The Dali Lama

[Niemand]

I was watching an episode of Penn and Teller's show Bullshit! the other day (Holier Than Thou is its name) and they exposed Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and the Dali Lama as being horrible people who hide behind a mask.

According to the show, the Dali Lama led an autocratic and murderous regime which not only executed dissidents, but also punished them through disembowelment and gouging out their eyes.

I had no idea that the Dali Lama was such a reactionary sack of shit, and was wondering if any of you knew this or can refute this.

[PRC-UTE]

aye it's very true. we have numerous threads here on it, just do a search, comrade.

he's basically a cia-funded hack.

[Fightin Da Man]

No refutation possible. Tibet pre-Chinese invasion was a feudal system with most of the population living as serfs and the priest class living the high life. The Dalai Lama has, in his exile, condemned parts of this and stated that he would've been willing to make reforms but how much of this is true and how much of it is for show is impossible to tell.

[Whitten]

Its true, the Chinese did have positive intentions when they sent troops into Tibet. Its probably more free now than it ever was under the Dalai Lama and the fuedal regime.

[Fightin Da Man]

Only marginally. There are still major human rights abuses committed by the Chinese government, and there are also problems of a kind of Han cultural imperialism.

[Prairie Fire]

In Tibet under the Dalai lama, there wasn't just serfdom, but down-right slavery.

also, the entire propagated image of the "peaceful, pacifist" Tibetan monk is bullshit. Watch the Martin Scorcese biographical film Kundun (which is very pro-Dalai lama); In the movie, there is a part where some armed monks are foiled in a coup against the young Dalai lamas government. The Dalai lamas reaction to this is "Monks have guns? I didn't know that." The Tibetan monks had no quarrells with taking up guns or taking human lives; the only reason they didn't do so against the chinese PLA, was that they couldn't win against them. The PLA had superior numbers and armaments technology. Instead, the Tibetan monks (who were an elite class of landowners and rulers in Theocratic Tibet) assumed a much more succesful mode of struggle, which is playing the "persecuted victims" on the international scale.

This is why I was disgusted when the Dalai lama recently claimed to be "half Marxist" :D . Yeah, I'm sure that the ayatollah was "half marxist" too, you theocratic monarchist bastard.

[Ander]

Could someone provide some links and/or evidence of these claims? I am very interested in learning more about this.

Also, what did they say about Mother Teresa and Gandhi?

[Niemand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 12:02 am
Could someone provide some links and/or evidence of these claims? I am very interested in learning more about this.

Also, what did they say about Mother Teresa and Gandhi?
They said that Mother Teresa was nothing more than a sadist due to her unwillingness to help the poor.

They said that Gandhi was a paedophilic racist, but they provided proof for their claims, and said more on both him and Teresa, so I'll just find the link to the episode.

Clip on Mother Teresa:
Click (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3b7_1176790251)

Clip on Gandhi:
Click (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-QK35hYIWo)

Unfortunately, I cannot find the one on the Dali Lama.

[midnight marauder]

http://www.tv-links.co.uk/link.do/1/1919/2717/18359/29580

Link to the episode.

[Cheung Mo]

To be fair to the current Dalai Lama, he's no less Marxist than Deng Xiaoping or the leadership of most European and Asian "left" parties that currently hold political office.

[Prairie Fire]

To be fair to the current Dalai Lama, he's no less Marxist than Deng Xiaoping or the leadership of most European and Asian "left" parties that currently hold political office.

Deng Xioping yes, but I wouldn&#39;t be so quick to write off the leaders of other social-imperialist communist parties that hold power in parts of Asia and europe. <_<
They may be social-imperialists, or even Social democrats, but the Dalai lama is a downright feudal monarchist. He is infinately more reactionary then the current leadership of communist parties in nations that are regressing to capitalism.

I see no reason to "be fair" to the theocratic former monarch of Tibet turned international charlattan.

[Fightin Da Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 11:47 pm

To be fair to the current Dalai Lama, he&#39;s no less Marxist than Deng Xiaoping or the leadership of most European and Asian "left" parties that currently hold political office.

Deng Xioping yes, but I wouldn&#39;t be so quick to write off the leaders of other social-imperialist communist parties that hold power in parts of Asia and europe. <_<
They may be social-imperialists, or even Social democrats, but the Dalai lama is a downright feudal monarchist. He is infinately more reactionary then the current leadership of communist parties in nations that are regressing to capitalism.

I see no reason to "be fair" to the theocratic former monarch of Tibet turned international charlattan.
He deserves an honest evaluation, as does everybody else. And it is one thing to be critical of Tibet&#39;s social system before the Chinese invasion, but full responsibility for this cannot be layed upon the shoulders of the 14th Dalai Lama. He did not come to power until after the Chinese invaded part of Tibet, and only about 6 months before Tibet essentially surrendered and ceded sovereignty to China (in the 17-point agreement in 1951).

It&#39;s certainly possible that he may have made changes had it not been for these events. That said, there&#39;s a reason why I&#39;m no longer involved with Free Tibet stuff.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Fightin Da [email protected] 02, 2007 09:36 pm
Only marginally. There are still major human rights abuses committed by the Chinese government, and there are also problems of a kind of Han cultural imperialism.
I&#39;m not saying there isn&#39;t a basis to make criticisms of the Chinese, but I think their rule in Tibet is more than &#39;marginally&#39; better. They&#39;ve put quite a bit of capital into Tibet to modernise it, who cares about &#39;cultural imperialism&#39;.

[Janus]

Last thread on the Dalai Lama (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=54922&hl=+Dalai++Lama)

The Dalai Lama may have recently put on a more benign and progressive veneer but considering his background, I don&#39;t see how a Tibet under him could be considered a progressive move at all.