CRC Committee for the Republic of Canada
Michael Ignatieff: Queen’s Knight.
By Matthew Ehret-Kump and Gilles Gervais
In December 2008, Canadians witnessed not only an
embarrassing example of the embedded flaws in our British-
inspired Parliamentary system but, more fundamentally, they
saw, many for the first time, the exercise of power over our
country’s internal affairs by Canada’s sovereign, Queen
Elizabeth II.
Illusions held by most Canadians regarding the
“symbolic” nature of the monarchy began falling by the
wayside. Questions also arose as to the real independence of
Canada within the Commonwealth (the Empire under
financial globalization).
In November of that year
the financial system had entered a
new accelerated phase of collapse,
and a first $700 billion bailout for
U.S. banks passed the United
States Congress. That very same
month an unannounced, disguised,
$64 billion bailout of the
Canadian banking system
occurred!
We are living through a
tumultuous economic period that
requires inspired leadership and an
historical model of the stature of a Franklin D. Roosevelt.
In Canada, a lack of leadership in dealing with the
economic crisis was compounded by the three opposition
parties hastily putting together a plan to form an alternative
Canadian coalition government… if the Queen’s
representative, the Governor General, would of course, kindly
give her ascent! The Liberals, according to this arrangement,
were to govern the country with the support of the NDP and
Bloc Québécois.
In the following two days, Canadian citizens watched
while one group was pitifully begging the Queen’s Governor
General to allow them to take over the nation, while the other
group was begging this unelected royal appendage, to let them
stay in power.
At that time, the overthrow of the Conservative
government did not proceed as planned, and the Conservatives
were permitted to remain in power for another year, while
Michael Ignatieff became the new head of the Liberal Party of
Canada in the interim, breaking off all ties with his former
coalition allies.
We are now in early 2010 and time is certainly
running out for Michael Ignatieff to assume his assigned role
as the knight on a white horse who shall come to the rescue of
the nation already deep into the onslaught of a global
economic meltdown. Prime Minister Harper’s government has
proven itself ineffective in combating the high rate of
unemployment and has mainly opted for austerity rather than
producing our way out of this economic meltdown.
First on the chopping block is Atomic Energy Canada
Limited which is scheduled to be auctioned off to foreign
interests. This folly would penalize Canadians 1) by cutting
them off from the only truly efficient energy source, 2) by
dismantling the scientific and technological knowledge
required to get to the next stage which is thermonuclear fusion
energy, and 3) by preventing the qualitative transformation of
the Canadian economy into a future advanced isotope
economy.
The Canadian population, up to this very recent
period, has had to suffer the injury of more and more frequent
‘horse trading’ sessions on the floor of the House of
Commons amidst the ever present blackmail threats to force
yet another national election. And now, the government is
adding insult to injury with its decision to prorogue
Parliament.
It would do well for all Canadians to understand that
it is quite feasible to step outside this political chessboard and
its set piece tactics and think strategically, as a Franklin
Roosevelt would, as he constantly educated his fellow
citizens during his speeches and famous fireside chats during
the Great Depression and throughout the course of World War
II; or as Lyndon LaRouche is known to do today—by
exposing the inner workings of the present day globalized
financial British Empire and how to defeat it by organizing a
political dynamic which would 1) bring together a Four Power
Alliance (of Russia, India, China and the United States) to
defeat the monetarist imperial power which has chosen the
financial district of London as a base from which its tentacles
reach out internationally and, 2) get other sovereign nation-
states interested in joining the initiating Four Power Alliance
in order to form a new world-wide credit system as set out in
the LaRouche Plan (1).
It is with this perspective in our mind’s eye that we
must judge the leadership qualities and moral character of
Michael Ignatieff. If he were to be elected Prime Minister of
Canada, he would immediately be confronted with the
challenge of getting Canada to break with British monetarist
 CRC Committee for the Republic of Canada
policies and join a new and exciting Pacific Basin oriented
political dynamic.
Who is Michael Ignatieff?
It is therefore well worth examining if Michael
Ignatieff’s principles and intentions are truly as noble as they
are summarily portrayed in his self-promoting book “True
Patriot Love”?
Is he truly a Canadian patriot who, in the midst of an
onrushing global financial meltdown, felt impelled to return to
his endangered homeland to pull it out of economic turbulence
and propel it into an era of genuine prosperity by getting
Canada to eventually join a community of principle of nations
desiring to establish a more just new world economic order?
In looking into Ignatieff’s philosophy, opinions,
public statements and policies, one is immediately struck by
the fact that he is a master at taking every side to most every
issue.
On policy questions Ignatieff seems to be for
infrastructure, for long-term investments, for cleaner tar sands,
for high-speed rail between Quebec City and Vancouver,
along with a four-lane highway; all fine proposals but his
widely known advocacy for a carbon tax, and for a green
economy contradict his ability to realize the above proposals.
Ignatieff references the Roosevelt New Deal example
when discussing Canadian development projects or
extensions to the Canadian unemployment insurance program.
Yet when one examines how he intends to finance these FDR
policies, all one finds is discussions of more free markets,
more taxes and the elimination of all national protectionist
measures (2) –the very antithesis of Roosevelt’s policies.
Ignatieff uses rhetoric in the same vein as Barack
Obama and has taken a leaf from Obama’s presidential
campaign by staying as far away as possible from committing
to any tangible policy for which he would be held accountable
later. Ignatieff’s bipartisan magic even surprised his liberal
entourage when he received a standing ovation after he had
spoken at the very conservative Fraser Institute.
He is self-portrayed as a pacifist-intellectual, and yet,
he is also a frantic supporter of military interventions into
small nations. He has singled out in his published writings the
cases of Kosovo, (1996), Algeria, (1999) and Iraq (2002).
He swiftly defends his viewpoint by taking both the
“for” and “against” side on every issue, as witnessed by his
support of Cheney’s torture policies which he now defends as
having done so with “right principles”. When questioned on
one particular incident of indiscriminate bombing of Lebanon
in 2006, which killed 56 civilians, he responded coldly with;
“This is the kind of dirty war you're in when you have to do
this and I'm not losing sleep about that.” A week later, when
confronted again on his statement, Ignatieff denied the
statement and chastised Israel saying that it should be
“punished for war crimes”.
Today, he is the leading liberal advocate of Steven
Harper’s expanded militarization of Afghanistan. Ignatieff was
a leading architect in the 2004 policy for a UN supranational
police force “The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Protocol”.
His commitment to a necessary imperialism is sophistically
presented in his recent book ‘Empire Lite’ and Times article
‘The Burden’.
It is within this context that the ‘nature of the beast’
becomes clear. The character of a man who takes both sides to
every issue is that he is either confused or a liar. In the case of
Mr. Ignatieff, we can presume he will not admit to confusion.
What clearly emerges is a world view that parallels
the oligarchical mindset: where nations are often broken-up
into smaller ‘sovereign’ entities who are at the mercy of an
overreaching international structure controlled ultimately by
British imperial finance.
Such a world dictatorship, with a liberal face, has to
rely on key components which are already deployed in several
instances such as: 1-private international criminal courts (such
as the ICC), 2-militarized private police forces operating
outside the constraints of sovereign nations, 3-increased
private control of national finances to impose austerity 4-
reducing subject nations to accept genocidal levels of
‘conditionalities’ in order to refinance inflated debts, on top
of 5- an international carbon taxing body, as proposed and
rejected (for now) at Copenhagen, that would police and
prohibit the development of new science and technology for
industrial production.
In this brave new world run by a technocratic
Malthusian elite, personal and collective freedoms are to be
severely curtailed on a ‘voluntary’ basis by inducing irrational
fears among the population through 1) the control of so-called
‘Islamic’ terrorism which is for the most part run out of
Londonistan and 2) the acceptance of depopulation and
deindustrialization policies under the guise of saving the
planet from man-made (read industries) global warming!
Family Baggage
Michael Ignatieff’s conspicuous family history was
highlighted by Ignatieff himself during his short meteoric rise
through the highest echelons of Canadian politics.
Even earlier, in a 1993 interview(3), Ignatieff
expressed pride in a radio host’s acknowledgement of his title
 CRC Committee for the Republic of Canada
“Count”, a title he inherited from his Great Grandfather
Nikolai Pavlovich Ignatiev.
One can imagine a private discussion among two elder
British aristocrats in a London private club
-‘’Good genes, good blood line, Russian nobility…’’.
–‘’…Most important, that family has rendered
faithful, high-level services to the Empire, while a
Minister to the Tsar’’
-‘’…We must not forget the maternal side: his great-
grandfather was Sir George Parkin who ran the
Rhodes Trust in London for over two decades. Only
Canadian ever to be entrusted with that sensitive
position, I do say. The family married into the
Masseys, his great-aunt was the wife of one our most
effective Governor General up there. Both Parkin and
later Massey were key in setting up and recruiting
the first two generations of members to our Round
Table Movement in the Dominion…’’
-‘’…I’ll pass the chaps’ pedigree on to the relevant
people in the City…’’
Nikolai Pavlovich’s notoriety, for our current interest
here, comes from the key role he played in the formation of
the Okhrana (the Russia secret police). It was this institution
which was instrumental in fomenting the 1905 Russian
Revolution, and the later 1918 Bolshevik Revolution (4) on
behalf of the British. At the turn of the century, Russia was
specifically targeted for chaos by the British Empire as a
response to the Russian followers of Abraham Lincoln’s
policies, like Prime Minister Sergei Witte (5) and the great
scientist Dmitri Mendeleyev (6). Those policies most strongly
defining the fight were the Trans-Siberian rail project, national
banking and ‘American System’ protectionism. The prospect
of a Russian-US collaborative effort to build the great Bering
Strait Tunnel-rail network stems from this time in history, and
is still an ongoing threat to the British imperial stranglehold
today.
While Ignatieff’s grandfather Paul Ignatiev went on to
become the Education Minister under Tsar Nicholas II, the
second major revolution was sparked, and Paul Ignatieff’s
career in Russia was soon terminated. It is interesting to note
though that Ignatieff’s grandfather was one of but a small
handful of tsarist figures permitted to escape death at that
point. The family promptly migrated to Canada.
Before looking at Michael Ignatieff’s father, it is
necessary that we first briefly set the stage of post war British
geopolitics. The Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)
doctrine for organizing the post World War II “Balance of
Power’’ was designed by the British to destroy all cooperation
between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. As after the British-
instigated American Civil War, the primary targets were again
victims of British manipulations which took the form of a
Cold War (7).
After being granted a Rhodes scholarship to study at
Oxford in 1940, Michael Ignatieff’s father, George Ignatieff,
quickly rose to become a leading international figure:
Canadian Ambassador to the United Nations, Permanent
Representative to NATO, President of the United Nations
Security Council.
Prime Minister John Turner, in 1984, appointed
George Ignatieff Disarmament Ambassador. From this
position, George Ignatieff became instrumental in destroying
President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)(8),
conceptually developed by Lyndon LaRouche to defeat the
Cold War MAD strategy and to set in motion a new era of
American-U.S.S.R. scientific and economic cooperation for
world development.
George Ignatieff was a strong proponent 1) of
consolidating a global UN police force, 2) of advocating the
Russell idea of world government and 3) of implementing
global prohibitions on nuclear energy development. While not
hereditary, this oligarchical mindset has tragically been passed
on from father to son.
His home and native land:
“My final journey took me back to consider the
braying national identity of my adopted country- the British
Isles” –Michael Ignatieff, Blood and Belonging.
While born in Canada in 1949, Michael Ignatieff’s
anglophilia brought him to live and teach in Britain for over
20 years.
In 1979, Michael Ignatieff’s service to the Empire
originated from academia: research fellow at Cambridge and,
from there, teaching posts at the London School of Economics
and Oxford.
The book he co-authored in 1983 with Itsvan Hont
called Wealth and Virtue, recounts his fascination with such
British imperial thinkers as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John
Stuart Mill et al. On commenting on his work, Ignatieff has
said that his time studying Adam Smith had made him a
devout free market advocate.
In those early years, British Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher had set off a major wave of destruction of the real
physical economy still being felt today. Her administration’s
policy of ‘saving the economy’ involved destroying between 3
and 5 million jobs, liberalizing and deregulating global
markets, cracking down on unions and implementing
 CRC Committee for the Republic of Canada
Friedmanite economic policies which soon led to the rapid
cartelization of world economies. These policies created the
conditions for the Maastricht Treaty and the Euro dictatorship.
Early on Ignatieff declared his allegiance to this
process, when as a journalist, he attacked the striking UK
miners who were defying the budget cuts, and sided with
Thatcher in declaring that the miners were “acting against the
national interest” of Britain (9).
Ignatieff is known to have broken all ties with old
acquaintances at this point, in order to begin his new
integration into the higher social caste of London.(9)
Opportunities opened up immediately for Ignatieff,
whereby weekly political columns were offered to him by
major dailies across the UK, followed by book contracts, elite
club memberships, Pulitzer prizes, lecture tours and an image
shaping makeover as an intellectual rock star. Throughout the
1990s, he was made a celebrity television personality on the
BBC, and was featured as cover boy for numerous magazines,
including the British GQ.
The Behaviorist Connection
In 2000, Michael Ignatieff returned back to North
America to work as Director of the Carr Institute on Human
Rights at Harvard University. During this time at Harvard
(2000-2005), Ignatieff became close friends with Samantha
Powers, Cass Sunstein and then-President Laurence Summers.
All three figures now occupy, around narcissistic
President Obama, leading positions in the White House as
members of the now infamous inner circle of behaviorist
economists pushing fascist policies on America on behalf of
British imperial financial aims. (11)
In April of 2009, during his first visit with Obama, a
closed door dinner was held with Ignatieff as guest of honor
(12), and the same above mentioned behaviorist economists
who do not believe in defending the United States
Constitution, but rather in ‘behavior modification’(13) of a
population as a governing principle.
It was understood by all
present that this British-Canadian
scholar would soon be given the
helm of Canada’s ship of state.
This affinity of minds
between Ignatieff and President
Obama’s closest behaviorist
entourage is best illustrated by
the very close relationship that
exists between US National
Economic Director Larry
Summers, who along with his wife have spent a few holidays
vacationing with the Ignatieffs at Michael Ignatieff’s estate in
the South of France, as have National Security Council
member Samantha Powers and U.S Regulatory czar Cass
Sunstein.
Which Way for Canada?
Nearly 30 years ago, Lyndon LaRouche presented a
lasting gift to Canadians when he wrote his “Draft
Constitution for the Commonwealth of Canada” (14).
This 1981 undertaking by LaRouche intersected a
situation in the country where Canadians appeared
increasingly predisposed to establishing a sovereign
constitutional order for Canada.
The political situation has certainly changed over the
course of these three decades, but the rigorous, historically-
grounded arguments in favor of a republican constitutional
order are as valid today as they were then in 1981.
More importantly, for the urgent task confronting us
today, what Lyndon LaRouche wrote in his letter of
transmittal to Canadians, dated September 5, 1981, still stands
as a blueprint for defining the true mission of Canada and
understanding the ‘mass strike’(15) phenomena now sweeping
the United States which, like the southern winds flowing
through Canada, should soon warm the spirit of patriotic
Canadians.
LaRouche wrote:
“…These are greatly troubled times. The credible
perils of nuclear warfare, vast genocide of peoples, and moral
anarchy and degradation pose today a greater peril to mankind
generally than can be compared with any peril confronted
since the so-called “New Dark Age” of fourteenth-century
Europe. In these times, all mankind cries out implicitly for
new beacons of hope of a better, more secure order in
mankind’s affairs.
“It is within the power of the people of Canada to
fashion themselves into such a beacon of hope, to establish a
living example which other people and nations may emulate
in some fashion appropriate to their own problems,
development and other circumstances.
“In the past, each emergence of some great new
nation, each admirable re-ordering of the affairs of a nation,
has been an efficient beacon of hope for other nations and
peoples witnessing such accomplishments. If it is true that
great and good ideas are the unique source of all important
accomplishments of mankind, it is the example of
employment of such an idea by some people which has proven
 CRC Committee for the Republic of Canada
repeatedly the indispensable magnifier of the power of
communicating such an idea to nations and people generally.”
The great classical 19th century poet and playwright
Friedrich Schiller(16) expressed our dual responsibility best
when he affirmed that “man is greater than his destiny” and
that “he is both, at the same time, a patriot of one’s nation, but
also a world citizen”.
LaRouche often refers to Percy B. Shelley(17), the
republican English poet, when discussing the ‘mass strike’
phenomena now occurring in the United States:
“…Shelley writes appropriately of moments of history in
which a people experiences a greatly increased capacity for
imparting and receiving profound and impassioned
conceptions respecting man and nature. In such rare intervals a
great people rises for a time above preoccupation with the
immediately personal and local concerns of the ephemeral
mortal lives of each, and locates its most immediate sense of
self-interest in the condition of the world as a whole”.
The present strategic mission for Canada is to orient
towards the Pacific-Indian Oceans Basins in a constructive
manner such that our “Pacific Gateway” policy increases in
commercial volume but also increases in a qualitative political
strategic mode with the goal of acting in a supportive role, and
perhaps a go-between mode to get the three Asian giants
(Russia, China, India) to join a soon to be renewed
rooseveltian United States in LaRouche’s Four Power
Alliance.
This is what Canada must orient to in 2010.
This is what Canadian patriotism, rigorously defined,
should mean.
Which way for Canada, then?
--The British path detailed in True Patriot Love, the
path of the Queen’s Knight?
or
--The “American System” path opened by Schiller,
Shelley, Roosevelt and LaRouche?
--30—
Footnotes:
(1) “It’s not in the interest of either this side of the border or that side of
the border. This doesn’t end well if we go down the protectionist road. We
need tto say very clearly and very intently with the Americans: Let’s pull
back now!” -Ignatieff July 15, 2009 speaking to FCM meeting in B.C
(2)http://www.committeerepubliccanada.ca/PutLaRouchePlanToSaveThe
WorldEconomyOnTheAgenda.htm
(3) Radio Canada show l’Heure G; Jan 9, 1991
(4) Ignatievs and the Russian Okrahna:
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3237cheney_permwar.html
(5) "The welfare of Your Empire is based on national labor. The increase
of its productivity and the discovery of new fields for Russian enterprise
will always serve as the most reliable way for making the entire nation
more prosperous. We have to develop mass-production industries, widely
dispersed and variegated. We must give the country such industrial
perfection as has been reached by the United States of America, which
firmly basis its prosperity on two pillars—agriculture and industry."
- 1899 memo from Minister of Finance Witte to Tsar Nicholas II
(6) Dmitri Mendeleyev not only discovered the harmonic ordering
principle shaping the Periodic table of elements, but also served as
Russian Minister of Weights and Measures, and Chairman of the
Committee on the Protective Tarrif as a close ally to Sergei Witte. He
wrote in his 1891 Tarrif report: “It must be understood, that the economic
doctrines of the ``nationalists'' and the ``historical school'' have long
since broken free-tradism at the roots, and that contemporary economic
science should, for clarity, be called ``anti-free trade.'' This must,
absolutely must be known by anyone who would speak on economic
questions in the name of science”.
(7) -Lord Bertrand Russell (architect of Mutually Assured Destruction),
wrote in the Bulletin for Atomic Scientists July 1947:
``If we are to preserve the peace of the world beyond the time when
America ceases to have a monopoly of the bomb--which is not very
distant--it must be done by having the bomb completely controlled by
some one authority, and it cannot then be a national one. The period
during which it can be a national authority is necessarily brief, and if the
control does not pass straight from a national authority to an
international authority, then we shall inevitably get an atomic war. I
entirely agree that controlling atomic energy alone is not enough, and that
ultimately we must have an international authority which can prevent war.
But it is a step, and the machinery that is required in the one case is
similar to the machinery needed in the other.
…When I speak of an international government, I mean one that really
governs, not an amiable facade like the League of Nations or a pretentious
sham like the United Nations under its present constitution. An
international government ... must have the only atomic bombs, the only
plant for producing them, the only air force, the only battleships, and,
generally, whatever is necessary to make it irresistible.''
(8) A brief history of the SDI: https://www.larouchepac.com/lpactv?
nid=9196
(9) New Statesman, Dec 1984
(10) Being Michael Ignatieff Michael Valpy From Saturday's Globe and
Mail, 25-08-2006
(11) The behaviorists behind Obama:
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/9925
(12)http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090421/libs
_meeting_090421/20090421?hub=TopStories
(13) Lyndon LaRouche—January 23, 2010: [unproofed work in progress]:
 CRC Committee for the Republic of Canada

In “We Are A Republic Not A Democracy”: “…That modern (14)http://www.committeerepubliccanada.ca/PDF/A%20Draft

A.D. 1529-1763, process leading into the birth of modern British %20Constitution.pdf
imperialism, has been the historical backdrop which must be adopted as
the reference needed to situate the origins of that system of Paolo Sarpi (15)http://www.committeerepubliccanada.ca/PDF/MassStrikeIsOpportunit
(b.1552-d.1623) which became known by such names as “behaviorism,” a y.pdf
system which was based upon the prevalent, categorical rejection of any
principled standard of truthfulness, as this rejection was argued by Adam (16)
Smith in his 1759 “Theory of Moral Sentiments”, as the British monetarist http://www.committeerepubliccanada.ca/WhatIsandtoWhatEndDoWeStud
tradition, to the present day. The result has been, that the reigning body of yUniversalHistory.htm
so-called Liberal “popular opinion” in much of the world today, is, more
often than not, a system of the sophistry imposed as a blending of induced (17) http://www.committeerepubliccanada.ca/ADefenceofPoetry.htm
popular stupidities and official lies.”