Talk:Adrien Arcand

Untitled

Have removed the accuracy label since there was nothing on the talk page detailing why this article may or may not be biased 151.202.96.158 21:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should put it back

The article says: "During his political career, he proclaimed himself the Canadian Führer." No footnote. In fact, he never proclaimed himself a "Führer" at all. The red, pink and liberal press of the mid and late 1930s used the label to slander him, knowing that he was a devout Roman Catholic and that his movement was Christian and based on social doctrine of the Catholic Church, including papal encyclicals and the writings of the Church Fathers, including Thomas Aquinas. Arcand publicly refuted the ridiculous allegation that he was a "Führer". He denied it in public speeches, where he also denied being "in Hitler's pay". He denied it in writing in the press. So, if you want to label the man yourself, because it's a handy cliche and as a cliche you feel you don't have to prove it, you should try locating a REAL footnote proving beyond a doubt with a primary source, i.e., Arcand himself being the primary source, when you allege that "he proclaimed himself the Canadian Führer". Otherwise, you are just pandering to a load of nonsense delivered up by communists, communist Jews including Fred Rose who at least had a trial and a chance to defend himself, and spent 6 years in jail for TREASON, for giving Canadian atomic bomb secrets to the Soviets. Fred Rose was among the loudest, and biggest liars about Arcand pre-WWII, and after WWII called for Arcand to be EXECUTED (without trial), whereas after ROSE was caught in his real treason to Canada, while he was a sitting Member of Parliament in Ottawa, Rose's commie pals all fund-raised to defend Rose claiming he had an unfair trial. Really? He had a trial, as did most of those commie traitors he recruited in this country, but Adrien Arcand and his men never even HAD A CHANCE TO PRESENT A DEFENSE. The "judge", Judge DeSerres, "aborted" the preliminary "trial" after clippings were put on the table and just ONE "witness" was called, Inspector Harvison. The "clippings" were 40 extracts claiming to come from documents and letters the RCMP was too busy to photograph, so they couldn't bring whole documents to court. Instead, they had a typist type up statements out of these documents, taking these statements OUT OF CONTEXT, and then combined them all like scrabble tiles to build the desired idea. If the WHOLE documents had been presented; and if ARCAND and his men had been given the CIVILIZED right under MAGNA CARTA to a defense, they would have been acquitted. But in this corrupt communist country of Canada where the "liberals" are nothing but communists under another label, their political enemies who cost them votes are pilloried, slandered, lied about, and denied their fundamental human right to a DEFENSE.

Anyway, if you Wiki-bloody-pedians think Arcand "proclaimed himself" the "Fuhrer", PROVE IT with a primary source, because all the secondary sources are repetitions of the same red, pink and liberal LIES and CLICHES.

Le Livre noir du Canada anglais

The statements made in this article Arcand received funds from the Conservative Party in the 1930 election and he had contacts with various upper class fascist sympathizers in Britain are correct, but several of these statements are linked to Le Livre noir du Canada anglais, which to put it mildly is not the most scholarly book out there. The Black Book of English Canada is a rant by a Quebec separatist with some serious issues with English-Canadians who are portrayed in his book as having a near-genocidal hatred for French-Canadians. It is not regarded as a good book or anything close to it. It is true that Arcand saw himself as a future fascist leader of not only Canada, but also of the British empire which led him to oppose Quebec separatism, but Normand Lester is seriously distorting matters by portraying Arcand as your typical French-Canadian federalist. There is a political point being made here; that to be a federalist in Quebec is to be a fascist. Coming from a man who is a member of a movement that says that the real Québécois out there are the pure laine French-Canadians (i.e those descended from the French settlers to New France in the 17th and 18th centuries) and that everybody else in Quebec who is a not pure laine doesn't belong there, this is a bit rich. I'm not trying to suggest Quebec separatists are fascists, but this obsession with racial purity and the insistence that those people in Quebec whose ancestors arrived after 1763 don't really belong is troubling. If one really wants to make the latter argument that some people "own" a particular place because their ancestors got there first, then logically Quebec belongs to the Indians who ancestors arrived there hundreds of thousands of years before the first French settlers landed in 1608. Le Livre noir du Canada anglais is not a history book as normally understood; it is a campaign pamphlet inflated to book length designed to make the case for Quebec separatism. There are better sources out there, and this article would benefit from using better books than Lester's book. A problem around here is that many people needed to take an article seriously. Even through the article merely cites Lester's book to back-up statements about R.B. Bennett funding Arcand (which is true), those familiar with Lester's book will have trouble taking this seriously because Le Livre noir du Canada anglais has gotten a lot of bad reviews in both French-Canada and English-Canada. It is better to use a more reputable source for this. --A.S. Brown (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The issue isn't "racial purity", it's self-defense

1. An ethnic group, meaning a group with a common cultural and ethnic heritage, is entitled to exist, just as any individual is entitled to exist. To slander a group as fascist or to suggest that the idea of "racial purity" more or less should be attributed to them as a pejorative, is utterly ridiculous. It amounts to telling these people that they have no right to EXIST. Would you tell the Mohawks, the Crees, or the Abenakis that they have no right to exist? That they should open their territories and their Band Councils to blacks, jews, brazilians, chinese, japanese, or else brand them as bigots concerned with "racial purity"? I think not. I think that brand is only reserved for Caucasians. Wonder why? Since it was largely Caucasians who died in WWII conscripted to fight against the sovereign right of the German people to govern themselves as they please. There was, and still should be, after all, the Treaty of Westphalia, acknowledging the world constitution, meaning the collection of SOVEREIGN states, entitled to do as they please within their borders. Look into history a bit, other than the typical CLICHES, and find out that something called the "phoney war" began WWII as the BRITISH bombed and attacked Germany to antagonized Hitler into a war he did not want and could not afford. And what was Hitler doing? He was protecting his country from the same BOLSHEVIKS and MARXISTS who had seized Russia and slaughtered tens of millions of innocent Christians, and who shipped Russia's gold to the Jewish International bankers of Kuhn Loeb, who had financed the COUP, this war of aggression called a "revolution". 2. Self-government is recognized even by the commie UN as a "fundamental human right". SELF means the ethnic self, the "distinct" ethnic and racial entity, different from everybody else in culture, history and temperament. In fact, Confederation was founded as an ETHNIC federation in 1967, precisely to give each founding ethnic majority its own local SELF-GOVERNMENT, in a provincial legislature, while also sharing a federal government on all issues not covered by s. 92 of the BNA Act, 1867. If you understood that Confederation is FOR the founding ethnic majorities, you might drop the silly 'racial purity" nonsense. The French-Canadian majority in Lower Canada (now called Quebec) received a province and a Legislature in 1867 FOR THEIR OWN LOCAL, ETHNIC SELF-GOVERNMENT for the purpose of maintaining their own CULTURE and perpetuating their group. Which, after all, was the first "modern" group formed by birth in North America and pioneered North America and some of the western hemisphere. They were beaten back by invaders, by ENGLISH-origin Americans, and then by the treaty that ended the 7 years' war. All that remains to the FRENCH-speaking, CULTURALLY French-Canadian ETHNIC people who share a history together here in PIONEERING Canada is largely found in Quebec, the only place in Canada where they have a Legislature. Now, in 1930, a young Adrien Arcand happened to notice that all it took was just TWO JEWS, penetrated into that Legislature, to topple the French-Canadian apple cart. These JEWS, with their money from foreign sources, and their influence over the left-wing Liberals, were crushing French-Canadian culture by altering the statute books. They were having laws passed in the Catholic French-Canadian Legislature to suit the JEWS to the detriment of the French-Canadians, thus destroying the whole point of subdividing Canada in 1867 to guarantee ETHNIC self-determination in each provincial region. If you lose your Legislature to another ethnic group that is using it to destroy your culture by replacing it with their own, then you have NO INSTITUTIONS any more, your institutions that you require for your very existence as a culture and a people are taken from you. That is precisely what has continued to happen in Canada. The mass immigration, communist in inspiration, is precisely intended to WIPE out the French-Canadians, and Pierre Trudeau is the one who anticipated the complete and utter genocide of the French Canadians in Quebec due to the multiculturalism HE imposed as a good communist, and UNLAWFULLY, to eradicate Confederation. So, if you are a people, and a culture, and an ethnic group, and you would like to exist, how do you do that if your primary institutions are taken from you, and the others all undermined? That is what was happening in Quebec in 1930 between two wars whose real purpose was world government, by discrediting the nation-state and creating first the League of Nations, then the United Nations, and now with the help of the Covid-19 scamdemic, the demand is on to convert the UN to an "elected" world government. Here are a few links proving it: https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZsX4sXZwdYP1XenzdYlUArPIEVVLS4Dlo8k

So, in 1930, Arcand became outraged with what he realistically saw as the invasion of his culture and institutions and their conversion to serve a different ethnic group. If, like the communists, you don't mind ripping up the roots of ethnic peoples everywhere to force "race mixing" to eradicate identity and self-government, then continue with your 'racial purity' bullshit. But no ethnic group can assimilate an endless wave of incoming distinct foreigners. The French-Canadians, however, accommodated Irish orphans in substantial numbers at one point, out of kindness, and today you will find French-Canadians with freckles, a pug nose and red hair, because there are some Irish blended in. However, can you really say that ONE ethnic group can be blended in with 200+ other ethnic groups from all over the world, each with its homeland and culture and history of origin, and NOT ERADICATE all the essential qualities and features that make a French Canadian? Personally, I don't care for the most part if people inter-marry if they want to. But, I think that the right of a group to exist cannot be put on trial or subjected to defamation and coercion by slandering them to force them to relinquish their history and ethnicity which create their identity. They are entitled to be an individual ethnic group, just as individuals are entitled to be individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.98.65 (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Nice to hear you have the same ideology as Genocide perpetrators.

In all seriousness, I'm surprised that you would expect your own personal opinions to be inserted into what is meant to be an unbiased, balanced encyclopedia. Dunutubble (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)