Response to seraphimsigrist

[sophiaserpentia]

If the primary motives behind the war were as they have been stated to be in the media -- the deposing of a cruel regime -- then I would agree that the best outcome to hope for now that war has begun would be a quick victory for the US.

But I keep coming back to my conviction that the primary motivation for the war was not to protect the people of Iraq but to establish a global military hegemony, to feed the military-industrial complex, and to "clear the way" for American businesses to gain advantages they do not already have in world markets. By "following the money" it's possible to explain every nation's stance in favor of or opposition to, the war.

That it all boils down to bucks and self-interest on every side makes this situation intolerably cynical for someone like me, who strives above all else to be a person of conscience and compassion.

Perhaps though, in its own way it is a blessing that governments and corporations (archons in every sense) have been forced to tip their hands. Without the charade of beneficence to hide behind, we can see them and their actions for what they really are.

Comments

Re: self consistent

[anarktikos.livejournal.com]

I think I get what you're saying - self-consistency as the surest slippery slope to false dogma; something which purports to hold all the answers within itself can be an easy refuge for the person who can't be bothered to examine and question. This is the most seductive aspect of a great deal of what Guenon and his "disciple" Evola propound, that's for sure.

However I would also say that some manner of self-consistency is a necessary condition for a maintenance of ideals, something which is tied intimately to the question of what is honorable and what isn't; but I suppose then that this pertains more to the personal aptitude for creating cosmos out of chaos rather than allegiance to a more or less "complete" set of beliefs.

Hmm. More food for though, that's for sure.