It's the aesthetics of today's narrative to which I object.
Chesterton, 1914, The Barbarism of Berlin:
"These sincere and high-minded peace-lovers are always telling us that citizens no longer settle their quarrels by private violence; and that nations should no longer settle theirs by public violence. They are always telling us that we no longer fight duels; and need not wage wars. In short, they perpetually base their peace proposals on the fact that an ordinary citizen no longer avenges himself with an axe.
But how is he prevented from revenging himself with an axe? If he hits his neighbour on the head with the kitchen chopper, what do we do? Do we all join hands, like children playing Mulberry Bush, and say, "We are all responsible for this; but let us hope it will not spread. Let us hope for the happy day when we shall leave off chopping at the man's head; and when nobody shall ever chop anything for ever and ever." Do we say, "Let bygones be bygones; why go back to all the dull details with which the business began; who can tell with what sinister motives the man was standing there, within reach of the hatchet?"
We do not. We keep the peace in private life by asking for the facts of provocation, and the proper object of punishment. We do go into the dull details; we do enquire into the origins; we do emphatically enquire who it was that hit first. In short, we do what I have done very briefly in this place."
By "today's narrative" I'm sure he means your post, BCL and not the narrative associated with the grandiose militarism that this poorly-understood adventure in Afghanistan represents for little boys who probably never even went to summer camp.
You notice that for these blowhards, this military intervention is always comparable to the defining military conflicts in all of recorded history.
Except of course, any imperial adventure that took place in Afghanistan that didn't go very well.
"Progressives" are often unable to grasp the value of a military. Tone deaf in this regard, the best they can do is offer up some sarcasm and little else.
It's the aesthetics of today's narrative to which I object.
ReplyDeleteChesterton, 1914, The Barbarism of Berlin:
"These sincere and high-minded peace-lovers are always telling us that citizens no longer settle their quarrels by private violence; and that nations should no longer settle theirs by public violence. They are always
telling us that we no longer fight duels; and need not wage wars. In
short, they perpetually base their peace proposals on the fact that an
ordinary citizen no longer avenges himself with an axe.
But how is he prevented from revenging himself with an axe? If he hits his neighbour on the head with the kitchen chopper, what do we do? Do we all join hands,
like children playing Mulberry Bush, and say, "We are all responsible for this; but let us hope it will not spread. Let us hope for the happy day
when we shall leave off chopping at the man's head; and when nobody shall ever chop anything for ever and ever." Do we say, "Let bygones be bygones; why go back to all the dull details with which the business began; who can tell with what sinister motives the man was standing there, within reach of
the hatchet?"
We do not. We keep the peace in private life by asking for
the facts of provocation, and the proper object of punishment. We do go into the dull details; we do enquire into the origins; we do emphatically enquire who it was that hit first. In short, we do what I have done very briefly in this place."
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11560/11560.txt
That is how a man propagandizes.
By "today's narrative" I'm sure he means your post, BCL and not the narrative associated with the grandiose militarism that this poorly-understood adventure in Afghanistan represents for little boys who probably never even went to summer camp.
ReplyDeleteYou notice that for these blowhards, this military intervention is always comparable to the defining military conflicts in all of recorded history.
Except of course, any imperial adventure that took place in Afghanistan that didn't go very well.
Thank goodness for Hillier. One of the most competent defence chiefs we have had in decades.
ReplyDeleteThe mythology of peacekeeping took a hit when he was in charge, and so it should have.
Hillier did Canada, and our troops, proud. All the best.
Man, these Conserva-boys all sound like my grandmother.
ReplyDelete"Progressives" are often unable to grasp the value of a military. Tone deaf in this regard, the best they can do is offer up some sarcasm and little else.
ReplyDeletePay more attention to your grandmother ti-guy. :)