Archive for the ‘MICHAEL VALPY’ Tag

JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: BLUBBERING BY MICHAEL VALPY ABOUT THE PROUD RETURN OF WARRIOR CULTURE TO CANADA   Leave a comment

JOHN CHUCKMAN
 

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY MICHAEL VALPY IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Oh, sure, Michael Valpy, we sure have done ourselves a great service.

Serving as loyal minor satrap to the Pentagon in its pointless quest for vengeance in Afghanistan – now, there surely is a fine thing.

The lives of hundreds of Canadian soldiers destroyed or now driven by mad hideous memories of abominations like the very common rape of boys tolerated in Afghanistan. Again, surely, a fine thing.

And the proud achievement of our handing over prisoners for torture. Now, that is an exceptionally fine thing.

Warrior culture is a stupid term for Canada to adopt. We have no enemies who can seriously threaten us, except if you count the United States.

In that case, I’m afraid our “warrior culture” wouldn’t buy us one day’s success against their military Frankenstein monster.

Warrior culture and great standing armies are among the world’s great outdated and dangerous traditions. They rank with burkas and holy inquisitions and heavy nuns’ habits and meaningless superstitions. Indeed, warrior culture is a form of superstition.

When genuine threats occur, no one needs to tell Canadians about outdated nonsense like “warrior culture.” We would all respond. But that is a very different thing than going for adventures abroad, a very different thing than killing and being killed as part of lunatic crusade.

Powerful armies constantly seek outlets for their dark powers. The record of the United States since WW II is proof of that, and a shameful record it is.

Stupid pointless war after stupid pointless war.

Overthrow of government (even democratic ones) after overthrow of government.

It’s a terrible record which has only kept turmoil going in the world and achieved almost nothing of worth.

Historians rank as one of the most important causes of WWI, a pointless bloodbath if ever there was one, Europe’s great standing armies and military competitions of the time.

And, of course, WWI was only the warm-up for WWII, an even greater bloodbath which need never have happened but for WWI.

One last, terribly important point about “warrior culture.”

Even were the people of the United States to come to believe they were under a form tyranny, with the country’s vast occupying armies and National Guards, equipped with awesome weapons, there isn’t a chance they could rebel, despite all the silly talk about private arms keeping tyranny at bay.

JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE ABSURD NOTION OF MICHAEL IGNATIEFF AS “A TRUE PATRIOT SON”   Leave a comment

JOHN CHUCKMAN
 
POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY MICHAEL VALPY IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Ignatieff is as much a patriot as he is a defender of human rights.

Which is to say, not at all.

He is a repulsive opportunist.

After spending his days speaking on behalf of America’s brutal imperialism, he just returns to the land of his youth to have a go at a second career as prime minister.

Note I didn’t say “returns home” because his past words and actions make it abundantly clear he does not regard Canada with warm feelings.

As much as I dislike Harper, and that is a great deal, Ignatieff is the worst possible alternative to be found on the planet.

He is actually a surprisingly small-minded thinker in many respects, he is overwhelmingly an admirer of American hegemony, he is a defender of torture and bloodshed, and he is putridly smug about himself.

His is a genuinely poisonous presence in our political life, much like having a mole from the CIA running a national party. Indeed, one suspects that that is exactly what he is.

_______________________

The stuff above about Canadians rejecting an intellectual is uninformed rubbish.

As to Ignatieff’s being better able to succeed in Europe, again rubbish. He has a wide-spread reputation there as “neo-con lite.”

The writer must never have heard Ignatieff at any length.

Ignatieff truly is the equivalent of the Walt Disney organization’s notion of an intellectual.

That is undoubtedly why he served a stint as a BBC presenter, that broadcast organization in recent years having been reduced to a mere shadow of itself while serving the aims of the likes of Tony Blair’s government.

There is no fierce independence of thought in Ignatieff, the indispensable requirement to wear the laurels of intellectual.

Indeed, quite the opposite.

There are no striking views or original ideas associated with his name. None.

There is no great defense of the little guys of this world, the downtrodden, the abused, the victims, the underdogs of any circumstances that is associated with great intellectuals and with great writers, the kind of thing Graham Greene considered indispensable to the title of writer.

There is a great deal of wordiness, much of it rather mannered, stylized, dry, much like a costly garment wrapping around nothing.