Fighting Manacheinism run amuck
It's clear, as many other bloggers have observed, that a one big problem with Bush's approach (which is part of the reason the Iraq was war wrong) is that it's based on Manacheinism, which doesn't often get said in the "mainstream" press, in fact it was only on blogs that I first heard this term being used.
Yes, I think you have to admit there's soemthing to it: Bush's "simplistic good vs. evil" Manacheinist approach made him do the (wrong) Iraq war, but not to stray from the point, it's really part of a larger problem, really. After all . Life is not simplistic "yes/no", it's gray. Any schoolkid can tell you that. Black and white simplistic is not helpful Manacheinism, it's wrong and causes wrong things (like the Iraq war was). Bush divides the world into "good" and "evil" and then does wars based on that declamation. This is not just evil but Manacheinistic wrong.
But he did it and does it Manacheinistically and people still help him and support him which is not helpful. To say the least, . Manacheinism. It led to the wrong Iraq war. Since it is wrong, it must be resisted. But how? Well, us, for straters. The Iraq war was wrong, and so wrong, and wrong again, and this cries out for dissent and resistance and blowback. We know it and you know it.
So here's what I'm trying to say (bear, with me). A wrong war like during the Iraq war was cannot just be sitted idly by by. People who know it's wrong have to speak out against hte people who know it's right, and vise verca, so that people can CLEARLY see who's wrong and right. There's no middle ground here (because of Iraq war wrong) and to say that there might be, just reduces our chances of reducing the wrong. We can't let that happen. The wrong is too important not to be right. In this case
This is why one of the first most important things to do is to seperate people into good and bad based on whether they think the Iraq war was wrong. This is the ONLY way to fight the wrong results of Bush's Manacheinism.
Many readers (some complainers - you and your long letters know who you are) have noticed and commented how I already have strated to perform this service, by (insteaed of a conglomeration of blogs being smattered all over my blogroll, or dividing into separate confusing categories, I helpfully hopefully divide them into the one main one which seems to count: The Iraq war. (Wrong?) Or right? This division. which is just one of the helpeful services we provide here at The Iraq War Was wrong Blog. Unlike others. We TAKE A STAND and FINALLY for once, stand up for right against wrong. Let the right (right as in correct) show their faces, and the wrong be counted. Enough with other approach!
Let the divided lines be fall where they may and do their thing. This is not an us-them issue it's a right-wrong issue! Remember that. I have am only starting the process here with my right-hand-side (right as in right-hand, not right as in correct - wrong is there too) helpful blogroll but I hope it's the start of something big and improtant and widespread. Because the wrongness of the Iraq war deserves it. and won't stay wrong without it unless we try.
Fight Manacheinism! Name the wrong!
Suggestions and requests for additions to my "good" or "bad" blogrolls, are welcome.
(UPDATE: (dont write letters) Lord Pixie alreddy corrected my spelling of Manicheinism, see here)
posted by iraqwarwrong @ 6:39 PM
8 Comments:
You are too good. :)
Thanks... but this isn't so much about good/bad as it is about right/wrong. Remember that!
But if you call wrong wrong or even call right wrong, that's wrong too.
I hate Manichaeanism. And if you spell it wrong and somebody calls it wrong is that Manichaeanism, too?
I just copied and pasted it: ManichaeanismManichaeanismManichaeanismManichaeanismManichaeanismManichaeanismManichaeanismManichaeanism.
That's 10 times I can spell it wrong in the future and I'll still only be half right or wrong, so nobody can use Manichaeanism on me.
(Make that eleven.)
You are a true genius on so many levels... But the important thing is that your're write!
Clearly, Bush’s argument for war represents the repudiation of international law in order to bring about the seizure of the Iraqi Oil Ministry. Nevertheless, the influence of Leo Strauss represents the crushing of internal dissent in order to propagate an act of international violence that exceeds even those of the "liberal" Bill Clinton. On the other hand, Colin Powell's parade of lies can be seen in the light of the apparent fabrications which lead to the theocrat Ashcroft's suspension of our civil rights. As Norman Mailer pointed out, the apparent demise of "anti-Americanism" as a respectable means of stifling recognition of American imperialism is determined by capitalist interests which lead to the end of any possibility of social justice in a reactionary state.
It is absolutely obvious that whomever wrote that commentary about BUSH and MANICHENISM has no idea of
what "true manichaenism" really is or was.
When you do not know about a subject, it is much wiser
not to speak and not to write anything, because when you do, you do more harm than good, spreading false ideas and commentaries.
Only spiritually advanced beings can understand the beauty and perfection of "TRUE manichaeism", which has nothing to do with BUSH and his administration.
Most humans are too spiritually imperfect and too vulgar to ever reach a true, and an unbiased, understanding of persian manichaeanism, the one taught by Manikhayya or Mani.
What a blessing is not to speak when you do not know!
Oh God, I love the irony: You proclaiming that life is gray, that there is no defined good and evil, and then calling the war in Iraq WRONG.
How can anyone understand your ideas when the spelling and grammer are so poor. I would like to comment on your concept but i am not sure what you are telling the reader. Sorry.
Post a Comment
<< Home