Dalai Lama: I love George W. Bush

[Guerrilla22]

Non-violence can't tackle terror: DalaiThe Dalai Lama, a lifelong champion of non-violence on Saturday candidly stated that terrorism cannot be tackled by applying the principle of ahimsa because the minds of terrorists are closed.

"It is difficult to deal with terrorism through non-violence," the Tibetan spiritual leader said delivering the Madhavrao Scindia Memorial Lecture here.

He also termed terrorism as the worst kind of violence which is not carried by a few mad people but by those who are very brilliant and educated.

"They (terrorists) are very brilliant and educated...but a strong ill feeling is bred in them. Their minds are closed," the Dalai Lama said.

He said that the only way to tackle terrorism is through prevention. The head of the Tibetan government-in-exile left the audience stunned when he said "I love President George W Bush." He went on to add how he and the US President instantly struck a chord in their first meeting unlike politicians who take a while to develop close ties.

http://beeqube.com/article/non

[GPDP]

If ever there was any proof to show the Dalai Lama's liberal supporters just how much of a reactionary asshole he is, there it is.

[JimmyJazz]

If ever there was any proof to show the Dalai Lama's liberal supporters just how much of a reactionary asshole he is, there it is.

I would agree, except that if you google this story, other articles (http://www.andhranews.net/India/2009/January/18-Dalai-Lama-advocates-84732.asp) covering it give more extenstive quotes from the same statement, and these added quotes show that he isn't explicitly advocating violence against terrorism. In fact, when he says that dealing with terrorism through nonviolence is "difficult", he's basically conceding what seems to be an obvious point against him, then goes on to say (paraphrased) "but gosh darnit we should really try." Technically, he isn't advocating violence even in the OP's version of his statement--just saying it is difficult.

The Dalai Lama is certainly a reactionary asshole who has taken millions from the CIA to fund guerrilla war against China (by his own admission).

However, he's not brave enough to openly admit this, and I think he's too smart to get hung by his words. Liberals will continue to like him, because you have to have an actual grasp of history and a hint of knowledge about world affairs to know the shit he's done in practice.

Anyway, a Lama supporter probably doesn't care whether a person is "reactionary", because they're in favor of peace, not progress. No justice?...Fuck it, still create peace! Idiots.

[Guerrilla22]

The fact that he complemented the world's worst terrorist and declared that he "loved" him is absolutely hypocritical and downright sickening though.

[Charles Xavier]

This is good show that the the Dalai Llama has abandoned his "pacifist teachings". And like any good Feudal Lord he will gorge the eyes of runaway peasants.

[lvatt]

Buddhism teaches reincarnation... basically, if you're a good person and have a good karma, when you die you're reincarnated as a rich and healthy person. If you're a bad person and do evil things, when you die you're reincarnated as an animal or a poor and sick person.

Convenient isn't it? Buddhism like other religions are tools of the bourgeoisie to justify their control of private property and use less fortunate people as chewing gums - chew out all the sugar then spit them out. Because, after all, when someone is poor or sick it's because he was evil and wicked in a previous life.

This is what the Dalai Lama represents. Other religions also teach similar things. In my mind, there's no way communism and religion can co-exist. No surprise a religious leader like the Dalai Lama would support Bush.

[Pogue]

He does seem to being hypocritical and going against the veyr principles he claims to support.

[scarletghoul]

Ha, this is hilarious. A lesson to all those liberal lama-fags

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

^ dont use the word "fag"

Hey guys when communism is under the spotlight i wonder what his attitude to us will be. (especially if his temples go up in flames)

[Pogue]

^ dont use the word "fag"

Hey guys when communism is under the spotlight i wonder what his attitude to us will be. (especially if his temples go up in flames)

He claims to be half-marxist.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Ha, this is hilarious. A lesson to all those liberal lama-fags

Don't use language like that. :rolleyes:

[JimmyJazz]

The fact that he complemented the world's worst terrorist and declared that he "loved" him is absolutely hypocritical and downright sickening though.

True, and it will be enough for any secular liberal to raise a huge eyebrow, but it won't budge Richard Gere or most religious liberals (incl. liberal Christians--their holy book praises mass murderering kinds, much like GWB, as "men of God").

[RedHal]

He claims to be half-marxist.

lol, yeah the liberal understanding of marxism, you know stuff like ending exploitation and equality for all. He doesn't believe in class struggle and ending private property. Not easy for someone who is considered some sort of god king :laugh:

[RedSonRising]

He has proven to be a hypocrite time and time again, though I think saying he represents religion and its supposed failures is discriminatory...reincarnation doesnt disqualify class struggle.

[lvatt]

He has proven to be a hypocrite time and time again, though I think saying he represents religion and its supposed failures is discriminatory...reincarnation doesnt disqualify class struggle.

Discriminatory? Hardly. IMO people are free to believe whatever they wish and I'm not about to hold it against anyone. If someone believes that if they do good things they're going to heaven or whatever, it's their privilege. But when religion gets its hands in politics, as is the case with the Tibetan government in exile for example, then it hurts class struggle quite a bit.

Most religions have this sort of anti-poor feeling. In christianity, the bible has passages like Proverbs 12:24: "Diligent hands will rule, but laziness ends in slave labor," for example. In Islam, Az-Zukhruf 32 teaches "We have apportioned among them their livelihood in the life of the world, and raised some of them above others in rank that some of them may take labor from others."

This is why I see religion itself, at least organized religion, as a big problem. I don't want to disrespect people who have faith and all, but as far as I see it religion isn't really an ally in class struggle. If someone proves me wrong, I'll change my mind.

[Kassad]

What do you expect from a reactionary anti-working class person like the Dalai Lama. For a person who uses religious manipulation and promote elitist rule, he sure manages to muster up quite a fanbase.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

He claims to be half-marxist.

Yes but in real life he's just a feudalistic religious ****

[RadioRaheem84]

Wasn't the Tibetan dynasty a reactionary feudal society? I thought that was the whole reason why Communist China invaded it.

[Invincible Summer]

Wasn't the Tibetan dynasty a reactionary feudal society? I thought that was the whole reason why Communist China invaded it.

Yes, it was.


Anyways, I thought Buddhists weren't supposed to engage themselves in politics, as it is considered "being too involved in the earthly realm" or something to that effect... I read this in another thread written by a suppossedly former Buddhist.

If this is true, then WTF is the Dalai Lama doing? Hypocritical bastard.

[Wanted Man]

Anyways, I thought Buddhists weren't supposed to engage themselves in politics, as it is considered "being too involved in the earthly realm" or something to that effect... I read this in another thread written by a suppossedly former Buddhist.

If this is true, then WTF is the Dalai Lama doing? Hypocritical bastard.
Two words: Dorje Shugden.

[black magick hustla]

nothing new here. good ol vaneigem was correct when he referred them as "clerical vermin".

[RevolutionaryKluffinator]

After all, George W. Bush has been an outstanding example of non-violent struggle against "Terrorism." Uhuhuhuhuhuhuh.

[x359594]

The fact that he complemented the world's worst terrorist and declared that he "loved" him is absolutely hypocritical and downright sickening though.

Well, he also said that Chairman Mao was his greatest teacher.

[Invincible Summer]

Two words: Dorje Shugden.

I looked this up on Wiki, and it makes no freaking sense to me - too much Tibetan Buddhist jargon makes my brain turn upside down.


Could you explain?

[RedSonRising]

Discriminatory? Hardly. IMO people are free to believe whatever they wish and I'm not about to hold it against anyone. If someone believes that if they do good things they're going to heaven or whatever, it's their privilege. But when religion gets its hands in politics, as is the case with the Tibetan government in exile for example, then it hurts class struggle quite a bit.

Most religions have this sort of anti-poor feeling. In christianity, the bible has passages like Proverbs 12:24: "Diligent hands will rule, but laziness ends in slave labor," for example. In Islam, Az-Zukhruf 32 teaches "We have apportioned among them their livelihood in the life of the world, and raised some of them above others in rank that some of them may take labor from others."

This is why I see religion itself, at least organized religion, as a big problem. I don't want to disrespect people who have faith and all, but as far as I see it religion isn't really an ally in class struggle. If someone proves me wrong, I'll change my mind.



I respect your opinions, though Liberation Theology is an interesting exception.

[Dr Mindbender]

Ha, this is hilarious. A lesson to all those liberal lama-fags

Dont say that, even in a joking context. If i was a global moderator i'd verbally warn you.

[SocialRealist]

The current Dali Lama has very many reasons to like President George W Bush. The biggest reason of all would have to be due to the facts of how Bush has supported the Dali Lamas struggle against the current Chinese government.

A question I have for those who use words like "reactionary" against the Dali Lama, do you forget this is the same Dali Lama who accepts the position of Marxist economics? Most of those who deny the Dali Lama as a "reactionary" will most likely accept both Fidel Castro and Che Guevara as "comrades", they will usually accept Hugo Chavez as a "comrade" as well.

The question for those here who deny the Dali Lama and dub him as a "reactionary" for taking the support that President Bush has given him and still accept Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara has to be aren't you making a double standard?

The facts are the American Central Intelligence Agency gave support to both Fidel and Che. The facts are that Vladimir Putin has given extensive support to Chavez, Putin by no standards is either a "communist" or a "socialist". I just want to know what is with the double standards in that area?

As we know the Dali Lama is in need of support, he will take it from anyone he can. When you are in the politics of survival you tend to take support from everyone willing to give you it.

A quote from the Dali Lama.
Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes—that is, the majority—as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently read an article in a paper where His Holiness the Pope Benedict XVI also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism(though dissaproving of it on the whole). As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the former USSR, or China, or even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes, for they were far more concerned with their narrow national interests than with the Workers' International; this is why there were conflicts, for example, between China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have occurred.
I think the major flaw of the Marxist regimes is that they have placed too much emphasis on the need to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and this causes them to encourage hatred and to neglect compassion. Although their initial aim might have been to serve the cause of the majority, when they try to implement it all their energy is deflected into destructive activities. Once the revolution is over and the ruling class is destroyed, there is not much left to offer the people; at this point the entire country is impoverished and unfortunately it is almost as if the initial aim were to become poor. I think that this is due to the lack of human solidarity and compassion. The principal disadvantage of such a regime is the insistence placed on hatred to the detriment of compassion.
The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.

I think much of the support to the Chinese government on this issue is from either self-hating Americans or those who look at the politics of leftism with a non-realistic view, they think that one day there shall pop out a mighty revolution, one that will be violent and will be "glorious". This will not happen and if it does it will likely turn into a type of single party state that will consume and kill everything it can.

[benhur]

The current Dali Lama has very many reasons to like President George W Bush. The biggest reason of all would have to be due to the facts of how Bush has supported the Dali Lamas struggle against the current Chinese government.

A question I have for those who use words like "reactionary" against the Dali Lama, do you forget this is the same Dali Lama who accepts the position of Marxist economics? Most of those who deny the Dali Lama as a "reactionary" will most likely accept both Fidel Castro and Che Guevara as "comrades", they will usually accept Hugo Chavez as a "comrade" as well.

.

Very good points, but you're wasting time trying to reason with these brain dead zombies.

As far as these filthy, vulgar people are concerned, Dalai Lama is a reactionary for praising Bush (which at least is understandable, considering Tibet is so weak they need all the help they can get), whereas self-proclaimed communists in china who go to bed with imperialist nations like US, Uk etc. are all angels.:rolleyes: Not one word about them going to bed with imperialists, not one word about them oppressing Tibetans, not one word about their horrible human rights record. But one slip by Dalai lama, and he's immediately labeled as a reactionary, scum, fraud, what else not.

Obviously, you can very well see their hypocrisy. So why waste time arguing with people who're brain deficient?

[Red October]

Meh, the Dalai Lama goes to new lows to suck up to America. It's not like he hasn't been doing this for a while.

[Wanted Man]

I looked this up on Wiki, and it makes no freaking sense to me - too much Tibetan Buddhist jargon makes my brain turn upside down.


Could you explain?
Basically, it's about a Buddhist sect that disagrees with the principles of the Dalai Lama's sect. Therefore, they are being prosecuted and brutalised by the Dalai Lama's benevolent government in exile. See: http://www.newint.org/issue304/update.htm

And: http://wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.org/

The supporters of the Dalai Lama abroad also participate in this: http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/jul/18dalai.htm

Basically, the supposed a-politics of the Dalai Lama's Buddhism is a big lie. He cynically uses religious dogma to improve his political position, even if he has to lie, intimidate and kill for it. In that sense, it is a religion like all the others.

As for his "half-Marxism", actions are not the same as words. As if a theocratic leader has anything to say about marxism. More likely than not, he made that statement for the exact purpose of drawing in dupes and useful idiots like SocialRealist and benhur.

[x359594]

Wasn't the Tibetan dynasty a reactionary feudal society? I thought that was the whole reason why Communist China invaded it.

The first part of your statement is true , but the second part is completely false.

The PRC invaded to secure the Tibetan plateau from imperialist penetration.

From the Marxist point of view, it's up to the Tibetans to liberate themselves from their feudal overlords.

The PRC had the chance to sponsor an indigenous uprising of the Tibetans against their rulers, but the requirements of the geopolitics of the era led them to invade and cover their invasion with liberation rhetoric. The PRC inadvertently aided reaction and discredited socialism among the Tibetan masses for generations.

Today the Tibetans are second class citizens in their own land while Han Chinese settlers occupy the country more thoroughly than Israeli settlers occupy Palestine, and the only figure the Tibetans have to look as a symbol of liberation is, alas, the Dalai Lama.

[Plagueround]

Very good points, but you're wasting time trying to reason with these brain dead zombies.

As far as these filthy, vulgar people are concerned, Dalai Lama is a reactionary for praising Bush (which at least is understandable, considering Tibet is so weak they need all the help they can get), whereas self-proclaimed communists in china who go to bed with imperialist nations like US, Uk etc. are all angels.:rolleyes: Not one word about them going to bed with imperialists, not one word about them oppressing Tibetans, not one word about their horrible human rights record. But one slip by Dalai lama, and he's immediately labeled as a reactionary, scum, fraud, what else not.

Obviously, you can very well see their hypocrisy. So why waste time arguing with people who're brain deficient?

I don't support any of these people. Got any more strawmen or nasty names to call people?

[x359594]

...I thought Buddhists weren't supposed to engage themselves in politics, as it is considered "being too involved in the earthly realm" or something to that effect... I read this in another thread written by a suppossedly former Buddhist.

If this is true, then WTF is the Dalai Lama doing? Hypocritical bastard.

It's not true and never has been true. In any country where Buddhism has established itself as a major institution sought to influence the secular authorities. Usually its influence has been regressive, but sometimes it's acted for the general good as in the present day struggle against the military dictatorship in Burma.

[MarxSchmarx]

You know, the Dalai Lama has a point.

"Love thy neighbor" does not mean "like thy neighbor", much less "agree with thy neighbor."

As leftists, we must be committed to the malleability of human beings. We should hate the sin, not the sinner.

It is damned tough with some people. But even an arch-fascist/collaborationist like Henry Pu Yi came to see the error of his ways.

I don't blame George Bush for the problems of the world or America. No, I blame capitalism, and the system of greed and cronyism it engenders. As even Hugo Chavez says, perhaps someday he and Mr. Bush can play a friendly game of baseball.

If Tibetan monks, who are beaten and tortured in secret prisons, can love their captors and oppressors, who are we to denounce their resolve? Nobody wants to be treated like that. But they have the wisdom to recognize that it is not people, or human nature, or individuals, that are evil, but the system itself. Isn't this, when all is said and done, why we advocate abolishing capitalism and establishing socialism?

[Invincible Summer]

You know, the Dalai Lama has a point.

"Love thy neighbor" does not mean "like thy neighbor", much less "agree with thy neighbor."

As leftists, we must be committed to the malleability of human beings. We should hate the sin, not the sinner.

"Malleability" sounds like you want to forge them into your desired form. Very sinister.

I understand what you mean about "hate the sin, not the sinner" (although I dislike the religious connotations) but capitalists have created the sin and will not repent.



I don't blame George Bush for the problems of the world or America. No, I blame capitalism, and the system of greed and cronyism it engenders.

Well of course. It's silly to blame all of the world's problems on one man. But to point at those traders on Wall St, the CEOs of multinational corporations, and greedy businessmen and say that their greed perpetuates the vicious capitalist system is not far-fetched at all.


If Tibetan monks, who are beaten and tortured in secret prisons, can love their captors and oppressors, who are we to denounce their resolve?
Well, because it's stupid, unambitious, and defeatist.

Who are we to denounce their resolve? Revolutionaries, or at least you should be.

Are you saying that we as leftists should just learn to love our exploiters because it's "not actually" them exploiting, but the system that makes them exploit?

Like I've said above - the ruling classes perpetuate the exploitative system, and want it to stay that way. There's no way I can try to "peacefully co-exist" with them.

[MarxSchmarx]

Are you saying that we as leftists should just learn to love our exploiters because it's "not actually" them exploiting, but the system that makes them exploit?

Yes.



Like I've said above - the ruling classes perpetuate the exploitative system, and want it to stay that way.

Indeed, and it's important to remember that they do this as a class, not as individual human beings.


There's no way I can try to "peacefully co-exist" with them.

Absolutely. That's why we aim for a classless society, abolish their class privileges.

[Yazman]

Buddhism is no different to any of the major world religions, or ANY religion to that matter. The Dalai Lama demonstrates here actions that are typical of most any religious leader with power over large numbers of people - interference in politics.

The Dalai Lama is just as reactionary as the Pope.. perhaps worse in some regards as the Tibetan monks were slave owners.

[Spasiba]

From the Marxist point of view, it's up to the Tibetans to liberate themselves from their feudal overlords.
What exactly are you saying here? To me it sounds like whenever there is a liberation front we should just let it run by itself, but if we are internationalists, we should do what we can to help people everywhere, we have no borders, yes?

[Charles Xavier]

From the Marxist point of view, it's up to the Tibetans to liberate themselves from their feudal overlords.

They did thats why the Dalai Lama is gone

[elhijueputasocialista]

Buddhism teaches reincarnation... basically, if you're a good person and have a good karma, when you die you're reincarnated as a rich and healthy person. If you're a bad person and do evil things, when you die you're reincarnated as an animal or a poor and sick person.

Convenient isn't it? Buddhism like other religions are tools of the bourgeoisie to justify their control of private property and use less fortunate people as chewing gums - chew out all the sugar then spit them out. Because, after all, when someone is poor or sick it's because he was evil and wicked in a previous life.

This is what the Dalai Lama represents. Other religions also teach similar things. In my mind, there's no way communism and religion can co-exist. No surprise a religious leader like the Dalai Lama would support Bush.
No Hinduism is a teaching of reincarnation of one's life after he dies as a judgement of his past life. Buddhism is more a philosophy teaching nirvana, and discipline.

[elhijueputasocialista]

He has proven to be a hypocrite time and time again, though I think saying he represents religion and its supposed failures is discriminatory...reincarnation doesnt disqualify class struggle.
I think you and the other guy should research religion the same way religious leaders should look up politics before you all make an opinion on each other because you're highly mistaken with their "religious" views (if you can call Buddhism a religion.)

[elhijueputasocialista]

Discriminatory? Hardly. IMO people are free to believe whatever they wish and I'm not about to hold it against anyone. If someone believes that if they do good things they're going to heaven or whatever, it's their privilege. But when religion gets its hands in politics, as is the case with the Tibetan government in exile for example, then it hurts class struggle quite a bit.

Most religions have this sort of anti-poor feeling. In christianity, the bible has passages like Proverbs 12:24: "Diligent hands will rule, but laziness ends in slave labor," for example. In Islam, Az-Zukhruf 32 teaches "We have apportioned among them their livelihood in the life of the world, and raised some of them above others in rank that some of them may take labor from others."

This is why I see religion itself, at least organized religion, as a big problem. I don't want to disrespect people who have faith and all, but as far as I see it religion isn't really an ally in class struggle. If someone proves me wrong, I'll change my mind.


No, yeah you're right. Religion itself is nothing more than an "opium for the masses" (Don't mean to steal a quote but it's useful in this convo.) Organized religion actually causes prejudices in societies i.e. Christianity and homosexuals, and at time advocates for slavery. Same as in the Koran and women, and etc. etc. Religion is man-made and is faulty, and religious leaders today are against education for the masses, including the bible for the apple Eve ate represented knowledge for the masses. To create a true communist society we have to rid religion as a whole, any kind of religion. Now at the same time is it even possible to rid the world of religion? Who knows?

[x359594]

...To me it sounds like whenever there is a liberation front we should just let it run by itself, but if we are internationalists, we should do what we can to help people everywhere, we have no borders, yes?

Let me clarify. Any struggle for national liberation should emanate from the oppressed peoples themselves. As internationalists we should support their struggle, but we should not presume to liberate them for them own good before they're ready, before the subjective and objective conditions are present.

In the case of Tibet, the CCP cadres started out working among the Tibetan people much as they did during the Yenan period in China. To raise the consciousness of a people oppressed by centuries of a religiously based feudal overlordship takes time. The CCP should have continued in this course for as long as it took to build a mass base among the Tibetan people and provided them with the tools they need to overthrow their feudal masters themselves.

Instead, for geopolitical reasons they began settling Han Chinese on the Tibetan plateau and in the process treated the Tibetan peasants as second-class citizens, subjecting them to the indignity of Han chauvanism and undoing the work of the first period when the CCP cadres were genuinely serving the people.

Today, the Tibetans are another exploited minority by the Chinese who are communists in name only. So the Tibetans rally around the Dalai Lama for deliverance, though in fact he's ready to come to terms with China so long as he's allowed to resume his position in Tibet. When he dies there's a militant leadership waiting in the wings to begin armed struggle against the Chinese. It will be interesting to see how this plays out on the Left when it comes to pass.

[Yazman]

I think you and the other guy should research religion the same way religious leaders should look up politics before you all make an opinion on each other because you're highly mistaken with their "religious" views (if you can call Buddhism a religion.)

Buddhism is just like every other religion.. promoting asceticism in life in the hope of a "better next life" and "enlightenment", but enlightenment can usually only come after one has lived through many many lives, so LIVE BY OUR RULES! DO WHAT WE SAY! and you may just progress on the way to enlightenment in your future lives!