Belinda Stronach And Noam Chomsky: Unpicking Indoctrination

So what does Noam Chomsky have to do with all this? Everything.

Put simply, it may be that many of the people who are truly angry at the “news” about Belinda Stronach intuit that there are many, many more important things to care about. There are global warming and environmental decay. There is political corruption. There is continuing takeover of the world by (daily exposed) criminal corporations. There is U.S. imperialism. There is a bewildering array of wrongs Canadian face. So why do we have to talk about Belinda Stronach, many ask?

The answer is that the Stronach case has a bearing on all the others.

Put another way, Canadian politics has four levels. The U.S. wants Canada under its heel. That is the first law of Canadian politics. Do we go under the U.S. heel? (Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, John Manley say yes. Embrace U.S. imperialism.) Do we, instead, trade off, negotiate, stall, quaver, sometimes refuse, too often submit? (Jean Chretien and Paul Martin say yes. Do that.) Do we mount clear, U.S.-unpopular Canadian policies while still operating a system the U.S. approves of? (Jack Layton, the NDP, say yes, do that.) Do we say that to serve Canada and Canadians we have to resist U.S. encroachment, construct a different system, and face off against U.S. imperialism firmly and reasonably? (Canadian anti-imperialists say yes. Do that.)

Belinda Stronach, it would seem, left the Stephen Harper/John Manley “let’s go under the U.S. heel” camp to the “trade off, negotiate, stall, quaver, sometimes refuse, too often submit” Jean Chretien, Paul Martin camp. So what does Noam Chomsky have to do with all this? Everything.

To deal with any and all of the Canadian problems, a Canadian has to start with U.S. imperialism. Who started the Iraq war? Who (in fact) runs the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, NATO, the Asia Pacific Economic organization? The U.S. does.

Who defaults regularly, as a policy, on United Nations payments? Who overthrows freely elected governments as a policy? Who practices imprisonment, torture, and kidnappings of “suspects” all over the world? The U.S. does.

Who manipulates politics to say we should all “share North American resources”? Who propagandizes and indoctrinates Canadians every hour to the effect that Canadian resources and wealth are really U.S. resources and wealth? The U.S. does.

Who breaks the Canada/U.S. Free Trade Agreement daily? Who sucks in morally challenged people like John Manley, Stephen Harper, and Preston Manning? The U.S. does.

A Canadian person is not supposed to say those things. They are not acceptable to nice people when said by a Canadian. The only kind of person who can say things like that in Canada and be acceptable is a U.S. person like Noam Chomsky. Wonderful, progressive, radical, humane, thoughtful, caring Canadians read Noam Chomsky, icon of the American Dream, and they love him. If a Canadian says, as a Canadian, what Chomsky says – pointing out the effects of U.S. imperialism in Canada, most Canadians thrown up their hands and run for cover.

That is a testimony to the fact of Canadian colonial-mindedness. Especially since Noam Chomsky is, himself, a U.S. imperialist.

A what? Yes, a U.S. imperialist. When Canadian Mark Akbar and his friend made the internationally acclaimed documentary film on Noam Chomsky, I asked myself why. There was embattled, courageous, marginalized, heroic Mel Hurtig just waiting for a documentary. Follow Hurtig to speeches, radio stations, political rallies, small group discussions – to philosophical conversations about his books.

But, no. Mel Hurtig is a Canadian. That means he doesn’t matter. Noam Chomsky is a U.S. personality. He, therefore, matters.

Near the end of the documentary film, “Manufacturing Consent” (which was manufacturing consent that Noam Chomsky is more important to Canadians than Mel Hurtig), Chomsky remarks that the U.S.A. is the best country in the world to live in.

Pardon? Yes, he said it. The man who tells the world the U.S.A. is a conscienceless, ruthless, imperial power says the U.S.A. is the best country in the world to live in. He says that because he’s a U.S. imperialist. Isn’t that a contradiction. Not at all. Noam Chomsky wants a good U.S. imperialism rather than a bad U.S. imperialism. Noam Chomsky is a wonderful U.S. person who wants the U.S. empire to be a good empire not a bad one.

[Ed note: Original passage edited out; see above.]

When I used to give public speeches asking that Canadians (of birth or choice), of any colour, creed, or origin, be hired to Canadian educational and cultural positions when qualified, instead of U.S. people, something always happened.

A person with a U.S. accent would stand up in the question period and say that my remarks reminded him (or her) of someone with racist ideas. I would smile and say: “What I propose is a political solution to a political problem forcefully shaped by U.S. political policy for Canada. Unable or unwilling to come to grips with the political situation, you try to escape it by employing insulting insinuation and slander.”

[Ed note: Original passage edited out; see above.]

[Most Canadians] don’t see the four levels of Canadian politics. When Belinda Stronach leaves level one (embrace U.S. imperialism) for level two (trade off, negotiate, quaver, stall, sometimes refuse, too often submit) they ask what all the fuss is about. A meaningless person just did a meaningless thing. Why talk about it?

It wasn’t meaningless, I claim. If the NDP uses the event well, when the next federal election comes, Canadians may decide they can’t vote Liberal because of the ugly Gomery facts. They may decide they can’t vote for the Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, John Manley “embrace U.S. imperialism” message. And so they may decide to vote NDP.

The degree to which Belinda Stronach has made that scenario more possible is the degree to which she proves she is a political phenomenon. As wonderful, progressive, radical, humane, thoughtful, caring Canadians come to realize that, they have to come to question the wisdom of [those who dismiss their opposition to U.S. imperialism as anti-Americanism].

To be anti-American is to have a truly enlightened soul. It is, moreover, to see Noam Chomsky as he really is: a bright, insightful, searching critic of bad U.S. imperialism, blind to the final reality of the U.S.A. and, therefore – even unintentionally – a cheer-leader for U.S. power and U.S. domination.