До Свидания #10

The Marquis de Lafayette

by

Amitakh Stanford

19th August 2010

It is no surprise that outsiders are often more impartial and hence successful in asserting revolutionary ideas. Examples abound. Thomas Paine went from England to America to spur on the colonists towards independence. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were instrumental in giving the French hope for liberty.

Another Attas, the Marquis de Lafayette, upon reading the Declaration of Independence, was so impressed with the colonists' plight that he left his native France and fought as a Major General with the American colonial forces. After America won her independence from Britain, Lafayette returned home and helped lead the French Revolution until it got out of hand and turned into a bloodbath. Like many revolutionaries, he sacrificed his own wealth for the causes in which he believed. He went from being enormously wealthy to a near penniless state by the end of his life. He joined Thomas Paine and Jefferson in placing all of his energy, assets and physical comforts on the line in pursuit of liberty and happiness for all people. In the process, all three were attacked, slandered, maligned and disadvantaged by the corrupt worldly system.

One North American country that believes it has achieved independence is Canada, even though its head of state is Queen Elizabeth II. The country is divided into English-speaking and French-speaking Canada. Modern Quebec is the primary French-speaking region of Canada.

This Canadian province, within Britain's own Commonwealth territory, is the Achilles heel of British designs on world conquest. Quebec stands in between several Canadian provinces, yet it stands alone.

Anyone who travels into Quebec immediately notices that the people speak French, all signs are in French, and the media broadcasts in French. Entering Quebec from another Canadian province is like entering a foreign country. Quebec might have been freed from British domination during the American Revolution by Lafayette, who had been promised 3,000 troops to invade and control it, but the promised troops for the venture never arrived. Active in the Quebec campaign and the abandonment of the project was the then American General, Benedict Arnold. Arnold had not yet attempted to turn over West Point to the British in return for his promised bribe. It is not beyond reason that he was also bribed by the British to protect Canada from a very talented, zealous and adventurous Lafayette, who may well have liberated Quebec from England. One has to wonder how much Arnold has to do with the abandonment of the Quebec campaign!

Quebec tried to free itself from Canada, but lost a very close referendum for independence on June 12, 1995. The official vote count shows that 49.4 percent voted for independence, whilst 50.6 percent voted to remain part of Canada. There were fears of rioting if Quebec seceded. Many suspected foul play in the ballot counting, primarily because of the delayed reporting of the Montreal vote. Montreal was one of the few locales which supported Quebec remaining with Canada. Due to a reported counting difficulty, the Montreal vote was withheld until most of the other ballots had been counted. Those who suspect vote rigging surmise that the Montreal vote was intentionally held back until it was known how many votes were necessary to defeat the referendum, and thereafter the count was falsified, giving the pro-Canada votes sufficient numbers to keep the nation intact.

The spirit of Lafayette lives on in Quebec. The French have steadfastly held on to their culture and language despite great disadvantages and discrimination endured under British rule. Just as the USSR separated into independent countries, as also did Yugoslavia, it is time to recognize Quebec's right to self governance and independence. It is time for another referendum on independence. It is time for a peaceful transition. Britain should no longer rule Quebec. Quebec has earned its right to self government as an independent nation. To avoid any speculation of a rigged referendum vote, hand-counted paper ballots might be considered.

America was forced into a bloody revolution to separate from England. America won its independence, but was never effectively separated from Britain. What has happened to America is that it has imagined that its long-standing foe, England, is really a trusted friend. This transition began shortly after the Revolution and continues today. Americans did not want to remain enemies. They were inclined to forgive and forget, but they forgave too much and forgot much more. British bribing of the likes of General Benedict Arnold did not stop at the end of the American Revolution. English interference, intrigues and the like continued against American presidents, congresses and courts. Underhanded British attempts to retake all of North America have occurred in many ways.

America's first president, George Washington, in his farewell address of 1796, warned that European interests are not synonymous with American interests. He was reminding Americans that the Europeans harboured desires for continental and even world conquest, which were detrimental to the liberty interests on which the United States was founded:

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. . . .

Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world . . . Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Washington would be appalled that the United States has entered into long-term alliances with England especially, but also with the United Nations and NATO. These alliances represent the very trap of permanent alliances and biases that Washington so warned against. Just take a good look at the perpetual war footing that America has got itself into now by ignoring his advice. In the process, America has been transformed from a bearer of liberty into a bully that is fast becoming the most hated nation in the world.

Washington also mentioned commercial matters in his address, indicating that partiality in commercial matters was likewise dangerous to liberty interests. He declared: “But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences;”

Washington further advocated neutrality, understanding that European ambition and belligerence were insatiable:

The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations.

The whole of his address cries out to avoid foreign entanglements and especially foreign wars. His neutrality stance proved one of the most difficult positions for Britain to shake, but its ambition knows no bounds. More than a century later, its efforts began bearing corrupted fruit, until it has weakened, tarnished and debilitated America into her current and woeful state of unrest, turmoil, war and near-bankruptcy.

The world is going through revolutionary changes unlike anything previously experienced. It is behaving in a way that is foreign even to the Kwa of the centre of the Earth . . .

For some of the Attas, it is a time for the closing of one phase and the beginning of another.

© 2010 Amitakh Stanford