Pro-China bias?
- Thread starter Mal7
- Start date
l apprenti de forgeron
The Living Force
Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?
Obviously I recognize that Tibet is part of China. This battle is fought, in part, for history, for the narratives that create the identities of the people. And the great players are always putting their spoon into the soup, but China is doing a well job so far:
CIA's Secret War in Tibet
_h ttp://www.historynet.com/cias-secret-war-in-tibet.htm
And I think we should not give to much value to what the Dalai Lama say, because probably he is at the service of the CIA since his exile. It's like a parrot:
Dalai Lama Stuns Audience... Admits: "I Love George Bush"
http://www.sott.net/article/173852-Dalai-Lama-Stuns-Audience-Admits-I-Love-George-Bush
And worse, attacking to Putin:
Dalai Lama Blasts Putin's Self-Centeredness
_h ttp://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/dalai-lama-blasts-putin-s-self-centeredness/506582.html#
Very agree. Perhaps one could say that the old Chinese government and Buddhist theocracy were equally nihilistic. We already know what Buddhism is, but the Communist Party was completely materialistic. It would be interesting to know the inside history of the Communist Party after the death of Mao. Perhaps there have been several individuals with conscience and creativity, that with effort, have managed to take positions of power and achieve a heritable circuit for other people with conscience. If something like that took place, it would be awesome. That would be like a reverse ponerology: a nihilistic ideology turned into something that could serve people in a better way.Niall said:
Obviously I recognize that Tibet is part of China. This battle is fought, in part, for history, for the narratives that create the identities of the people. And the great players are always putting their spoon into the soup, but China is doing a well job so far:
CIA's Secret War in Tibet
_h ttp://www.historynet.com/cias-secret-war-in-tibet.htm
And I think we should not give to much value to what the Dalai Lama say, because probably he is at the service of the CIA since his exile. It's like a parrot:
Dalai Lama Stuns Audience... Admits: "I Love George Bush"
http://www.sott.net/article/173852-Dalai-Lama-Stuns-Audience-Admits-I-Love-George-Bush
And worse, attacking to Putin:
Dalai Lama Blasts Putin's Self-Centeredness
_h ttp://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/dalai-lama-blasts-putin-s-self-centeredness/506582.html#
Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?
I wonder if there is some archetypal desire or wish to believe in a "strong leader", who rules over the people in the best way possible given the imperfect and factional world we live in. This leader might perform actions that seem morally questionable, but really they are the best option possible, because the leader can see deep into the dynamics of the situation and is able to realize the best path to take.
If Putin is such a figure, well that is great. In general though, and relating back to the earlier comment in this thread by gdpetti that we are living in "Purgatory", I don't think we should expect to come across such leaders very often. Perhaps it is safer to start with the assumption that ponerization and reverse-ponerization will always be present within any kind of ideology, political system or religion; like yin and yang, or the forces of entropy vs the forces of real humanity.
The Communist Party of China's ideological roots are atheistic, materialistic, and non-spiritual. Mao famously said "Religion is poison". The party today does allow religions and religious worship, but only up to a level at which they are not seen as a political threat. Unfortunately the Communist Party of China seems to have a quite low threshold or paranoia-level for what it sees as a threatening level of religious worship, which is why they have outlawed Falun Gong, and have heavily censored information on Falun Gong on their internet.
Falun Gong is based on ideas about Chi and other concepts from traditional religious thought in China. Its practitioners meet together and practice simple breathing exercises and movements.
Perhaps it is worth considering the counter-factual hypothesis of whether the Chinese authorities would treat the FCM any differently than they have treated Falun Gong practitioners, were FCM to be a large popular movement?
Below is an extract from an article on Falun Gong on the official Chinese news site, the "People's Daily Online":
I wonder if there is some archetypal desire or wish to believe in a "strong leader", who rules over the people in the best way possible given the imperfect and factional world we live in. This leader might perform actions that seem morally questionable, but really they are the best option possible, because the leader can see deep into the dynamics of the situation and is able to realize the best path to take.
If Putin is such a figure, well that is great. In general though, and relating back to the earlier comment in this thread by gdpetti that we are living in "Purgatory", I don't think we should expect to come across such leaders very often. Perhaps it is safer to start with the assumption that ponerization and reverse-ponerization will always be present within any kind of ideology, political system or religion; like yin and yang, or the forces of entropy vs the forces of real humanity.
The Communist Party of China's ideological roots are atheistic, materialistic, and non-spiritual. Mao famously said "Religion is poison". The party today does allow religions and religious worship, but only up to a level at which they are not seen as a political threat. Unfortunately the Communist Party of China seems to have a quite low threshold or paranoia-level for what it sees as a threatening level of religious worship, which is why they have outlawed Falun Gong, and have heavily censored information on Falun Gong on their internet.
Falun Gong is based on ideas about Chi and other concepts from traditional religious thought in China. Its practitioners meet together and practice simple breathing exercises and movements.
Perhaps it is worth considering the counter-factual hypothesis of whether the Chinese authorities would treat the FCM any differently than they have treated Falun Gong practitioners, were FCM to be a large popular movement?
Below is an extract from an article on Falun Gong on the official Chinese news site, the "People's Daily Online":
-_http://en.people.cn/90001/90776/90882/6728782.html
Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?
If i am understanding the current discussion in the thread correctly, i think this article may go towards demonstrating China's current role in world events:
and how different their actions are in comparison to the West.
A while back i would have responded like Hlat and others, envisioning a totalitarian society - which is what we have now - but i think it's clear from observing people in general, the majority look for leaders, process makers and decision takers to outsource most of their thinking, the hard thinking perhaps.
My thinking is so: look at the US, they don't have a royal family and so look to assign this quality to someone within their own culture - like the mandate of heaven? - their 'need' for someone to idolise must be fulfilled and so they look to their president, or industrialists or just anyone in a higher position than themselves!
I saw a documentary once
And they suggested that Humans operate like pack animals and instinctively look for leaders - now, this may not be the case for the thinking minority who would hopefully, eventually, conclude that their opinions on how to behave would be relatively colinear, since we all share similar needs as defined by nature - and so the fear of an 'uber mind' operating may yet be another example of how psychopaths have corrupted what comes naturally to us.
If i am understanding the current discussion in the thread correctly, i think this article may go towards demonstrating China's current role in world events:
and how different their actions are in comparison to the West.
Niall said:
A while back i would have responded like Hlat and others, envisioning a totalitarian society - which is what we have now - but i think it's clear from observing people in general, the majority look for leaders, process makers and decision takers to outsource most of their thinking, the hard thinking perhaps.
My thinking is so: look at the US, they don't have a royal family and so look to assign this quality to someone within their own culture - like the mandate of heaven? - their 'need' for someone to idolise must be fulfilled and so they look to their president, or industrialists or just anyone in a higher position than themselves!
I saw a documentary once
And they suggested that Humans operate like pack animals and instinctively look for leaders - now, this may not be the case for the thinking minority who would hopefully, eventually, conclude that their opinions on how to behave would be relatively colinear, since we all share similar needs as defined by nature - and so the fear of an 'uber mind' operating may yet be another example of how psychopaths have corrupted what comes naturally to us.
Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?
Yes, Westerners who think they are sovereign people who make independent choices are part of an 'uber mind' of billions who think likewise. In fact they have no individuality, which is a basic tenet of the Work - indeed, it's the starting point for the Work - as explained by Gurdjieff.
itellsya said:
Yes, Westerners who think they are sovereign people who make independent choices are part of an 'uber mind' of billions who think likewise. In fact they have no individuality, which is a basic tenet of the Work - indeed, it's the starting point for the Work - as explained by Gurdjieff.
Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?
What if the CCP's ideologically-founded atheism, like the USSR's, has been rounded-out over time - through internal power struggles - towards a more nuanced understanding of people's spiritual needs? Whatever about the official status of religious or spiritual beliefs in China, the very fact that there's a relatively stable cohesion of 1.3 billion people speaks to there being common understanding among the Chinese of a national-cultural ethos. The West calls that 'being brainwashed', which is darkly ironic given that the term first emerged as a CIA explanation for why US POWs and Korean War vets began speaking out against US imperialism in China's backyard.
Beyond the merits or otherwise of Falun Gong exercises, the only reason you have even heard about this organization is because it is not simply 'as advertized':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Hongzhi
It's not accidental that its founder is "one of the 500 most powerful people in the world", nor is the fact that his organization is based in New York City.
Mal7 said:
What if the CCP's ideologically-founded atheism, like the USSR's, has been rounded-out over time - through internal power struggles - towards a more nuanced understanding of people's spiritual needs? Whatever about the official status of religious or spiritual beliefs in China, the very fact that there's a relatively stable cohesion of 1.3 billion people speaks to there being common understanding among the Chinese of a national-cultural ethos. The West calls that 'being brainwashed', which is darkly ironic given that the term first emerged as a CIA explanation for why US POWs and Korean War vets began speaking out against US imperialism in China's backyard.
Mal7 said:
Beyond the merits or otherwise of Falun Gong exercises, the only reason you have even heard about this organization is because it is not simply 'as advertized':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Hongzhi
It's not accidental that its founder is "one of the 500 most powerful people in the world", nor is the fact that his organization is based in New York City.
Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?
That may be so. Although China does have many people working for low wages in poor working conditions, I think there may be evidence that on average people's levels of material welfare are increasing, and levels of extreme poverty are decreasing. In other words, that China's annual economic growth of over 7% (I am not sure of the exact figure) is having a "trickle down" effect that is reducing the numbers of people in poverty, and bringing more people into the comfortably-off middle class. The 7% growth could also lead to negative environmental impacts in terms of pollution and consumption of environmental resources, but China has I think realized this problem and is technologically capable of making the best use of the most advanced green technologies.
On the other hand, as humans we need different kinds of "food" - not just oxygen and bacon, but also mental impressions and ideas. If China is controlling the ability of ideas to circulate, its population may be being starved of access to "mental" food. On a sheep farm it is in the farmer's interest to ensure his sheep live peacefully, are physically healthy and well-fed. But the farmer's main interest is not the spiritual welfare of his sheep, but making a profit. Hopefully China is not that kind of a peaceful society. :)
Niall said:
That may be so. Although China does have many people working for low wages in poor working conditions, I think there may be evidence that on average people's levels of material welfare are increasing, and levels of extreme poverty are decreasing. In other words, that China's annual economic growth of over 7% (I am not sure of the exact figure) is having a "trickle down" effect that is reducing the numbers of people in poverty, and bringing more people into the comfortably-off middle class. The 7% growth could also lead to negative environmental impacts in terms of pollution and consumption of environmental resources, but China has I think realized this problem and is technologically capable of making the best use of the most advanced green technologies.
On the other hand, as humans we need different kinds of "food" - not just oxygen and bacon, but also mental impressions and ideas. If China is controlling the ability of ideas to circulate, its population may be being starved of access to "mental" food. On a sheep farm it is in the farmer's interest to ensure his sheep live peacefully, are physically healthy and well-fed. But the farmer's main interest is not the spiritual welfare of his sheep, but making a profit. Hopefully China is not that kind of a peaceful society. :)
Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?
Blocking Western corrupting influences isn't controlling the ability of ideas to circulate. That again is a pathological Western perspective. I bet it has the opposite and a rather positive effect. The world would be much better off it followed suit. Just look at this Charlie Hebdo stuff and where such neo-liberal 'ideals' are taking people! It's absolutely horrifying.
Mal7 said:
Blocking Western corrupting influences isn't controlling the ability of ideas to circulate. That again is a pathological Western perspective. I bet it has the opposite and a rather positive effect. The world would be much better off it followed suit. Just look at this Charlie Hebdo stuff and where such neo-liberal 'ideals' are taking people! It's absolutely horrifying.
Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?
The West of course also blocks the free spread of ideas, e.g. with laws on anti-Semitism, hate speech, and terrorism. The Charlie Hebdo hysteria is horrifying, but giving the West even more powers to block ideas, e.g. increasing censorship of the internet and the alternative media, would only make it even worse.
True, but the risk in giving to the rulers of a state the power to block ideas is that the outcome is only good if the rulers are a non-pathological elite, and stay that way over time. How many societies in history could that be said of?Renaissance said:
The West of course also blocks the free spread of ideas, e.g. with laws on anti-Semitism, hate speech, and terrorism. The Charlie Hebdo hysteria is horrifying, but giving the West even more powers to block ideas, e.g. increasing censorship of the internet and the alternative media, would only make it even worse.
Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?
Also it is not just western ideas that China blocks. The Dalai Lama was actually born in a village, Takster, (in Amdo or Qinghai province) which was then (in 1935) under the political control of the Chinese Muslim warlord Ma Bufang, who was aligned with the then ruling Kuomintang regime in China. So in blocking the Dalai Lama's ideas, they are blocking the ideas of someone born in China.
Buddhism has a long history in China, and many present day followers among the Han Chinese. Many Tibetan Buddhist scriptures were translated from Chinese versions. The earliest surviving versions of some Buddhist scriptures are in the Chinese language.
Also it is not just western ideas that China blocks. The Dalai Lama was actually born in a village, Takster, (in Amdo or Qinghai province) which was then (in 1935) under the political control of the Chinese Muslim warlord Ma Bufang, who was aligned with the then ruling Kuomintang regime in China. So in blocking the Dalai Lama's ideas, they are blocking the ideas of someone born in China.
Buddhism has a long history in China, and many present day followers among the Han Chinese. Many Tibetan Buddhist scriptures were translated from Chinese versions. The earliest surviving versions of some Buddhist scriptures are in the Chinese language.
Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?
I think it was forgetful of me to not mention here that the West also blocks ideas by more off-the-books methods, like spreading disinfo, COINTELPRO, harassment, murder, "suiciding".
If the so-called "freedom of speech" is not really present in the West, that doesn't mean we have to throw out the whole concept as being worthless. People may think they are free when they are not, but if they can evolve from that stage through Work, they should reach a point where they are Free to choose their beliefs, rather than having their belief options pre-selected by a paternalistic elite.
I think John Stuart Mill's writings in "On Liberty" make some worthwhile points, even if he was a Western liberal elitist.
Mal7 said:
I think it was forgetful of me to not mention here that the West also blocks ideas by more off-the-books methods, like spreading disinfo, COINTELPRO, harassment, murder, "suiciding".
If the so-called "freedom of speech" is not really present in the West, that doesn't mean we have to throw out the whole concept as being worthless. People may think they are free when they are not, but if they can evolve from that stage through Work, they should reach a point where they are Free to choose their beliefs, rather than having their belief options pre-selected by a paternalistic elite.
I think John Stuart Mill's writings in "On Liberty" make some worthwhile points, even if he was a Western liberal elitist.
Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?
I think important information has come out in this thread. I think it is beyond dispute now that Niall and Perceval do have a pro-China bias. However, I do not know if their views are representative of Sott.
Some of the ideas that they have been advocating seem to me very much STS.
It does not seem like STO to prevent a person from learning their own lessons.
Masses have a right to self defense, whether the attacker is western elites, Chinese elites, or philosopher kings.
To me, Niall and Perceval were defeated on the China issue when they did not acknowledge the issue I raised of the brutality of the 2015 Chinese government in enforcing the one child policy. I don't blame them for ignoring it because there's nothing that can be said that makes it right. KIDNAPPING AND FORCED ABORTIONS BY THE CURRENT CHINESE GOVERNMENT ARE REAL AND A COMMON PRACTICE AND WIDESPREAD. If committed by western powers, would be justifiably condemned, but when the Chinese government does it, the Chinese government is not recognized as the horrible STS monster that it is.
This is what Orwell warned about in Animal Farm: The enemy has been defeated, but the replacements became the enemy again. It is scary to see some the thinking and the tactics mentioned in support of the Chinese government are the same employed by the western psychopaths.
Star Wars is mentioned in the forum, so here is a reference. Darth Vader was a not a good guy because he destroyed the Emperor; they were both bad guys.
As a final note, for the bystanders who might not have the knowledge or might be confused: about Taiwan and China, no, the origins and the ongoing battle between Taiwan and China are not the result of western color revolutions or puppet states; it is a struggle among different Chinese sides since the fall of the last dynasty 100 years ago. I provided a clue by mentioning Dr. Sun Yat-sen. Internal fighting among Chinese is not unprecendented in Chinese history. The Three Kingdoms era is just one famous and glorified example.
I think important information has come out in this thread. I think it is beyond dispute now that Niall and Perceval do have a pro-China bias. However, I do not know if their views are representative of Sott.
Some of the ideas that they have been advocating seem to me very much STS.
It does not seem like STO to deny a person what they want and instead decide for them.
It does not seem like STO to repress a person's opinion and censor the information available to them.
It does not seem like STO to prevent a person from learning their own lessons.
Masses have a right to self defense, whether the attacker is western elites, Chinese elites, or philosopher kings.
To me, Niall and Perceval were defeated on the China issue when they did not acknowledge the issue I raised of the brutality of the 2015 Chinese government in enforcing the one child policy. I don't blame them for ignoring it because there's nothing that can be said that makes it right. KIDNAPPING AND FORCED ABORTIONS BY THE CURRENT CHINESE GOVERNMENT ARE REAL AND A COMMON PRACTICE AND WIDESPREAD. If committed by western powers, would be justifiably condemned, but when the Chinese government does it, the Chinese government is not recognized as the horrible STS monster that it is.
This is what Orwell warned about in Animal Farm: The enemy has been defeated, but the replacements became the enemy again. It is scary to see some the thinking and the tactics mentioned in support of the Chinese government are the same employed by the western psychopaths.
Star Wars is mentioned in the forum, so here is a reference. Darth Vader was a not a good guy because he destroyed the Emperor; they were both bad guys.
As a final note, for the bystanders who might not have the knowledge or might be confused: about Taiwan and China, no, the origins and the ongoing battle between Taiwan and China are not the result of western color revolutions or puppet states; it is a struggle among different Chinese sides since the fall of the last dynasty 100 years ago. I provided a clue by mentioning Dr. Sun Yat-sen. Internal fighting among Chinese is not unprecendented in Chinese history. The Three Kingdoms era is just one famous and glorified example.
Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?
hlat, I think you have a very naive view on governments and what is / isn't possible for them, especially when it comes to a big country like China and especially in today's environment. You haven't answered my questions earlier whether you know anything about authoritarian followers and whether you have read the book "The Crowd" (it is available free online and has been discussed on this forum). Considering your posts so far in this thread, I guess the answers to both questions are no.
STO governments in this world? Sheesh!
hlat, I think you have a very naive view on governments and what is / isn't possible for them, especially when it comes to a big country like China and especially in today's environment. You haven't answered my questions earlier whether you know anything about authoritarian followers and whether you have read the book "The Crowd" (it is available free online and has been discussed on this forum). Considering your posts so far in this thread, I guess the answers to both questions are no.
STO governments in this world? Sheesh!
Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?
I did not knew we were in a competition. Is in my opinion that what we do here in the forum is to learn. I think you are assuming much. Not answering back about what you wrote about the one child policy, is just that, they just did not answer back.
When is talked using STS/STO, it confuses me, is in my understanding that we are all STS right now, I may be an horrible STS monster too, because I have many still issues resolve, had made mistakes, and got sidetracked often.
Do not know much about China, and others are better to present facts behind their opinions/statements. But I think -from a "western" point of view (its funny, I do not feel western, that is a term I tend to see/be used by/in developed/first countries, and I come from the third world, I am using western vs eastern (Asia). Is easy to judge, what one/me do not comprehend, talking from myself, I use to think that it was an aberration the one child policy, so unjust, nowadays as bad as it is, do not longer think same, perhaps I am a monster too. If it wasn't for the one child policy, there would had been proportionally almost the double, counting the Mexican and Indian reference. As a country, those in charge, took that decision, to contain what they can. I do not know what is worse, allowing people to have children, like 6, 10 children, when parents cannot even feed themselves, social and economic reasons mostly.
Mexico population 1979: 68,000,000; 2013: 122,000,000
China population 1979: 969,000,000; 2013: 1,357,000,000
India population 1979: 683,000,000; 2013: 1,252,000,000
(Google references)
hlat said:
I did not knew we were in a competition. Is in my opinion that what we do here in the forum is to learn. I think you are assuming much. Not answering back about what you wrote about the one child policy, is just that, they just did not answer back.
When is talked using STS/STO, it confuses me, is in my understanding that we are all STS right now, I may be an horrible STS monster too, because I have many still issues resolve, had made mistakes, and got sidetracked often.
Do not know much about China, and others are better to present facts behind their opinions/statements. But I think -from a "western" point of view (its funny, I do not feel western, that is a term I tend to see/be used by/in developed/first countries, and I come from the third world, I am using western vs eastern (Asia). Is easy to judge, what one/me do not comprehend, talking from myself, I use to think that it was an aberration the one child policy, so unjust, nowadays as bad as it is, do not longer think same, perhaps I am a monster too. If it wasn't for the one child policy, there would had been proportionally almost the double, counting the Mexican and Indian reference. As a country, those in charge, took that decision, to contain what they can. I do not know what is worse, allowing people to have children, like 6, 10 children, when parents cannot even feed themselves, social and economic reasons mostly.
Mexico population 1979: 68,000,000; 2013: 122,000,000
China population 1979: 969,000,000; 2013: 1,357,000,000
India population 1979: 683,000,000; 2013: 1,252,000,000
(Google references)
