Pro-China bias?

[Mal7]

While we may all generally agree that the USA is the world’s number one rogue state, acting all over the globe to promote the interests of its elite, or the 0.1%ers, I think this could sometimes lead into US-centric way of interpreting the world.

I bring this up on the forum here after seeing a passing reference to Tibet in Pierre’s SOTT article (http://www.sott.net/article/290835-2015-the-BRICS-checkmate-Western-finance), and some discussion in the comments thread there.

It seems to me like China is being given a free pass on human rights issues with its minorities. By China here I mean more specifically the Chinese government, the Communist Party of China, just as when people say something like “the US is going to war for oil” they are referring to the governmental elite rather than Joe American or the US as a people.

If we are in something like WWIII with the US power bloc against the rest of the world, I don’t think we should assume all movements to gain rights by indigenous peoples or ethnic minorities are being fuelled primarily by covert agitations from the US. Many may be, but that is something for investigation. As a methodological issue, I think the question of Tibet and any right the Tibetan people may have to more autonomy should be looked at historically, by listening to what Tibetan people have to say. In the 1960s China destroyed most of the monasteries in Tibet, and ran extensive re-education campaigns in which people were encouraged to turn each in. China has built several prisons housing numerous political prisoners in Tibet. While putting money and development into Tibet, most of this benefits Chinese people who now outnumber Tibetans in the Tibetan area. These events are still in the recent cultural memory of the Tibetan people. While the US may, and has, contributed to supporting Tibet against China (e.g. training Tibetan guerillas in Kham in the 1950s), I think it is too US-centric to think the US is the principal force behind all agitation by minorities (rather than just feeding the flames when it suits US purposes).

There are two sides to every story. We should listen to both, and acknowledge that propaganda is used by both sides. Instead it seems to me that the official Chinese position on Tibet is being treated with too much leniency, with a little too much thinking along the lines of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

This could be looked at in terms of confirmation bias. I may have a soft-spot for Tibet, and read primarily pro-Tibet histories, and find it easy to find fault with pro-official Chinese position on Tibet. That is to say, I may have confirmation bias in favour of Tibet. As humans with wetware none of us are free from confirmation bias. What I am suggesting is that we should also look at whether there is some confirmation bias going on in a tendency to see China as some kind of benign superpower, on the basis that it is in opposition to the axis-of-evil represented by the USA.

[Edit: added italics to "primarily"]

 

[gdpetti]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

My 2 centavos: China is following the classic historical example in Tibet of colonizing the country by the simple insertion of its own people, so that they become the majority... same as the creation of 'Israel' out of Palestine and every other country around the planet. China is still in empire mode, which is a problem for Putin in some sense, but he's gotten used to 'realpolitic' and having to deal with any assumed leadership/oligarchy in any country, mostly those the American led empire haven't yet taken direct control of through local oligarchs. The insertion of US troops is usually a sign of decay as the local leadership is no longer used in its usual frontman role, thus the violence level reaches to the genocidal level as we see in the Arab world.

China and Russia and most countries are playing by the usual rules of power building/consolidation. Their vision of the NWO is one in which the West declines as they rise to assume leadership of the realm. China is still a one-party state, they haven't utilized the Western concept of illusionary democracy by taking that party and splitting it into a minimum of 2 parties. Will they some day? If the natural cycle doesn't intrude in their plans first? Even Russia hasn't really enjoyed playing that game and it hasn't been a tradition in the 'East', thus its decline already in Russia and its lack in China, who seems to be using their own Asian/Japanese historical patterns of utilizing from the 'West', those tools of statecraft they deem useful and trying to keep the rest at bay, some of which is easy to do given the cultural traditions of the region.

I wouldn't say there is a bias here, mostly a lack of awareness, but isn't that the pattern everywhere until some empire comes along and forces change? Native peoples have this problem all throughout history. Stay awake and aware or suffer the consequences of letting your guard down. Most of those connected in some way with this site are Western based and the 'East' hasn't been known to push their cultural traditions and knowledge on others, for various reasons, some of which have proven to be bad business, such as in Japan, who didn't think some of their entertainment product would sell in the States/West... without even really trying, perhaps a reverse thought pattern in how they felt about aspects of Western civilization and its products. China seems to be learning from their mistake, but they are still in empire mode. PM Abe is trying to rekindle that old tradition of his ancestors, but it's a slow game to play out under the circumstances of competition from others in the region.

We all have biases, mostly due to a lack of knowledge, which isn't easy to get in some parts of the world, due to a lack of reportage, it's lack of achieving a footprint in the internet alternative media or an intentional flooding of the net with crap propaganda from Western sources that drown out the little lights on the horizon, but much of what we do know/learn from the East hasn't been easily gained, as the current PM of China is a good example of.... they don't make it easy for outsiders to understand their plans, intentions etc.... thus we have to 'know them by their actions'... same as we learn of our own leaders here in the West. It is something that Putin most likely keeps on eye on as the Asian marketplace sets up for business in the NWO, as China most likely seeks to turn it into a province like the USA treats Canada. The game is always the same and always on the move depending upon the attractants of the local leadership in each region. China's history has taught to avoid the obvious fight to conserve resources, something Russia under Putin is following as well. If they can get the West to commit suicide, so much the better as then they don't have to clean up the mess.... just any stray assets that show up along the way as the tsunami of troubles washes over the peoples. Are they ready to liquidate Tibet? Of course, same as we here in the West have been doing for many generations, so many that we simply take it for granted... but Niccolo M told us that this was simply the same example of every state, nothing new.

No free pass to China, just a slightly different set of instructions of the economic hit men to follow, and all those NGOs etc supporting the students in Hong Kong or the various peoples in the west of China that are being subsumed by this colonization process. The West is having trouble as of late in using that old game of criticizing the human rights violations of others, given our own track record, which China and others are more than able to bring up in their own 'reports on human rights'. Perhaps it's a desire not to start a two front war, given history's lessons on that for Germany and others recently? China is biding its time, letting Putin take all the heat, which is a smart policy for a country that wants the spotlight to itself eventually anyway.... let the West beat him up and keep him in a weakened state, it makes it easier for China to deal with Russia... always thinking long term.

It seems that the whole 'climate change' thing isn't part of their thinking, but perhaps that too is kept off the public press, same as here in the West... another thing those who think alike might have in common. I've always thought that perhaps the Dali Lama didn't have the knowledge needed to understand and deal with China, but then perhaps that's why he's exiting that political stage and letting others take it over.. hard to tell so far, perhaps like that Shia leader in Iraq, he's learned not to get too involved in the 'heat of battle', given that it is only filled with corruption, crime and all the usual paths to destruction? But none of them really have a choice, same with Putin... same with Xi... biding his time... none seem to portray a sense of impending cosmic doom, but maybe that is necessary to play their parts? Bias and our choice in its regard determines the environment we find ourselves in, right?

 

[hlat]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

I'm not sure if the trigger logically led to your post. The only reference to Tibet that I saw in the article was: "In a similar vein, the troubles in Hong Kong or Tibet are attempts to destabilize Chinese borders."

The recent demonstrations in Hong Kong certainly seem to have the support of US covert operations.

I am not aware of recent US covert operations regarding Tibet, so I am curious why Tibet was mentioned.

As far as the Chinese government elite goes, they are a ruthlessly murderous bunch, but I'm not seeing a pro-China bias in the article.

About the article:

Thanks to those investments that reach into the $trillions, they totally control most markets and, of course, they make huge profits when the market goes in the direction they want. But they also take tremendous risks if the market goes in the other direction.

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If they controlled a particular market, then they would have no risk because the market would not go in a direction counter to their control. Basically pulling a Goldman and not losing money any day in an entire quarter.

In May 6, 2010 the Dow Jones lost 1000 points (9%) within a day.
...
To hide the seriousness of the situation, Wall Street authorities "canceled" those abnormalities by freezing the quote and going back to the initial values.

While a minority of trades were cancelled in the flash crash, I don't think the quotes (last trade, bid, ask) were frozen or sent back to initial values by regulators. The market has had been down big all day even before it happened: then in a span of about 20 minutes plunging down and being bought back up. Then the market was bought up big time over that weekend through futures basically reaching pre-flash crash levels before sinking to an even lower value in the decline over the next several weeks.

 

[Siberia]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

While we may all generally agree that the USA is the world’s number one rogue state, acting all over the globe to promote the interests of its elite, or the 0.1%ers, I think this could sometimes lead into US-centric way of interpreting the world.

I see your point, Mal7. It's true: the world is not black and white, and all countries have their own "issues" and dark pages in their history. And China is no exception here, of course. But as you noted "we may all generally agree that the USA is the world’s number one rogue state." And this is the key point, imo. Let me explain my personal subjective vision of it.

Our world became extremely unipolar lately and thus lost its balance. As we know from physics, any unbalanced system will naturally seek returning to balance again, which is exactly what is going on in our world now, it seems. But balance can be reached in different ways.

For the lack of better example, let me suggest the one that comes to mind: a vehicle at a sharp turn. If the vehicle is full of potatoes, there is a high risk that it will turn over and collapse. But if the vehicle is a bus full of people, there is a chance that they instinctively rush to the opposite side of it thus balancing the weight and avoid catastrophe.

Unlike potatoes, people can and must choose how to act and take responsibility for their actions. Otherwise they are mindless crowd and things simply happen to them. The side that we choose to support may be imperfect, but the people of conscience will always choose the "lesser of two evils," so to speak.

When we are speaking of the horrors of Holocaust for example, we do not say "well, the Jews were also imperfect", right? As the people of conscience, we clearly condemn the Nazi criminals and support the victims. By doing so, we take responsibility for our choice.

The same can be applied to the Palestine conflict: it is clear that Israel is the blatant aggressor there. And instead of mindless reporting of the crimes committed by both sides, SoTT consciously highlights the difference between the two. SoTT is not hiding the failures of Palestinian leadership, it objectively admits them. But at the same time, SoTT clearly chooses to support the victims of this conflict. I wouldn't define such choice as bias or propaganda, but merely a mature and responsible position.

Coming back to China: it is objectively the healthiest nation in the world at the moment, whether we admit it or not. It's economy is thriving, it's infrastructure is enhancing, it's population is the largest, it's corruption is efficiently dealt with. China is not warmongering and placing its military bases all over the world. It's not meddling aggressively the affairs of other nations. They are not imposing their values on others and are not trying to convert other nations into communism, Taoism or any other system.

That said, China certainly minds its interests in its immediate neighborhood. Maybe they manipulate the interests of Tibet to some extent. But unlike Israel for example, China is not bombing Tibet nor applies Ukie-style ethnic cleansing against it. The fact that China wants Tibet to be under its protectorate is nothing new, every large country goes the same pattern. And it is not necessarily against the interests of Tibet itself, by the way. If managed wisely, for a small country it may be very convenient to be a buffer zone. Tibet could benefit from the competition between China and India, for example. In this sense, Ukraine could also flourish as a transit state between Europe and Russia. Alas, Kiev elites chose the US-engineered collapse instead.

So, when SoTT highlights the difference between China and the US, for me it's not bias or propaganda, but a moral choice to support the objectively healthier actors and relationships. In the world full of Western MSM propaganda, SoTT consciously serves as a counterbalance for this one-sided world view. fwiw

 

[SeekinTruth]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

In addition to the many good points Siberia brought up, you might want to search for Michael Parenti's writings on the horrors of Tibet under the feudal theocracy system. It can give the idea that what China did was a kind of liberation from a far worse life for the vast majority of Tibetans.

 

[Joe]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

What I am suggesting is that we should also look at whether there is some confirmation bias going on in a tendency to see China as some kind of benign superpower, on the basis that it is in opposition to the axis-of-evil represented by the USA.

You might be jumping to conclusions here. Because Sott.net carries articles that present China in a positive light vis a vis its alignment with Russia and BRICS, it does not mean that we think it is a "benign superpower" any more than we think Russia would be a benign superpower.

 

[Mal7]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

Thank you all for the feedback.

gdpetti: Thank you for the long and interesting reply and analysis. The passing reference to Tibet in the article left me feeling uncomfortable, but I think I am feeling more balanced about it now.

hlat: Yes it was just a small and incidental reference that served as a trigger, along with some discussion further down in the comments section. I have had some involvement helping with events in my local community to do with raising public awareness about Tibet. These have included listening to local Tibetans speak about their experiences, in a quite heart-felt and moving way. So I think I would be easily triggered by something I could interpret as treating issues about Tibet as manufactured rather than real.

Siberia: Thank you for the balanced reply. China hasn't been actively waging war, but I think it can be regarded as a superpower with a growing political and economic influence in the world. Both the Australian and New Zealand prime ministers have on different occasions refused to meet with the Dalai Lama out of not wishing to offend Chinese political sensibilities. It is investing in countries throughout the world, e.g. development in Africa and in Pacific nations, buying dairy farms in New Zealand. The Communist Party of China is communist in name only, but in reality I think more or less just plain capitalism. For a while they used to call this form of capitalism "Communism with Chinese characteristics". Like most other governments, I think they mainly seek increased power and economic control, at the expense of whatever individuals or small nations may get in their way. They haven't been engaging in military wars, but they do have the largest army and second-highest military spending of any country.

SeekinTruth: I really don't think I would like Parenti's writings on Tibet :) except as an example of the Official Chinese Version of Tibetan history. I read something by Parenti on Tibet when he was being discussed in relation to his book on Caesar. I think a book like "Tibet: Past and Present" by Sir Charles Bell (published 1924) gives a much more balanced picture. Bell was British political officer in Tibet (for the British Government of India). He learned the Tibetan language, was friends with the previous Dalai Lama, and wrote several books on Tibet. The description of Tibetans as oppressed serfs comes straight out of Chinese propaganda. Before the 1950s, famine was unknown in Tibet as the monasteries were able to distribute grain from there large storehouses if necessary. Famine occurred in Tibet in the 1960-2 after the Chinese re-organization of the agricultural system. Instead of theorizing about who is oppressed from a conceptual framework of Marxism, just go out and ask Tibetans whether they feel freer under Chinese rule or would prefer to live under a lamaist theocracy.

 

[Niall]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

SeekinTruth: I really don't think I would like Parenti's writings on Tibet :) except as an example of the Official Chinese Version of Tibetan history. I read something by Parenti on Tibet when he was being discussed in relation to his book on Caesar. I think a book like "Tibet: Past and Present" by Sir Charles Bell (published 1924) gives a much more balanced picture. Bell was British political officer in Tibet (for the British Government of India). He learned the Tibetan language, was friends with the previous Dalai Lama, and wrote several books on Tibet. The description of Tibetans as oppressed serfs comes straight out of Chinese propaganda. Before the 1950s, famine was unknown in Tibet as the monasteries were able to distribute grain from there large storehouses if necessary. Famine occurred in Tibet in the 1960-2 after the Chinese re-organization of the agricultural system. Instead of theorizing about who is oppressed from a conceptual framework of Marxism, just go out and ask Tibetans whether they feel freer under Chinese rule or would prefer to live under a lamaist theocracy.

So the Chinese 'rewrote' Tibet's history, which is more objectively described by a member of the imperial British elite? I think you may find that you have been misinformed on Tibet. Have you heard of the Opium Wars?

It seems to me like China is being given a free pass on human rights issues with its minorities.

Tell us about China's human rights issues with its minorities. What are the issues, and who are the minorities?

If we are in something like WWIII with the US power bloc against the rest of the world, I don’t think we should assume all movements to gain rights by indigenous peoples or ethnic minorities are being fuelled primarily by covert agitations from the US.

I can pretty much guarantee you that all the ones that get attention, are.

There are two sides to every story. We should listen to both, and acknowledge that propaganda is used by both sides. Instead it seems to me that the official Chinese position on Tibet is being treated with too much leniency, with a little too much thinking along the lines of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

Yes, here there are two sides: the Western side, and the Chinese side. And the Chinese side is, more or less, the objective one. The Western side, like everything else dreamed up by its reality-creators, is fictional.

This could be looked at in terms of confirmation bias. I may have a soft-spot for Tibet, and read primarily pro-Tibet histories, and find it easy to find fault with pro-official Chinese position on Tibet. That is to say, I may have confirmation bias in favour of Tibet.

And what might that bias be preventing you from seeing? Why do you think you have this "soft-spot for Tibet"? I had it too once. Student protests, 'Tibet days', Tibetan flags in rooms, Bhuddist prayer flags in canteens... we were hip, we were conscious, we were vicarious freedom-fighters! For what? 'Freedom for Tibet!'

Consider this.

If you were to look at a map of the world in which all of the (more or less) distinct ethnic-cultural nation-states were represented, the planet would be a patchwork quilt of thousands of countries. Are those others not represented on the current world map no less worthy of your sympathy?

As humans with wetware none of us are free from confirmation bias. What I am suggesting is that we should also look at whether there is some confirmation bias going on in a tendency to see China as some kind of benign superpower, on the basis that it is in opposition to the axis-of-evil represented by the USA.

Well, this is kind of apples and oranges because our view of China is not formed on the same basis as your view of Tibet. For us, there is no ideological "soft-spot for China" that bends the light in its favor. In fact, we began from the assumption that its portrayal in the West was basically true. As we've watched unfolding world events, we now have an understanding of China that is based on more-true information than what Western sources have to offer, and it has taken time, study and questioning to get us there.

I think there is far more value to be had in you deconstructing and questioning your own worldview. "Do I really know for sure that what I am reading in Western sources is objective? Could it be that what is said to be 'Chinese propaganda' is, like so-called 'Russian propaganda', substantially accurate, in spirit and historical context, if not always in details?"

I think it's unwise for you to dismiss Parenti in favor of someone who would have epitomized the 'gentlemen historians'. Should you choose to reconsider...

Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth

 

[Mal7]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

Niall I think you are showing a strong Pro-China bias viz-a-viz Tibtetan history. From the other comments on this thread, this may not be as widely shared among the SOTT community as you think.

I am aware of the long and inglorious history of British imperialism and colonialism. In 1904 the British made a military invasion into Tibet, the Younghusband expedition. Britain considered this an invasion of a sovereign country ruled by the Dalai Lama, rather than an invasion into a state or province of China. The expedition reached Lhasa and signed a convention with the available Tibetan authorities (the XIII Dalai Lama himself had fled into China).

The Chinese Qing dynasty then invaded Tibet in 1910. At this time the XIII Dalai Lama fled to his former enemies in British India. These were the circumstances in which he met the British political officer Charles Bell.

China has issues with Falung Gong practitioners, with Tibetans, with Uighur Muslims (now conveniently branded "terrorists").

I don't really want to get into a long discussion about Tibetan history. I am content with making the methodological point that this is something that should be investigated by wide reading of the available sources on all sides, and not investigated in an a priori fashion starting out from the assumption that China is objectively right and any British source is imperialist propaganda. Yes Charles Bell was a member of the imperial elite, but I think the fact that he was interested in Tibet enough to become fluent in Tibetan language and to write both a grammar of Tibetan and a Tibetan-English dictionary should count for something. Could the same be said of Parenti?

For a Tibetan history by a Tibetan, you could look at Tsepon W. D. Shakabpa's book "Tibet: A Political History".

For a western source by a westerner fluent in both Chinese and Tibetan, you could look at Melvyn Goldstein's "A History of Modern Tibet 1913-1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State". Goldstein is certainly no hip radical freedom-fighter for the Tibetan cause, but his conclusion is that politically Tibet had de-facto independence during the period 1913-1949.

Alternatively if you would prefer to read more books similar to Parenti's, you could read, though I don't recommend them for their objective merit, Hans Suyin's "Lhasa: The Open City" or Stuart Gelder's "The Timely Rain".

 

[Keyhole]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

After spending time in Dharamshala, I spoke with several highly emotional and frustrated Tibetan's who were in "exile". Some claimed to have actually travelled on horseback through the himalayas into the top of India.

We were shown videos of monks who openly set fire to themselves in streets to protest against China's "tyrannical regime" which was actually quite distressing. If I can remember correctly, stapled to the walls of some of the buildings were pictures of the most recent Tibetan monks who had committed suicide.
This message against china is propagated widely in a number of the books that were being sold in that area and many of the tourists were taken in by it, including myself.

I developed the "soft spot for Tibet" as well, however I never actually thought to question it...

Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth

Thankyou for sharing this article Niall, it was certainly a shocker... and has highlighted some blind spots! Do you know anything about the hundreds of monks supposedly setting fire to themselves? is it some kind of propaganda?

 

[Mal7]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

Some claimed to have actually travelled on horseback through the himalayas into the top of India.

No they were probably dropped off there out of CIA limousines. :)

Seriously though, most Tibetan refugees would have made this journey on foot. The Himalayas separate Tibet from India, but there are passes through them along which animals can be used, or people can walk without having to do technically difficult mountaineering.

The 1904 British expedition into Tibet from India used the following quantities of animals:

Mules - 7096
Bullocks - 5234
Camels - 6
Buffaloes - 138
Riding Ponies - 185
Pack Ponies - 1372
Nepalese Yaks - 2953
Tibetan Yaks - 1513
Ekka Ponies - 1111

Of these the mules, bullocks, riding ponies and ekka ponies were the best choices. Most of the other animals died en route, including all of the camels and all but one of the buffaloes.

[Reference: Bayonets to Lhasa: The First Full Account of the British Invasion of Tibet in 1904 by Peter Fleming (!961, page 102.)

 

[Mal7]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

Consider this.

If you were to look at a map of the world in which all of the (more or less) distinct ethnic-cultural nation-states were represented, the planet would be a patchwork quilt of thousands of countries. Are those others not represented on the current world map no less worthy of your sympathy?

I will answer this in terms of ethnic-cultural populations, rather than nation-state/countries. Countries and borders are I think a product of western colonialism, e.g. who drew up the border between Iraq and Syria, or made the borders of most African countries? India was never one big sub-continental sized nation-state until the British made it one.

Whether an ethnic-cultural population occupies a whole independent country, or is a minority living with other ethnic-cultural populations, or is spread across borders, they should have the right to manage themselves without excessive interference and suppression from governmental regimes. I am neither superman nor Santa Claus and can't be "championing" equally the specific interests of of all peoples simultaneously. I don't agree with the line-of-thought that one shouldn't speak up on behalf of one cause, because it would be simultaneously neglecting another. I have heard this line of thought before, e.g. when talking about Tibet someone will say "but what about the Uighurs?", and this is usually done by someone who doesn't speak up for Tibetans or Uighurs. . . That line of thinking could lead to a kind of ennui and inactivity, e.g. its all hopeless, the world's a mess, why do anything?

I brought up Tibet here because of the brief reference to it that had bothered me in the recent SOTT news article, given what I think I know about Tibetan history. I didn't bring up Georgia, Chechnya, Belorussia, Ukraine or Hong Kong, though they were also referred to in that article, because I have no reason to doubt what was said about those regions.

 

[gdpetti]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

I would say that the most important point to remember is that we live in 'Purgatory' and need to adjust our thoughts on all interactions by peoples and individuals along that line of thinking... ie, STS vs STO energies, with the 'dark side' in control of the game here, thus all govts turn towards empire when given the chance, as that is the natural outgrowth of those energies as expressed in a 'leader/led' system of governance. Thus there will always be a 'evil empire', and there will always be some people/nation/country standing in opposition. China isn't standing in opposition, but mostly on the sidelines as is their historical way, as taught by Sun Tzu's 'The Art of War'. There is a variance on the need to 'save face' from India up Indochina to China etc up to Japan.. group think vs individual think etc. But it seems that Xi is still playing it safe as he consolidates his forces, and thusly is he and his people being prepared for their next stage of development into global empire.... if nature doesn't get in the way first. Here's an example of what they are learning from the States: http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/china-starts-enforcing-tax-law-for-citizens-working-abroad-645730

China's tax officials are now demanding that citizens start reporting exactly how much money they earn overseas.

[...]In asking for this information, national and municipal tax agencies in China are quietly beginning to enforce a little-known and widely ignored regulation: Citizens and companies must pay domestic taxes on their entire worldwide incomes, not just on what they earn in China.

The nascent campaign this winter puts China on the same side as the United States in a global debate over whether taxation should be primarily national or global.
[...]

Doesn't it seem like Russia was being prepped and tested during the Bolshevik arrival on the scene and eventual takeover of the country? Doesn't it seem that China is being so tested just now? Countries like Tibet don't count, neither does any people or country that attempts to stop time and events from intruding into their peaceful bubble.... remember the Japanese example? Wasn't the early Chinese example much the same? Most native peoples suffer from imperial exploitation as they are considered prey by the predators, and existing in purgatory, isn't it the predators that get all the attention? As above, so below... seeking to keep all attention upon themselves unless they purposely seek to distract it elsewhere as they setup another puppet show to confuse, obfuscate and derail the sheep sitting in the audience... Sure the prey just want to be left alone and enjoy life, but the predators want to conquer, control and consume them, that's how they enjoy life... a contest of wills, but it seems only the predators realize this and prepare themselves, mostly by keeping their prey ignorant and docile. History as we know it isn't about the sheep, but their masters here in Purgatory. China seems no different than all the rest throughout history, for the Communists, their empire hasn't ended, it's still adapting to their environment, which currently is still Western dominated, and they've had to play that game for quite some time... what's a few more years at most? Their STS mindset seems alot like those higher up in the chain of command and perfectly adapted to the rules of the game here and now... in purgatory, now if and when that game changes, then so will they need to change, adapt or die. Survival of the fittest. In the 'Wild West' of the USofA, it wasn't the fastest gun, but those who hired them that determined the conditions of the region.. same as now, they were usually the ones bringing in the sheriff, mashall etc... if they were smart and adapted to the spread of the 'rule of law'... as in the illusion of law for the people, imposed by their leaders, controlled by those doing the hiring. Who is doing much of this hiring these days? China... and they don't seem to be in any hurry to waste their long sought opportunities for expansion and glory... biding their time and practicing their poker face.... something many seemed to have forgotten along the way when the West wrote all the rules.... now, there's a new sheriff in town, or maybe at the train station awaiting the word of the old sheriff's demise... to ride into town on a white horse, hat and singing a song of peace and tranquillity as all pied pipers are wont to do. It's the same story every time... never-ending, per its design function.

The problem seems to be the same every time.. a lack of knowledge by the leaders of any group when suddenly confronted by the presence of a new tribe/country/people.... a new reality, one they can't understand if they've been too long living in nature at peace with the world. So what does China bring to their part of the world right now? Catalyst of a new reality. The only question is how this cycle of empire building fits within the large cycle of cosmic correction or reset... which is more interesting, as it makes you wonder if these countries leaders are being kept busy, as well as their people, so that they don't remember or relearn this older lesson of nature... Surely, Sun Tzu had a thing or two to say about that? But will it be extrapolated out to the larger cycle? Doesn't seem like it,does it? Isn't it said that perhaps one of the most important things we can do upon awakening is to realize our part in the common play of life... our part, our people's part etc. An expansion of one's point of view... usually it takes a whole lot of catalyst, ie pain, to get that process started, and even then, very few ever realize their roles or accept them... learn to 'let go' and 'ride the Wave'. Isn't this something most countries/peoples under attack suffer from? Be it Tibet, Palestine, Ukraine, Middle East or anywhere else? I would think it's actually harder for those in the 'comfort zones' of the West, thus the cultural degradation as they fall asleep... not enough pain to keep them awake, especially given the rampant drug use... in various kinds, from pharma to reality tv, sports, welfare etc. Tibet is on one of the front lines, aren't they 'lucky'? ;) Same problem always, do they learn before they are destroyed or not? Do they fight it head on or from within, with smiles and stabs in the back? Do they wait it out and take over eventually anyway? Are they that patient? Do they see their role as passive, neutral or active? There are different ways to fight, when they choose to do so, as most of that fight is within themselves and their individual and collective sense of identity. How much catalyst do they need? Most Chinese seem content to allow their old leaders and its party to maintain power as long as they get a continuing sense of the new Chinese Dream... same everywhere, and when that is lost, either they revolt or go to sleep, like in the USofA, not that all are so, but most or enough to affect the rest. Hard to develop more than an individual momentum in such cases and then learning to 'let go' takes on perhaps a different meaning, same as 'riding that wave' and understanding the part we play.

The development of bias and our choice of preference determines the environment of our present, past and future... Ra's lessons on the Tarot, right? Pretty basic. Mind/body/spirit complex... Step by step until the merely foolish become full fledged Fools with The Choice. It seems sometimes, that primer is forgotten as we attempt to run before learning how to walk, same with civilizations, which is why the come and go, come and go.

 

[Mal7]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

I think it's unwise for you to dismiss Parenti in favor of someone who would have epitomized the 'gentlemen historians'. Should you choose to reconsider...

Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth

Parenti's article is factually I think good. I don't have illusions about "old Tibet" being a Shangri-La of peace and harmony and equitable distribution of resources. I think Parenti does take every opportunity though to give a kind of bad-sounding slant to old Tibet, and a good slant to new Tibet and what China did.

For example, in describing treatment of prisoners in old Tibet, he writes:

"Chinese authorities claim to have put an end to floggings, mutilations, and amputations as a form of criminal punishment. "

Habitual thieves in old Tibet did have their hands cut off or were made to walk in shackles. This is perhaps cruel and inhumane treatment, but it took place in a culture different to our own. Perhaps long terms of imprisonment (e.g. those based on the "three strikes" rule in the USA) are equally inhumane in another way? The Tibetan thieves so treated were still free to move around in society, and could be recognized as a thief by their missing hand. Anyway, it was clearly not some kind of utopia or Buddhist paradise.

But moving on to how Parenti then describes Chinese treatment of prisoners:

"Chinese authorities claim to have put an end to floggings, mutilations, and amputations as a form of criminal punishment. They themselves, however, have been charged with acts of brutality by exile Tibetans. The authorities do admit to “mistakes,” particularly during the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution when the persecution of religious beliefs reached a high tide in both China and Tibet. After the uprising in the late 1950s, thousands of Tibetans were incarcerated. "

So, they have been charged with "acts of brutality", and admit to "mistakes", but Parenti leaves out specific details of what kind of brutality were performed. For more information on this, one could look at the book "Hidden Tibet: History of Independence and Occupation" by S. L. Kuzmin (St. Petersburg: Narthang, 2010). This includes graphic accounts of torture, forced labour, re-education sessions, humiliation, and beatings.

The number of monks in Tibet has been estimated to have dropped in the 1960s from around 110,000 to around 7,000, with 10,000 of that number having left Tibet, and the others renouncing their robes. (Kusmin, pp. 269-270).

Parenti describes this amicably thus:

"But monks who had been conscripted as children into the religious orders were now free to renounce the monastic life, and thousands did, especially the younger ones."

So Parenti is factually correct, but the presentation of the information doesn't go into the details of the process by which monks chose to become laity. One method was through "struggle sessions" in which people were made to repent, and also to condemn and accuse others.

"The 'struggle session' was a unique method used by the CPC during Mao Zedong's period. It combined punishment without trial, harassment, torture and sometimes murder with ideological rallies, intimidation and brainwashing of the masses [. . .] The few who had the courage to refuse to participate in them were labelled as enemies, and then later became the objects of 'struggle' themselves. Initially, such a person could have been told that he did not have 'a pleasing face'. This meant that at the next meeting he had to pull someone's hair, hurl abuse, etc., i.e. he had to 'fight'. Refusal to participate could cause an arrest."
- Kusmin, page 264.

This is similar to the methods Chairman Mao wrote of in 1927 to be used for reorganizing the peasantry of China: "Each village requires a brief period of terror [. . .] Groups of peasants break into houses of their [landlords] and initiate interrogations that are not too harsh. As a result, most of these people write 'confessions' [. . .] Each county needs to have a few most brutal and criminal local tuhao and leshen shot. This is the only effective means of suppression of the reaction." - Kusmin, page 267.

"The methods used to reduce the number of clergy [in Tibet] were thus: 'When by any means possible monks and nuns were being made to return to secular life, first of all in the so-called names of 'study' and mobilisation' in each monastery, monks and nuns were gathered together in the Great Prayer Hall or in a large room. They were tightly controlled, they studied intensively, and they were forcibly mobilized to carry out mutual criticism both day and night, and a high tide of acute struggle was stirred up. Those who publicly displayed their religious beliefs were given all types of labels including 'superstitious element' and 'dislike of the revolution', and unbearable an inexplicable struggles and attacks were carried out against them. On the other hand, when the monks were asked whether or not they wished to go back to secular life, if they asked to remains as monks, they were told 'You still have not been educated, you have not done away with your superstitions' and were violently struggled against, and many of them were put under surveillance or locked up.'" - Kusmin, page 270, quoting a letter by the Panchen Lama.

 

[hlat]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

The Communist Chinese regime has been a brutal psychopathic one, so it is quite surprising to me to see an argument here that their propaganda is substantially accurate. It may be better to say the US regime is super-psychopathic and the Chinese regime is regular-psychopathic. The Chinese government elite are lying liars and I believe it is a mistake to suggest that their propaganda approaches objective reality. The shameful history under the rule of Mao is a prime example of psychopaths run amok.