Criticizing Trudeau Is Job One

The reason you should criticize the record of Pierre Elliott Trudeau is that his legacy lives on today; confounding our legal system, unbalancing the House of Commons and skewing our immigration numbers. All the things we don't like about Canada today rest on the unnatural love and respect Canadians have for Trudeau's vision. If we can remove Trudeau's cloaks, we can start deconstructing his legacy.

The Anti-Nationalist

by Frank Hilliard

Pierre Elliott Trudeau is regarded by many as the father of his nation, the man who who defeated Quebec nationalism, called for a 'just society,' rewrote the constitution to support human rights and multiculturalism and who encouraged us to think of Canada as tolerant, compassionate and a nation of peacekeepers. If the Governor-General could confer sainthood, Pierre would be it.

Most of all, he is thought of as a Liberal in politics and a nationalist because of his dealings with Quebec. 

But what would the public think of all these 'achievements' if it knew he was actually a closet Marxist who admired Harold Llaski, Fidel Castro and the Soviet Union? What if they knew he was an anti-nationalist who had nothing but disdain for English Canada, English Common Law, and English capitalism? What if they knew he supported the Frankfurt School of cultural Marxism?

Well, let's take a little walk down memory lane and see what he actually said about nations. Let's see if we can get the drift of his thinking and then figure out where it came from.  Here's a great place to start, a piece by Peter Brimelow at VDare. 

From the 1950s on, Trudeau campaigned relentlessly against Quebec nationalism. He called it "the new treason of the intellectuals." He said: "The glue of nationalism must become as obsolete as the theory of the divine right of kings."  . . .

Suggesting his deeper concerns, he wrote: "A nationalistic government is by nature intolerant, discriminatory and when all is said and done, totalitarian."

And, perhaps most famously: "... in the advanced societies ... where the road to progress lies in the direction of international integration, nationalism will have to be discarded as a rustic and clumsy tool."

The problem for most of us at the time was that we could clearly see his attack on Quebec nationalism, but we thought that was because he was a Canadian nationalist. If not one, then the other, eh?  But the truth was that he opposed Quebec nationalism because he opposed nationalism itself. He was, in other words, a one-worlder.

This isn't actually a very contentious point among academics. Even the Government of Canada, in its history of Canada, calls Trudeau an 'anti-nationalist.' Here's more evidence from Robin Matthews:

Pierre Trudeau, moreover, was, at the time, an Actonian anti-nationalist.  He believed, with the 19th century English Catholic intellectual, Lord Acton, that countries ought to dissolve boundaries and, little by little, move to a single, beautiful, harmoniously governed planet.  And so, for Trudeau, independence for Quebec – especially Left independence – was anathema.  He said around that time that he didn’t care who owned Canada as long as taxes were paid to support government. 

Once again we see his opposition to Quebec independence was because he opposed the creation of a nation-state, not because he was opposed to Quebec exceptionalism. And if, as we see, he opposed Quebec nationalism on those philosophical grounds, he must have opposed Canadian nationalism on the same grounds. Someone as unified in his thinking can't have had separate philosophies for different national entities.

Which brings me to the Frankfurt school I mentioned yesterday. Let's see if we can establish a link between Harold Laski, the Marxist professor who influenced Trudeau, and the Frankfurt school. Yes we can; Laski was such a fan of the Frankfurt school, he recommended it to one of his leading students. We read the following In Wikipedia's biography of Franz Leopold Newmann:

On Laski's recommendation, Neumann was employed by the Frankfurt Institute of Social Research  . . .  in 1936, initially as administrator and legal advisor, and later as research associate, although he was never as well established as Friedrich Pollock and Theodor Adorno.

OK, where do we go from here?  We have a look at what the Frankfurt school recommended and what Trudeau actually did in Canada.

I blogged yesterday that Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism.  I was quoting from “Political Correctness:” A Short History of an Ideology, edited  by William S. Lind:

This makes the sweeping claim, according to Raymond Raehn, “that the presence in a society of Christianity, capitalism, and the patriarchal-authoritarian family created a character prone to racial prejudice and German fascism”—that is, everything Western is necessarily prejudiced. The solution according to the Frankfurt academics was that “the patriarchal social structure would be replaced with matriarchy; the belief that men and women are different and properly have different roles would be replaced with androgyny; and the belief that heterosexuality is normal would be replaced with the belief that homosexuality is ‘normal’.”

The idea, then, is the complete eradication of Western civilization to be replaced with something new. That something new is nothing less than “a society of radical egalitarianism enforced by the power of the state.”

 Is this not another way of describing Trudeau's 'Just Society?' Are not Canada's no-fault divorce laws, equal pay laws and homosexual anti-discrimination laws a move towards androgyny? Is not the current Liberal party proposal for national day-care a move in the same direction?

And is not the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its enforcement mechanism the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Canadian Human Rights Tribunal trying to create, "a society of radical egalitarianism enforced by the power of the state?"

The answer is obvious. Trudeau was so busy waving the cape of anti-Quebec separatism in our face we failed to notice he was introducing cultural Marxism to Canada.

Oh, brother, have we ever been duped.

Which finally brings me to why criticizing Trudeau is our first priority. If we can get it clear in our heads what he stood for, we can now attack the Liberal platform of today.

1. Internationalism is anti-nationalism. We can ask Liberal candidates if they believe Canadian laws should override International conventions.
2. Public day care is state rearing and indoctrination of children, just like the Nazis did. We can ask Liberal candidates if they think the state should raise our children.
3. Anti-firearms laws are designed to secure an authoritarian state. We can ask Liberal candidates if they think Canadians should follow the example of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in banning the private ownership of firearms. 
4. Environmentalism is a pagan religion. We can ask Liberal candidates if they think Canadians should worship Ghia, like the ancient Greeks or the National Socialists.
5. Judge-Made law is the key ingredient in a totalitarian state. We can ask Liberal candidates if they think Parliament or the Supreme Court should be the supreme law making authority in Canada.
6. Mass immigration is designed to destroy Canadian ethnicity. We can ask Liberal candidates if they believe Canada has an obligation to provide a home for millions of economic migrants.

There's a lot more, but you can see the framework here. By disassembling the basic ideas of the Frankfurt school of cultural Marxism, we can start to dismantle the ethical framework of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Have fun, go to it. We have nothing to lose but our chains.