onward toward those capable of yielding larger returns to labor; increase of numbers being thus proved to be essential to increase in the supply of food. Here was a unity of law leading to perfect harmony of all real and permanent human interests, and directly opposed to the discords taught by Mr. Malthus… Reflecting upon this, he [Carey speaking in the 1st person] was soon brought to expression of the belief, that closer examination would lead to development of the great fact, that there existed but a single system of laws; those instituted for the government of inorganic matter proving to be the same by which that matter was governed when it took the form of man, or of communities of men.” [16]

When seen through the eyes of Henry C. Carey and all similar American System statesmen, the nature of politics, economics and culture are united in mankind’s powers to improve the universe, and in so doing, improving himself in so far as discovering ever more perfectly, the laws of creation and his own unique identity as a mirror of the macrocosm. An economy and a law is not, in the mind of Carey, a “thing”, but rather a process of creation! This is the fundamental secret which the Anglo-Dutch oligarchy and its managers have been trying to obscure and whose solution lies in the universal physical principle of increase in energy-flux density and holds the keys not only to the reason/emotion paradox, but mankind’s salvation still today.

Returning to Grant’s sophistry, the question then arose: where would we ever find such teachers of the passive arts such as philosophy, and music, if the Canadian pioneering tendency active since 1878, has prevented its existence up until now? Grant answers his question:

“One difficulty of having Englishmen as our leading teachers of philosophy must however be mentioned. As has been said earlier, these men were teaching at a time when the conception of the contemplative arts was being radically assailed in Canada. The fact that the men who were deeply involved in keeping this conception alive were generally men bred in Great Britain often meant that they were unable to transpose the vital issues of philosophy into sufficiently Canadian terms to make them of burning interest to young Canadians.” [17]

Thus the desired teachers are men bred unsurprisingly in Great Britain! But sadly, the lack of sensitivity to the Canadian cultural matrix identified by Grant has kept these teachers from sufficiently influencing the Canadian mind and achieving the desired “matured tragic culture of stasis” for which Grant yearned. Towards the conclusion of his essay, Grant lets his call to action (ironically to stop the active life) spring forth blatantly.

“The question will be decided by whether our political leaders and civil servants, our business men and educators come to see more clearly the long term advantages of training our able youth in a contemplative life as well as an active approach to life. It will depend indeed on whether they see the incalculable advantages that will pertain to any society which has a contemplative tradition strong enough to act as a brake on the rightly impetuous men of action. In the world we live in the need of such an influence should become increasingly apparent… The tragedy must be admitted that, just as the controlling forces in our western world are beginning to understand how deeply our spiritual traditions need guarding, and that some of our energy must be diverted from technology towards that purpose, our society is being challenged to defend itself against a barbaric Empire that puts its faith in salvation by the machine.” [18]

Thus in order for society to save itself from the “barbaric Empire that puts its faith in salvation by the machine”, men of the contemplative life must be created in a strong enough intensity such that they may “act as a brake on the impetuous men of action”. True to form, Grant asserts that this would be a self evident benefit without ever producing a single piece of evidence [19].

The Massey Commission’s Relevance for Social Engineering

The Massey Commission was a key player in the MI6/CIA orchestrated Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) operation which had begun in 1949 in order to “de-Nazify” both Europe and the Americas and promote a culture which was conditioned to assume that the very act of judging right and wrong would no longer be possible without risking the rise of new Hitlers (wasn’t it after all, the very act of judging that let Hitler make absolute statements about truth which caused the war?) Anyone who spoke of “truth”, had to thus be categorized as an authoritarian personality and fascist [20].

The Massey Commission provided a conceptual blueprint for the creation of mechanisms which were necessary to halt, to the highest degree possible, all influence of American newspapers, magazines, radio services, television programming, and films from being accessed by the Canadian mind by establishing draconian quota systems. This quota system made much U.S. media extremely difficult to come by in Canada for decades. Taking over responsibility for the financing of arts, culture, humanities and social sciences from the Rockefeller and Carnegie philanthropies that had primary monopoly on financing of such programs both in America and Canada [20], the Canada Council ensured that centralized federal control over the school system and its curricula could then artificially create a “demand” ” by the federal financing of the ugly and arbitrary in the arts while promoting a humanities/social science system, which was directed to fragmenting all concepts of intellectual truth from aesthetical beauty.

The social sciences and humanities approach promoted by UNESCO, the OECD, the imperial philanthropies and now the Canada Council, were based on treating cultural behavioral characteristics as “things” in and of themselves, not as ephemeral processes driven by ideas of universal principles. The ideological underlying assumption was that Arts and Sciences are based on innovation in the domain of sense perception effects as opposed to discoveries of universal physical principles generated by the creative human mind.  These “things” were rather treated as subspecies of bugs and fauna analyzed by an anal biologist, whereby radical statistical-based descriptions of patterns (which themselves were nothing more than the shadowy effects of deeper principles) could be modelled, and commented upon ad infinitum without any danger of discoveries of universal principle ever being made again. The power of creative reason was effectively cut off from the “techniques” of science and art under this model, and a new culture of a master “managerial” class and “popular” slave class was established, based exclusively on the belief in sense perception effects.

Lament for a Nation and the Diefenbaker Paradox

By 1965, Grant’s services were again procured by Massey and financed (as most of his works) through the Canada Council in the writing of a highly influential little book called “Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism”[22]. His work was designed to create a line of reasoning that would both condition the thinking of the intellectual class of Canada and polarize an emotionally terrorized youth culture to reject the “American Empire” to the south. What Grant obviously left out, is that it was MI6/Chatham House networks in both Canada and America (to which he was an integral part) that had orchestrated the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963 [23] and had re-activated the imperial tendencies after his death, beginning with the war in Vietnam. In his 1970 edition Grant updates his introduction with the following words of warning  to Canadians:

“The central problem for nationalism in English-speaking Canada has always been: in what ways and for what reasons do we have the power and the desire to maintain some independence of the American empire?… on the surface it is certainly much easier in 1970 than it was in 1963 for Canadians not to want to be swallowed by the U.S. The years of the Vietnam war have been an exposition of the American empire.” [24]

Grant’s work can be considered clinically Delphic, simply because of the conscious lies used to advance his exposition such as the belief that the American System’s focus upon the sacredness of individual liberty and personal initiative was directly inspired by the British imperial philosophers John Locke and Adam Smith, or that the American system is intrinsically incompatible with the Common Good, even though its very constitution is built upon that premise [25]. The core of Grant’s Delphic concoction is the paradox of “progress without change.”  He would like to have both worlds, active and contemplative. He would like to have Canada be both American and British. He can’t have them both, because those two chosen words which form the core of his ideology, “active” and “contemplative” are shadows of two irreconcilable realities which are the American System and the British Imperial System, respectively. And the two cannot live as one.

With these and similar blatant lies affirmed as unquestionable truth, Grant went on to create an irony which never really existed in the first place: that both America and Canada having so many differences in custom and identity, were each birthed by British imperial thinkers! Following his 1949 Massey Commission thesis, Grant sets his logical Delphic construct on another artificial irony, which is that while Canada’s origins are rooted in British Conservativism (ie: inclined to the contemplated life of appreciating fixed traditions and things as they are), America is intrinsically Capitalistic, active and progress-driven. Canada’s only hope in fending off the American Empire, claimed Grant, is found in recapturing our British conservative traditions where he wrote:

“ Our hope lay in the belief that on the northern half of this continent we could build a community which had a stronger sense of the common good and of public order than was possible under the individualism of the American capitalist dream. The original sources of that hope in the English Speaking part of our society lay in certain British traditions which had been denied in the American revolution. But the American liberalism which we had to oppose, itself came out of the British tradition- the Liberalism of Locke and Adam Smith.” [26]

Thus after assuming an unbridgeable incompatibility between the common good and public order of British traditions and individual freedom of America, Grant’s book unfolds as a series of fallacies built upon each other. Grant’s work begins by a Delphic overview of the failure of the Canadian Nationalist policy from the time of its first creation under John A. Macdonald 1879 to the downfall of Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker in 1963.

He laments Diefenbaker’s downfall as the proven failure of Canadian nationalism and argues that it was Diefenbaker’s attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable by promoting a spirit of British Conservativism and anti-Americanism on the one side, while promoting a love of individualism and progress on the other. Restating his “truth” of the irreconcilability of the changing and non-changing, and the failure of Diefenbaker, Grant wrote:

“The practical men who call themselves conservatives must commit themselves to a science that leads to the conquest of nature. This science produces such a dynamic society that it is impossible to conserve anything for long. In such an environment, all institutions and standards are constantly changing. Conservatives who attempt to be practical face a dilemma. If they are not committed to a dynamic technology, they cannot hope to make any popular appeal. If they are so committed, they cannot hope to be conservatives.”  [27]

This in fact is an anomalous paradox of Canadian history, typified by Diefenbaker’s genuine love of progress while simultaneously loving the monarchy and British conservative traditions into which he was born. Diefenbaker’s strident admiration for both Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt clashes with his constant appraisals of British greatness and also provides a key insight into the reason for the failure in the relationship between himself and John F. Kennedy. Diefenbaker’s tragic character embodies such a common characteristic personality type in Canadian history that can be henceforth called the “Diefenbaker Paradox”.  Diefenbaker’s only hope of resolving his own paradox involved a discovery of principle embedded in the American system which was absolutely absent in all aspects of the British system [28].

8-c-DiefIn the year following the publication of Lament for a Nation, Grant wrote his 1966 Philosophy in the Mass Age where he acknowledged a key influence upon his thinking when he described the evil philosopher Leo Strauss “as the greatest joy and that most difficult of attainment is any movement of the mind (however small) towards enlightenment, I count it a high blessing to have been acquainted with this man’s thought” [29]. Strauss’s now well documented role as the ideological founder of neo-conservatism as an “authority” on both Plato and Aristotle as analyzed through the perverted eye of Friedrich Nietzsche provides an additional insight into Grant’s life’s work [30].

It is relavent to here point out that it was Grant’s inability to resolve the Diefenbaker Paradox, and his own oligarchical mindset which drove him down the dark path of Nietzsche and Strauss. If the cognitive dissonance caused by the fact that mankind is found in a universe of law, and yet which is constantly changing, is not resolved by an axiom destroying discovery of principle, then the tragic victim, like poor George Grant, will invariably fall upon the path of Nietzsche, Strauss and Aldous Huxley.

Grant in 1973: Letting out his Nietzschean Inner Huxley

In a widely broadcast CBC interview in 1973 with Ramsey Cook, Grant, the self-professed “Christian philosopher”, threw his allegiances in with the author of “The Antichrist”… the god-hating existentialist Friederich Nietzsche, whom Grant admiringly admits shared his belief in the incompatibility of technological progress and change with traditional beliefs of truth that were intrinsically unchanging. To this effect, Grant said:

“This is why I so greatly admire a philosopher who is not much admired in the English speaking world, yet who I think was a very great philosopher- Nietzsche. I think he saw this early with enormous clarity- that modern science was an amazing theoretical and practical achievement, yet saw how killing it was to man.” [31]

Grant’s sophistical argument that science is a homogenizer of society was transparently laid out in his next breathe:

“it [modern science], sees the world entirely as ‘object’, and the world as object is the same one place as another… the point is that at the heart of science is summoning forth things to stand before them, to give them REASONS, that is to be OBJECTS for them and objects are the same everywhere! Now in that sense, scientific society led to homogenization”

8-c-Grants evil idolsAfter laying out his view of the spiritual, and political world of man, and his assumption that reason and object are really the same thing, Grant then giddily began to speak of his “prediction” of the future of the “American Empire” and the new tyranny of his world state:

“I think one of the strange things with modern tyranny is it’s not going to appear often very nasty… Well let me tell you what I think the tyranny of the United States is going to be, at sort of a late state capitalist stage. It’s going to be the mental health state. It’ll be the tyranny of the mental health organization.

Cook: This all sounds very Orwellian. Is Orwell a thinker in your camp?

Grant: I would be closer to old Huxley. I think Brave New World is a much clearer… I think its going to be done in a much smoother way, if you know what I mean. You’ll be able to control with the morning after birth control pill, and water control so you’ll have to get a license to get children… Orwell’s is much too violent. I think the violence will be much much smoother.”

Certainly, if “reason” and “object” are supposed to be synonymous, then the British Imperial view of Grant and his “world state” must logically follow from his premises as a necessity… however fortunately for humanity, this formulation is anything but true. As any discovery of principle has demonstrated (whether it is Kepler’s discovery of the harmonic relations of planetary orbits, Mendeleev’s harmonic ordering principle of the elements, or Bach’s discovery of Well-Tempering expressed in his Well-Tempered Clavier series): all universal physical principles, and thus all efficient causes of progress,  are in fact the causes of directed change in the universe and the cause of mankind’s power to increase his potential relative population density and increased powers of labour as demonstrated clearly by American economist Lyndon LaRouche who wrote in 1991:

“The science of political economy is premised upon conclusive, empirical evidence of a fundamental difference which sets the human species absolutely apart from and above, all of the animal species, as Moses specifies in Genesis 1:26. This crucial difference is mankind’s power to increase the potential population density of the human species as a whole by means of the voluntary generation, transmission, and efficient assimilation of scientific and technological progress. Mankind is capable of increasing, intentionally, the maximum size of the human population which could be self-sustained by its own labor, per average square kilometre of land area, while also raising the average physical standard of living. No animal species can accomplish this.”  (32)

Forming a Real Canadian Nationalism

The real science of human self-organization based upon a self conscious understanding of the real principles guiding human evolution is not based on a materialist conception of science devoid of spirit, nor a spiritual conception of art devoid of matter. At 91 years of age, Lyndon LaRouche has spent a life time reviving the universal traditions of America which have centered around the Renaissance concept of the self-perfectibility of man as made in the living image of the creator, and has established a new science called Physical Economy. As Physical Economy is a demonstrable field of science advancing upon the work of Alexander Hamilton and Henry C. Carey, the American System of Political Economy can no longer be said to be American, but rather universal, in that it is applicable by all people of all nations and cultures who strive with an honest intention for a better tomorrow through the wise application of the most advanced fruits of creative thought at humanity’s disposal, regardless of any monetary constraints.

The commitment to humanity’s ongoing successful survival in a creative, anti-entropic universe is the only pre-requesite for the modern nationalist. Without an intention that is in harmony with a rigorous commitment to discoverable truth, and the moral commitment to fight to apply those discovered truths to change the system in which mankind is operating for the better, and without end, then all talk of nationalism and sovereignty is but an empty shell.  An echo of 1 Corinthians 13 is here heard:

“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.”

Do we love our children and neighbours enough to fight for a human cultural policy which will provide them the means to live as men and women, instead of greedy and fearful beasts? Do we love truth more than our comfort to the point that we will let go of axioms which held us back from experiencing the joys of participating in the immortal process of mankind’s transformation into a mature species of directed action within and upon a directed and acting universe?

In his recent paper, On the Subject of Oligarchy, LaRouche expressed the challenge to mankind in the following terms:

“The two leading options for mankind now, may be fairly identified as the choice between the “Oligarchical,” on the one side, and what is fairly nameable as “the Classical,” on the other. The problem to be emphasized, is that the prevalence of the “Oligarchical,” on the one side, would ensure a rate of destruction of humanity which would be of the type which is typified presently by the tradition of the oligarchical system. In that case, the nightmare which General of the Armies Douglas MacArthur had faced in his time, leads toward a general destruction (and, possibly, the extermination) of the human species. In the case that the “oligarchical model” were defeated, the horror of thermonuclear warfare, or comparable consequences, would probably also be defeatable.

To restate the point just made; which of the two options prevails will tend, essentially, to predetermine the outcome for humanity?” [33]

If we choose to take the challenge of stepping into the currents of history, not to simply be moved, but rather, to apply our creative energy towards contributing something durable and meaningful to the immortal unfolding of beauty and creative evolution, then how may we re-amplify those currents of thought past, which have held within them the seeds to a better future?

These are the questions that a true Canadian Patriot must be able to answer.

End notes

[1] George Grant, Interview from CBC’s Aug. 3, 1973 Impressions with Ramsey Cook, available on CBC Digital Archives

[2] This was a policy which Kennedy, following the advice of former President Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur and French President Charles de Gaulle, was adamantly against falling into. Before his death, Kennedy had even commissioned the National Security Action Memorandum 273 to pull remaining U.S. “military advisers” out of Vietnam entirely.

[3] Robert D. Ainsworth, The End of an Era: Laurier and the Election of 1911, University of Ottawa, 2009. Ainsworth quotes a letter from Laurier upon his ouster which reveals much: “Canada is now governed by a junta sitting at London, known as “The Round Table”, with ramifications in Toronto, in Winnipeg, in Victoria, with Tories and Grits receiving their ideas from London and insidiously forcing them on their respective parties.”

[4] Upon his death, Milner’s Credo was published in the London Times of July 25, 1925 with the words: “If I am also an Imperialist, it is because the destiny of the English race, owing to its insular position and long supremacy at sea, has been to strike roots in different parts of the world. I am an Imperialist and not a Little Englander because I am a British Race Patriot … The British State must follow the race, must comprehend it, wherever it settles in appreciable numbers as an independent community. If the swarms constantly being thrown off by the parent hive are lost to the State, the State is irreparably weakened. We cannot afford to part with so much of our best blood. We have already parted with much of it, to form the millions of another separate but fortunately friendly State. We cannot suffer a repetition of the process” [of loosing America a second time –ed]

[5] These young men, many of whom went onto lead the Round Table Movement, and its later transformations such as Philip Kerr, and Lionel Curtis, were known as Milner’s Kindergarten. In a letter dated Aug. 11, 1911, Glazebrook wrote to Milner:

“I have given a letter of introduction to you to a young man called Vincent Massey. He is about 23 or 24 years of age, very well off, and full of enthusiasm for the most invaluable assistance in the Roundtable and in connection with the junior groups… He is going home to Balliol, for a two year course in history, having already taken his degree at the Toronto University. At the end of his two years he expects to return to Canada and take up some kind of serious work, either as a professor at the university or at some other non-money making pursuit. I have become really very attached to him and I hope you will give him an occasional talk. I think it so important to get hold of these first rate young Canadians, and I know what a power you have over young men. I should like to feel that he could become definitely by knowledge a Milnerite”[cited in  Carrol Quigley’s Roundtable Group in Canada, Canadian Historical Review sept 1962, p.213]

[6] The League of Nations Society was formed as it was increasingly becoming clear that the earlier 1911-1919 Round Table Blueprint for Imperial Union was considered too circumspect by patriots striving for true independence from British intrigues. Although vigorously encouraged by the Anglophile racist President Woodrow Wilson, most American patriots rejected its logic of world governance, and the abolishment of sovereignty. Canadian Patriots following the American lead such as Chubby Power, Ernest Lapoint and O.D. Skelton battled valiantly to ensure that even the new League of Nations doctrine of World Governance would also fail.

[7] The Massey Foundation was a philanthropic fund created by Vincent Massey after inheriting the estate of his father, Hart Massey. This foundation was modelled on the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations then active in financing cultural and educational programs favoring population control, eugenics and other practices favorable to an oligarchic society.

[8] Governor General Michener became the legal Canadian Head of State, appointed by Queen Elizabeth II in 1967 and served until 1974 during which time, he was instrumental in establishing the Canadian Branch of the Malthusian Club of Rome alongside Pierre Trudeau and his cabal of social engineers

[9] For the full stories, see the Canadian Patriot #4 and #5.

[10] Wimperis was also a close collaborator of Sir Henry Tizard, chairman of the British Defense Research Policy Committee who Naomi Klein had exposed to have been involved in 1951 meetings at Montreal’s Ritz-Carlton Hotel with the CIA and Canada’s Omand Solandt to “discuss” brainwashing. Naomi Kleine, Shock Doctrine: the Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Knopf Canada, 2007, p.33. Solandt went onto play a key role alongside Senator Maurice Lamontagne and Pierre Elliot Trudeau in the overhaul of Canada’s science policy in the 1960s.

[10] George Grant, Have we a Nation?, Institute of Public Affairs, Dalhousie University, 8/3, Spring 1945, p.162

[11] The North American Free Trade Agreement pushed by the World Trade Organization, the City of London and Wall Street to “homogenize” society via a vast takedown of national structures of regulation and protection of local business. Catalyzed by the 1971 takedown of the Bretton Woods system of global fixed exchange rates, then followed by a slow, but consistent movement to greater de-regulation, and market thinking, this trend vastly accelerated with Margaret Thatcher’s 1986 “Big Bang” de-regulation of banking, followed by NAFTA, and then the Maastricht Treaty which created the Euro as a single currency union undermining all European national sovereignty. The next major point of acceleration occurred with the 1999 takedown of Glass-Steagall in the USA and the 2000 de-regulation of over the counter derivatives.

[12] Lévesque was trained in Lille France and in Belgium with the same Dominicans who became the teachers of the Uriage experiment of  that created the Dominican Fascist Youth Movement: L’Ordre Nouveau. See Pierre Beaudry’s Book II of The Modern Synarchy Movement of Empire. Downloadable at

[13] This is not a new oligarchical technique but one which is recorded as far back as Plato who wrote his brilliant Parmenides dialogue in order to force a crisis in the mind of the reader to tackle this paradox of the changing and non-changing. This is a paradox which neither Grant, Massey, nor any imperialist who conceptualizes man as an animal has ever had any hope in resolving. Since the time of Babylon, this has been the formula used for the creation of synthetic cults under the Delphic method.

[14] George Grant, Royal Commission Studies: A Selection of Essays Prepared for the Royal Commission on the National Development of the Arts, Letters and Sciences, Ottawa, Edmond Cloutier, Printer to King 1951, p. 119-133

[15] Op cit. p. 124-125 [5-6]

[16] Henry C. Carey, Unity of Law: Relations of the Physical, Mental and Moral Sciences, Philedelphia, 1872, p.8

[17] Op cit. p. 12

[18] Op cit. p. 19, note: This is the typical Dominican Thomas Aquinas distinction between “Viva activa” and “Viva contemplativa,” which had been the Delphic plague of the Middle Ages in offering people the choice between the monastery contemplation and its contempt for the world, and the active militarization of the dumbed down population for the Crusades

[19] This is how stopping creativity leads to genocide. Welcome to the fascist New World Order of reducing the world population from 7 to 1 billion people

[20] This is a nice paradox: If you fight for the truth, you are an authoritarian; but if you say there is not truth, you create a fascist society of morons controlled from the top-down

[21] For the full story on Wall Street philanthropies financing and shaping the (ironically anti-American) Canadian identity from 1911-1957, see Rockefeller, Carnegie and Canada: American Philanthropy and the Arts and Letters in Canada by Jeffrey D. Brison, McGill-Queen’s Press, 2005

[22] George Grant, Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism, McClelland and Stewart Ltd., Toronto, 1965, [2nd print with new introduction by Grant 1970]

[23] See the Canadian Patriot #5 for the full story

[24] Op Cit, introduction p. VII

[25]  The Preamble of the American Constitution states: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

[26] Op Cit. introduction p. X

[27] Op Cit. p.66

[28] For the whole story, see Diefenbaker and the Sabotage of the Northern Vision by the author, published in The Canadian Patriot #4, Jan. 2013

[29] George Grant, Philosophy in the Mass Age, University of Toronto Press, 1995 [1st print 1965], p.122

[30] See The Secret Kingdom of Leo Strauss by Tony Papart, published in the April 18, 2003 Executive Intelligence Review downloadable here:

[31] This and all following quotes by Grant are taken from the Aug.3, 1973 CBC interview, accessible on CBC Digital Archives:

[32] Lyndon LaRouche, The Science of Christian Economy, Schiller Institute, Washington D.C., 1991, p. 221

[33] Lyndon LaRouche, On the Subject of Oligarchy, Executive Intelligence Review, July 26, 2013


Grant’s anti-Creative Necessity of the World State and the Crushing of Quebec

In George Grant’s Lament for a Nation, Grant had already begun showing his adherence to the techniques of mind control elaborated by Aldous Huxley in the Brave New World blueprint for a New World Order when he wrote:

“The aspirations of progress have made Canada redundant. The universal and homogeneous state is the pinnacle of political striving. “Universal” implies a world-wide state, which would eliminate the curse of war among nations; “homogeneous” means that all men would be equal, and war among classes would be eliminated. The masses and the philosophers have both agreed that this universal and egalitarian society is the goal of historical striving. It gives content to the rhetoric of both Communists and capitalists. This state will be achieved by means of modern science- a science that leads to the conquest of nature.”  [1]

Grant describes his view of the meaning of “conquest of nature” in the following paragraph: “Today scientists master not only non-human nature, but human nature itself. Particularly in America, scientists concern themselves with the control of heredity, the human mind, and society. Their victories in biochemistry and psychology will give the politicians a prodigious power to universalize and homogenize” [2]

Grant’s idea of the mastery of nature through the sciences has nothing to do with the increase of human potential as is obliged by the American System, but rather of “heredity manipulation, psychology and social control”. Grant’s notion has more to do of the mastery of slaves by masters than the mastery of nature by man. After dwelling on various obstacles to this world state, Grant addresses the problem of the Catholic French Canadian view of man which needed to be crushed as it was incompatible to his utopian model:

“French Canadians must modernize their educational system if they are to have more than a peon’s place in their own industrialization. Yet to modernize their education is to renounce their particularity. At the heart of modern liberal education lies the desire to homogenize the world. Today’s natural and social sciences were consciously produced as instruments towards this end…What happens to the Catholic view of man, when Catholics are asked to shape society through the new sciences of biochemistry, physiological psychology and sociology? These sciences arose from assumptions hostile to the Catholic view of man… Quebec will soon blend into the continental whole and cease to be a nation except in its maintenance of residual patterns of language and personal habit” [3]

Since the “sciences” of the imperialist that focuses upon psychology, biochemistry and social engineering are all based upon the rejection of the concept of mankind as a species endowed with a soul and made in the image of the creator, as is found at the heart of Catholicism, an amputation of these Christian principles from the Quebec culture had to be undertaken beginning with the educational reforms then being applied by Father Lévesque’s social scientists from Laval University assigned to overhaul Quebec with the 1960-66 `Quiet Revolution`. Rhodes Scholar Paul Gérin-Lajoie was assigned the role of creating the Quebec Ministry of Education for this explicit purpose. Today’s Quebec nationalism is little more than Grant’s description of a society whose identities are found merely in their language and personal habits, but not in true progress and its causes.

(1) George Grant, Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism, McClelland and Stewart Ltd., Toronto, 1965, [2nd print with new introduction by Grant 1970], p. 53

(2) Op. Cit. p. 54

(3) Op. Cit. p.79 and 84



Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount


Or enter a custom amount

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly