Showing posts sorted by date for query WITCHES. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query WITCHES. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Sunday, August 16, 2026

Another Blow Against Pax Americana



 August 14, 2026

1906 political cartoon depicting Theodore Roosevelt using the Monroe Doctrine to keep European powers out of the Dominican Republic – Public Domain

Remember that photo from Donald Trump’s first overseas trip as president back in 2017?

The new president was in Riyadh. Instead of going to Europe or Japan or Canada, Trump was making his first presidential trip to Saudi Arabia. And there he was, at the opening of a new World Center for Countering Extremist Thought, flashing his trademark smirk as he put his hands on a glowing orb that represented the globe. Next to him, their hands also on the magic ball, were the Saudi king and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

The three leaders looked like they were in a film, playing an evil trio plotting to take over the world. Twitter lit up with comparisons to the three witches from Macbeth. It was a terrifying irony that Trump and company were inaugurating a center for “countering extremist thought” since they all three, in their own way, represented the promotion of extremist thought.

This appearance in Saudi Arabia was effectively Trump’s announcement that the liberal international order was over. The new president didn’t want to associate with European liberals or Japanese democrats or Canadian moderates. He preferred the company of a military strongman from Egypt and a religious autocrat from Saudi Arabia. Their hands on the globe symbolized their desire to spin the world in a different direction.

A decade later, Trump can still be judged by the company he keeps. He’s buddies with war criminals like Russian leader Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He’s tight with autocrats like Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele, and Saudi prince Mohammed bin Salman.

But, increasingly, even the autocrats are leery of Trump. Sure, no one wants to piss off Trump since, after all, he controls both nukes and tariffs. But the U.S. president is unpredictable and, frankly, erratic. Richard Nixon pretended, more or less, to be a madman in the 1970s so that the North Vietnamese would not be able to predict his next move in the war. Trump is probably not pretending. Other leaders are playing it safe by quietly treating him like a lunatic.

In 2017, the autocrats couldn’t wait to visit Trump at Mar-a-Lago and then return the favor by inviting him to join their clubs, like the absurdly titled World Center for Countering Extremist Thought. But now, a decade later, some authoritarian countries like India and Russia haven’t even joined Trump’s Board of Peace.

More concerning, at least from the point of view of an American exceptionalist, are the clubs that have been set up to exclude the United States. And that’s where the new Mecca Defense Pact comes in.

It’s Our Party

Last week, Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia signed a mutual security pact in which they pledged to come to each other’s defense in the event of an attack. The new alliance is built on a bilateral agreement signed last year between Islamabad and Riyadh.

Two things are significant about this announcement. The first is that three U.S. military allies have decided that they shouldn’t rely overmuch on Washington for their security. Instead, they will increasingly rely on each other.

Second, this new pact won’t stop at three. The next member will likely be Egypt, which already consults with the other three countries in an arrangement called R4. Also likely to join at a certain point will be Gulf countries like Qatar and Kuwait.

This “Mecca Defense Pact” amounts to a strategic convergence of Sunni-majority countries. It also brings together three largely authoritarian countries, with Turkey subject to the whims of its leader, Pakistan dominated by its military, and Saudi Arabia functioning as a religious monarchy.

The current tripartite alliance is not targeting any particular adversary. But it’s not difficult to guess who they’re thinking about: the three Is of India, Israel, and Iran. These adversaries are a mixed bunch—one majority Hindu, another majority Jewish, a third majority Shia—with no likelihood of responding with their own military pact. They don’t constitute a unified threat even if you add the Houthis of Yemen to the mix. And none of these potential adversaries has identified the new pact as adversarial. It’s tempting, then, to dismiss the Mecca pact as just a Sunni friendship alliance, more declarative than substantive.

But if that were the case, the three countries wouldn’t be so eager to include an Article 5-like provision in their pact and, in so doing, challenge certain geopolitical realities. Turkey is a member of NATO, so now it will be committing to fight in wars on several continents? Pakistan is currently trying to mediate in the war involving the United States, Israel, and Iran, so will it now commit to intervene against Tehran the next time Iranian missiles fall on Saudi Arabia? Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has strong economic and military relations with India, so is it now willing to cede all of that to Israel?

All of these complications point to one conclusion. The three countries are willing to make some sacrifices to align against their adversaries, but the real aim is to protect themselves from their ally, the United States. Ever since his first term, Donald Trump has threatened not to uphold U.S. security commitments if countries don’t spend more on their own militaries (NATO), if countries don’t spend more on their alliance commitments (Japan, South Korea), or if countries look at the U.S. president the wrong way (Canada and much of the rest of the world).

Instead of just complaining about U.S. fickleness, the leadership of Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia have decided to do something about it.

Trump’s Version of Globalism

For a guy who has trashed internationalists and globalists, Trump seems to be spending a lot of foreign policy energy on creating new multilateral security arrangements. His Board of Peace, with its 27 members willing to pay the $1 billion entrance fee, is a rather anemic version of the United Nations, but it’s also clear evidence that Trump doesn’t want to go it alone. He wants other countries to follow behind him like ducklings in a row.

Then there are the purpose-built associations. Trump has created a Pax Silica to secure mineral access in friendly countries. This grouping only has 24 members, but they’re powerhouses, including the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and India. The U.S. president continues to push forward with his Abrahamic Accords to integrate and elevate Israel in the Middle East. The Quad—India, Australia, Japan, and the United States—is designed to contain the ambitions of China in the Indo-Pacific region.

At the same time, Trump has pushed back against other multilateral efforts. He has pulled the United States out of a plethora of UN institutions, including UNESCO and the World Health Organization. He has threatened the BRICS with economic devastation if they have the temerity to issue a currency to compete with the dollar. He pulled the U.S. delegation out of the last G20 meeting in South Africa and ignored the last Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in South Korea.

The message is clear: it’s my multilateralism or no multilateralism.

So far, the Trump administration seems to view the Mecca Defense Pact as a friendly grouping that can implement the burden-sharing that the president has pressed on U.S. allies. It’s the same kind of tacit approval that the administration has shown the greater coordination between Japan and South Korea or the moves to expand the European Defense Fund.

As with so many things, the Trump administration is failing to read the room. U.S. allies are not openly defying the Trump administration, but they are also not following orders. The actions of these allies, from Europe to Asia to the Middle East, are more akin to family members telling a violent, dangerous, and unhinged father that they’re taking him to a lovely vacation spot when they’re really shipping him off to a lunatic asylum. Papa, still powerful in his dotage, needs his ego stroked and his suspicions allayed before he can be nudged off the stage.

In the global version of Succession that is currently taking place, everyone is making contingency plans. The Mecca pact is just the latest indication that the liberal international order is dying, Pax Americana is on its last legs, and the rough outlines of what comes next is just becoming visible.

John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus, where this article originally appeared.

Wednesday, August 12, 2026

Another Blow Against Pax Americana – OpEd


President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump join King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia, and the President of Egypt, Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, Sunday, May 21, 2017, to participate in the inaugural opening of the Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
Key Takeaways

Trump’s preference for autocrats over liberal democracies, first signaled by the 2017 Riyadh “orb” photo with the Saudi king and Egypt’s Sisi, continues through close ties with leaders such as Putin, Netanyahu and Erdogan, even as many of those same figures grow wary of his unpredictability.

The newly announced Turkey–Pakistan–Saudi mutual security pact (the “Mecca Defense Pact”) shows U.S. military allies hedging against unreliable American security guarantees and preparing to rely more on one another.

While Trump advances selective multilateral projects of his own (Board of Peace, Pax Silica, Abraham Accords, Quad), allies from the Middle East to Asia and Europe are quietly making contingency plans, underscoring the fading of the liberal international order and Pax Americana.


Remember that photo from Donald Trump’s first overseas trip as a president back in 2017?

The new president was in Riyadh. Instead of going to Europe or Japan or Canada, Trump was making his first presidential trip to Saudi Arabia. And there he was, at the opening of a new World Center for Countering Extremist Thought, flashing his trademark smirk as he put his hands on a glowing orb that represented the globe. Next to him, their hands also on the magic ball, were the Saudi king and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

The three leaders looked like they were in a film, playing an evil trio plotting to take over the world. Twitter lit up with comparisons to the three witches from Macbeth. It was a terrifying irony that Trump and company were inaugurating a center for “countering extremist thought” since they all three, in their own way, represented the promotion of extremist thought.


This appearance in Saudi Arabia was effectively Trump’s announcement that the liberal international order was over. The new president didn’t want to associate with European liberals or Japanese democrats or Canadian moderates. He preferred the company of a military strongman from Egypt and a religious autocrat from Saudi Arabia. Their hands on the globe symbolized their desire to spin the world in a different direction.

A decade later, Trump can still be judged by the company he keeps. He’s buddies with war criminals like Russian leader Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He’s tight with autocrats like Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele, and Saudi prince Mohammed bin Salman.

But, increasingly, even the autocrats are leery of Trump. Sure, no one wants to piss off Trump since, after all, he controls both nukes and tariffs. But the U.S. president is unpredictable and, frankly, erratic. Richard Nixon pretended, more or less, to be a madman in the 1970s so that the North Vietnamese would not be able to predict his next move in the war. Trump is probably not pretending. Other leaders are playing it safe by quietly treating him like a lunatic.


In 2017, the autocrats couldn’t wait to visit Trump at Mar-a-Lago and then return the favor by inviting him to join their clubs, like the absurdly titled World Center for Countering Extremist Thought. But now, a decade later, some authoritarian countries like India and Russia haven’t even joined Trump’s Board of Peace.

More concerning, at least from the point of view of an American exceptionalist, are the clubs that have been set up to exclude the United States. And that’s where the new Mecca Defense Pact comes in.
It’s Our Party

Last week, Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia signed a mutual security pact in which they pledged to come to each other’s defense in the event of an attack. The new alliance is built on a bilateral agreement signed last year between Islamabad and Riyadh.

Two things are significant about this announcement. The first is that three U.S. military allies have decided that they shouldn’t rely overmuch on Washington for their security. Instead, they will increasingly rely on each other.

Second, this new pact won’t stop at three. The next member will likely be Egypt, which already consults with the other three countries in an arrangement called R4. Also likely to join at a certain point will be Gulf countries like Qatar and Kuwait.

This “Mecca Defense Pact” amounts to a strategic convergence of Sunni-majority countries. It also brings together three largely authoritarian countries, with Turkey subject to the whims of its leader, Pakistan dominated by its military, and Saudi Arabia functioning as a religious monarchy.


The current tripartite alliance is not targeting any particular adversary. But it’s not difficult to guess who they’re thinking about: the three Is of India, Israel, and Iran. These adversaries are a mixed bunch—one majority Hindu, another majority Jewish, a third majority Shia—with no likelihood of responding with their own military pact. They don’t constitute a unified threat even if you add the Houthis of Yemen to the mix. And none of these potential adversaries has identified the new pact as adversarial. It’s tempting, then, to dismiss the Mecca pact as just a Sunni friendship alliance, more declarative than substantive.

But if that were the case, the three countries wouldn’t be so eager to include an Article 5-like provision in their pact and, in so doing, challenge certain geopolitical realities. Turkey is a member of NATO, so now it will be committing to fight in wars on several continents? Pakistan is currently trying to mediate in the war involving the United States, Israel, and Iran, so will it now commit to intervene against Tehran the next time Iranian missiles fall on Saudi Arabia? Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has strong economic and military relations with India, so is it now willing to cede all of that to Israel?

All of these complications point to one conclusion. The three countries are willing to make some sacrifices to align against their adversaries, but the real aim is to protect themselves from their ally, the United States. Ever since his first term, Donald Trump has threatened not to uphold U.S. security commitments if countries don’t spend more on their own militaries (NATO), if countries don’t spend more on their alliance commitments (Japan, South Korea), or if countries look at the U.S. president the wrong way (Canada and much of the rest of the world).

Instead of just complaining about U.S. fickleness, the leadership of Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia have decided to do something about it.
Trump’s Version of Globalism

For a guy who has trashed internationalists and globalists, Trump seems to be spending a lot of foreign policy energy on creating new multilateral security arrangements. His Board of Peace, with its 27 members willing to pay the $1 billion entrance fee, is a rather anemic version of the United Nations, but it’s also clear evidence that Trump doesn’t want to go it alone. He wants other countries to follow behind him like ducklings in a row.

Then there are the purpose-built associations. Trump has created a Pax Silica to secure mineral access in friendly countries. This grouping only has 24 members, but they’re powerhouses, including the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and India. The U.S. president continues to push forward with his Abrahamic Accords to integrate and elevate Israel in the Middle East. The Quad—India, Australia, Japan, and the United States—is designed to contain the ambitions of China in the Indo-Pacific region.


At the same time, Trump has pushed back against other multilateral efforts. He has pulled the United States out of a plethora of UN institutions, including UNESCO and the World Health Organization. He has threatened the BRICS with economic devastation if they have the temerity to issue a currency to compete with the dollar. He pulled the U.S. delegation out of the last G20 meeting in South Africa and ignored the last Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in South Korea.

The message is clear: it’s my multilateralism or no multilateralism.

So far, the Trump administration seems to view the Mecca Defense Pact as a friendly grouping that can implement the burden-sharing that the president has pressed on U.S. allies. It’s the same kind of tacit approval that the administration has shown the greater coordination between Japan and South Korea or the moves to expand the European Defense Fund.

As with so many things, the Trump administration is failing to read the room. U.S. allies are not openly defying the Trump administration, but they are also not following orders. The actions of these allies, from Europe to Asia to the Middle East, are more akin to family members telling a violent, dangerous, and unhinged father that they’re taking him to a lovely vacation spot when they’re really shipping him off to a lunatic asylum. Papa, still powerful in his dotage, needs his ego stroked and his suspicions allayed before he can be nudged off the stage.

In the global version of Succession that is currently taking place, everyone is making contingency plans. The Mecca pact is just the latest indication that the liberal international order is dying, Pax Americana is on its last legs, and the rough outlines of what comes next is just becoming visible.



About John Feffer
John Feffer is an author and columnist and the director of Foreign Policy In Focus.
View all posts by John Feffer →

Wednesday, July 01, 2026

HAPPY CANADA DAY

REVISIONIST HISTORY

1867 Speech of Louis-Joseph Papineau at the Institut canadien

"When the right to freethinking, whether religious, political or scientific, is as generally proclaimed as it is it by the laws, the values and the practice of our days, it cannot be lost. Judicious people will not need to demand it later."


THIS IS PAPINEAU'S DENUNCIATION OF CONFEDERATION AS A SCAM OF THE RULING CLASSES IN QUEBEC AND ONTARIO, THE SAME GROUP KNOWN AS THE "FAMILY COMPACT" WHICH RULED BOTH COLONIES.  

THE FATHERS OF CONFEDERATION WERE A SMALL GROUP OF THESE WHITE MEN, BOTH CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT, WHO SIGNED THE ACTS WITHOUT TAKING THEM TO THE PEOPLE

IT IS FOR THIS BASIC DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE OF NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION THAT PAPINEAU ACCUSES THEM FAILING TO GET CANADIANS  AND CANADIENS APPROVAL. THE CONSTITUTION THAT EVERYONE IS AFRAID TO OPEN AND DISCUSS TODAY IS BECAUSE THERE NEVER WAS A DISCUSSION OR VOTE BY THE ENFRANCHISED PEOPLE AT THE TIME OF CONFEDERATION 

THIS DOCUMENT WILL SHOW YOU THAT WHILE THE CANADIAN RADICALS OF 1827
PAPINEAU AND MACKENZIE KING WERE IMPRESSED BY ASPECTS OF AMERICA
PAPINEAU EXPLAINS WHY CANADA HAS A DIFFERENT SET OF LIBERAL IDEALS 
THAN OUR SOUTHERN NEIGHBOUR. 

HE WAS SO FAR SEEING THAT HE PREDICTS THE COMING OF CHINESE IMMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION FROM ASIA IN GENERAL TELLING CANADIANS TO LOOK TO THE WEST ACROSS THE PACIFIC FOR CANADA'S FUTURE 

THIS  SHOULD BE REQUIRED READING IN ALL SOCIAL STUDIES AND HISTORY CLASSES IN CANADA IF WE STILL HAVE THEM IN K-12






1867 Speech of Louis-Joseph Papineau at the Institut canadien 



Among the most important and useful truths, those that pertain the the better political organization of a society are at the forefront. They are among those of which it is a shame to have not studied carefully, and cowardly to dare not proclaim, when we believe that those we possess are true and therefore useful.

The good political doctrines of modern times, I find them condensed, explained and delivered for the love of peoples and for their regeneration, in a few lines of the 1776 Declaration of Independence, and the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

The true sociological doctrines of modern times can be summed up in a few words: Recognizing that, in the political and temporal order, the only legitimate authority is the one to which the majority of the nation has given its consent; that are wise and beneficial constitutions only those for which the governed have been consulted, and to which the majorities have given their free approbation; that all which is a human institution is destined to successive change; that the continuous perfectibility of man in society gives him the right and imposes him the duty to demand the improvements which are appropriate for new circumstances, for the new needs of the community in which he lives and evolves.



It is not the precipitated acceptance of the butchered Quebec Act of confederation that can prove the wisdom of the statesmen of England. It is not their work; it was prepared in hiding, without the authorization of their constituents, by some colonists anxious to stud themselves to the power that had escaped them. The sinistre project is the works of badly famed and personally interested men, it is the achievement of evil at the British Parliament, surprised, misled, and inattentive to what it was doing.


At first sight, the act of confederation cannot have the approval of those who believe in the wisdom and the justice of the Parliament and the excellency of the English constitution, since it violates its fundamental principles, by taking control over the sums of money belonging to the colonists alone and not to the metropolis nor to any authority in the metropolis. It is guiltier than any of the preceding acts. It has the same defects, and it has new ones, which are unique to it, and which are more exorbitant against the colonists than were those of the parliamentary charters granted or imposed before. 

The others were given in times and conditions that were difficult and exceptional. The transfer of a new country, with a majority whose religious beliefs and political education differed deeply from those of the minority, could have let us fear that the latter be exposed to denials of justice. Full religious tolerance, the most important of the rights which belong to men in society, had not been understood nor allowed at the time. England was persecuting at home, insane and unjust; she was insane and unjust here, here more than elsewhere, because the public law was supposed to protect us from evil. She ignored it. If she had restricted herself to protective measures for the minorities, she would have been praised; but she exceeded the goal, she oppressed the majority, she did wrong. But it was then a common error which misled her and which excuses her. The odious laws of intolerance are repudiated by all of the civilized world today, except for Rome and St. Petersbourg. There too however, sooner or later it will be necessary to render justice at the sight of the benefits which it pours on the States which respect it.

The concision in the word of Cavour: "The free Church in the free State", is one of the most beautiful titles given to respect, love and admiration, justly acquired by this famous statesman. These happy words, which once stated can never be forgotten, which, in a short sentence, contain a complete and perfect code on the subject they expose and explain, in one moment, -- as if all the tongues of fire of the Coterie had touched all those which tried to retain them -- allow us to understand, love, and proclaim the full truth which was only obscurely perceived and timidly loved before. And yet this revelation, sudden for a lot of people, is already codified, since a long time, for all, in the thirty-six States of the Union next door.

The free, independent Churches, separated from the State, do not require anything from it in presence of one another, are the happiest and become most useful, because of this separation from the State and the proximity of their rivals. They rely on their knowledge and their virtues, they do not require nothing else. They as nothing of what they consider useful to the promotion of their cult, all to the benefit of all their ministers, their charity, and their benevolent organizations. Watching one another, they are eminently moral, because the exposure and publicity would punish each fault they commit. No fault being able to go by unpunished, one will rarely occur. Where only one Church rules, it is not useful, it represses heresies, schisms and witches. Its adversaries claim: "it must necessarily be that it is wrong, if it is so cruel." and its friends say: "it must necessarily be that it is divine, if it obtains support in spite of these cruelties."

When the right to freethinking, whether religious, political or scientific, is as generally proclaimed as it is it by the laws, the values and the practice of our days, it cannot be lost. Judicious people will not need to demand it later.

Other parliamentary acts against Canada were acts of rigour, following disorders which would have been prevented by a tiny portion of the concessions that were granted much too late. The merit of these concessions is small and has little value, because they were made only after executions which were murders.

(The reference here is to the rebellion of 1837 in Upper and Lower Canada which Papineau was a leader of SEE I Am Canadien http://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2007/07/i-am-canadien.htm)

The present act was inflicted to provinces which were peaceful, where there no longer existed animosities of race or religion to calm down. Where nobody was guilty, all were punished, since they received a law for which they were not consulted.

This new governmental plan reveals, more than the others, the violent animosity of that the aristocracy feels towards elective institutions. It was only after long years of ceaseless efforts that the Legislative Councils were made elective. 


Did those who had been morally glorified by tearing off this important concession to the colonial and metropolitan authorities glorify themselves much today by ravishing it to their compatriots? On the contrary, they felt and they knew that they would not escape the contempt that these tergiversations deserved. They fought among themselves with eagerness to obtain nobility titles from overseas. They defrauded on the one hand their country and other the other they were even defrauding among themselves for the superiority of the rank; and they found ways to associate many accomplices to their shame, as if it was less dark because it was shared! They promised the elected councillors to have them counsellors for life. They created themselves a fake aristocracy, that became such by their participation in an obvious violation of the law. All these intrigues were immoral enough to please the English cabinet and to push it to adopt an act even worse than almost all its past wrongs. These reactionaries were asking the institutions of the Middle Ages back at the very moment the noble English people was demolishing them.

No, it is not true that the political discussions, which were as sharp in both Canadas, were a fight between races. They were as rough in Upper Canada, where there was only one nationality, than here, where there were two. The majorities of both of them were uninterested friends of rights freedoms, and privileges due to all the English subjects. They were voluntarily exposing themselves to lie full slanderings, to dangerous angers, to sanguinary revenges sometimes, from egoistic minorities, by themselves weak, but supported by the strength of the baionnettes paid with the gold of the people, but everywhere directed against the people.

The privileged people always think that the prayers and the complaints against the abuses which benefit them are an invitation to repress them by violence. 


Proud, just and enlightened men, whose convictions are intense because they are the result of strong studies and long meditations, have faith in the empire of reason, and it is for reason alone that they ask the correction of the abuses. Their efforts are addressed to all, to the powerful ones initially, to inspire them sympathy for the people that are suffering and that were impoverished by the abuses. They present them with glory and happiness to conquer, if they know how to render the society of their time more prosperous and more moral that it was it in the times which preceded. They address them initially and preferably, because their mind being more cultivated, they would be better prepared to be able to consider questions of general interest under all their various aspects, and to solve them quickly and correctly when selfishness does not blind them. They address the masses after, to say them that the sabre is not in their hands, but that reason is the richest and most invaluable of divine gifts and that it was separated almost equally amongst all, that the culture of the mind can centuplicate its fruitfulness and strength; that to clear the land one needs physical strength enlightened by experience, but that in order to make good constitutions and good laws, and to apply them wisely, it is necessary to have before all a strong reason, enlightened not only by serious studies, but above all by a real devotion to the country, and the absence of any personal covetousness of ambition or interest. Here is what could seen before, here is what has since become so rare, now that fortunes acquired at the expense of the public and personal honor, have become so numerous! How badly do these reproaches of propensity to violence come from those who constantly have recourse to violence to prevent the free discussion of political or social questions, physical violence by means of the law, moral violence by the anathema!

Papineau was 81 years old when he appeared at the Institute in 1867


Papineau Bio See https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/lhn-nhs/qc/manoirpapineau/decouvrir-discover/natcul1/a

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED  Saturday, July 01, 2017

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for I AM CANADIEN

SEE:

Edward Gibbon Wakefield

Happy Canada Day/Jour heureux du Canada

Origins of the Capitalist State In Canada

Rebel Yell

A History of Canadian Wealth, 1914.