Pro-China bias?

[shijing]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

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.

While it's true that internal fighting among the Chinese is not unprecedented in history (the same is true for any number of groups around the world), I don't think one can deny western involvement. I lived in Taiwan during 1994-96, and still remember a particular incident where there was saber-rattling going on across the Taiwan Strait, with China directing missiles off the northern coast of Kilung. While this was not an uncommon occurrence, on this particular occasion the US sent a fleet of ships (including at least a couple of aircraft carriers if I remember correctly) into the Taiwan Strait, to the chagrin of both China and Taiwan, whose governments regarded it as an internal dispute.

While they might not say anything overtly about it in the media, I think the Chinese government is acutely aware that the US sees Taiwan as a strategic asset which they have groomed as a counterbalance to China; the US would also be greatly dismayed by formal reunification, in the same way that they would in the case of North and South Korea (this has not stopped increasing cross-strait relations in other areas such as business, especially after the end of martial law in 1987, as you probably know). See this article as an example:

_http://www.aei.org/publication/taiwans-crucial-role-in-the-us-pivot-to-asia/

 

[Mal7]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

"I am a staunch believer in democracy."

That right there tells you all you need to know about why the Chinese don't trust him! He's a useful idiot at best, a predator cloaked in ideology at worst.

What happens next is that Tibet is opened up for Western corporations to pillage and plunder, US military bases are installed, and more chaos 'magically' manifests in neighboring China. The net result is bad for Tibet, bad for China, and bad for the world as a whole.

When considering what's best for any given country or region, you have GOT to look at it from the same perspective the Western oligarchy does. It's not really about the country or regime in question; it's about the WHOLE PLANET, which they think they own as a matter of birthright - everything else is just 'management details'.

Just a few comments on this. First I think you make an important point that one has to look at this from the big picture, how the Western oligarchs view the situation and how it fits into the global situation.

From their perspective, the most important role the Dalai Lama plays would I might guess be:
1. A thorn in the side of China.
2. Someone who makes them look good by association with his popular Buddhist Chief branding.
3. A genuine concern for the problems of the Tibetan people would be their last priority.

Looking at it from the Dalai Lama's or Tibetan perspective though, I think the comments are a little unfair. From the Dalai Lama's perspective, the problems of the Tibetan people would the first priority. Becoming a tool of the US/Western oligarchs in their greater game, though that may have happened, would not have been his particular intent. The Buddhist Chief/Dalai Lama seems to be caught between a rock and a hard place. First Parenti criticizes him for running a system of theocratic despotism, and then when the Buddhist Chief tries to modernize this centuries old system and comes out in favor of democracy, he is criticized for being an idiot or a predator. So the only political choice that you would give him credit for would be to say to China, "OK you have been here for over 50 years, you can have my country."

Since the Tibetan Government-in-Exile are only seeking autonomy as a state within China, US military bases would not be installed. The democratic voting would be restricted to electing a regional government for the Tibetan Autonomous Region within the People's Republic of China. China currently has nuclear weapons, nuclear weapon production facilities, and nuclear waste stored in Tibet. The Tibetan Government-in-Exile's plan, though it is unlikely to be accepted by China, is to demilitarize the zone and make it a zone of peace, a buffer area between the rest of China and India. This is discussed in this PDF report:
_http://tibet.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Demili00.pdf

The Dalai Lama has commented on how he sees himself as having a kind of dual role. One role is being a spokesperson or Buddhist Chief to the rest of the world, spreading his message about peace and inter-faith tolerance, Buddhist philosophy of mind, new age platitudes for Facebook memes etc.

Whatever one's take on the Buddhist mumbo-jumbo, he also see himself as having a role of representing the Tibetan people and their cause. From this perspective, I think his advocacy of democracy is not idiotic or predatory, but just pragmatic. Also his decision a few years ago to step down from being the official political leader of the Tibetan government-in-exile, could be seen as a pragmatic decision to do what he thought was best for the Tibetan cause.

Parenti's factually accurate article did mention that "Not all Tibetan exiles are enamoured of the old Shangri-La theocracy." I think an objective rather than highly selective survey would most likely show that most Tibetans do want a system that gives Tibetans more self-determination in political and religious matters than the present one. The economic marginalization of Tibetans within Tibet has led to increases in associated social ills like prostitution, alcoholism and juvenile delinquency.

 

[Sol Logos]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

An interesting article here that gives a different much darker view of the Dalai Lama:
https://inpursuitofhappiness.wordpress.com/2006/12/31/tibetian-dalai-lama-not-what-you-think/

Here's the book it refers to, seems highly researched and referenced:
http://www.american-buddha.com/shadow.dalai.htm

 

[panca kanga]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

Eighteen months ago I spent about ten days travelling with a small group in the Tibet Autonomous Region. We did not travel very extensively nor did we go to Lhasa. However during that time and in that area I was quite convinced that I was travelling through a police state in which the population was very tightly controlled. I will spare you a relation of the specific incidents that went to form this opinion, in only ten days they must necessarily have been few but they were indicative. The way in which the indigenous population was being overwhelmed by internal migration was also very obvious. The people living in the poorest end of the social scale were always ethnic Tibetans.

I acknowledge that I have to be cautious about saying anything about the conditions inside a country in which I have only spent 10 days and where I can not speak the language, but the observations of an intelligent observer must carry some weight. A similar opinion was at least formed by every one in the small group with whom I travelled. The level of control exercised by the state appeared very oppressive in that region. A couple my fellow tourists had also been else where in China and said the situation in the TAR bore no comparison.

My opinion before and after I visited the TAR is that barely two generations ago the Tibetan people experienced appalling suffering at the hands of the communist Chinese government. Clearly the government has, over time, been gradually changing into something better. It does not bare the same degree of responsibility nor merit the same level of blame, but theTibetans themselves still live under a heavy yoke of oppression. A level of oppression that, though doubtless made much of for propaganda purposes by China's global competitors, is not needed to oppose that propaganda nor justified in the absence of some much more direct interference on the part of the Western Powers, rather it is a direct result of policy decisions for which the Chinese government is responsible.


BTW. This is not sent in response to Niall's SOTT piece on economics which I thought was very clearly written, nor am I trying to say anything about any perceived biases on anybody's part. Here I think there is a generous and open offer to inform one another on the topics we think relevant, and where we think we might have something to add, but it is mostly me being given the education.

 

[Mal7]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

An interesting article here that gives a different much darker view of the Dalai Lama:
_https://inpursuitofhappiness.wordpress.com/2006/12/31/tibetian-dalai-lama-not-what-you-think/

Here's the book it refers to, seems highly researched and referenced:
_http://www.american-buddha.com/shadow.dalai.htm

The article is well written but both it and the book are rather sensational in style.

For example, the book gives a description of meetings the Dalai Lama had with the AUM doomsday sarin-gas cult leader Shoko Asahara. They met together 5 times, and Asahara gave a $100,000 donation to Dharamsala in 1989.

The "mystic” history of the AUM sect began in India in 1986. Shoko Asahara had wandered through the southern slopes of the Himalayas for weeks visiting Buddhist monasteries. This journey was supposed to mark the end of years of pilgrimage through the most varied esoteric landscapes: "I tried all kinds of practices such as Taoism, Yoga, Buddhism, incorporating their essence into my training. My goal was supreme spiritual realization and enlightenment. I continued the austere practices with Buddhist texts as my only resort. Finally, I reached my goal in the holy vibration of the Himalayas. I attained supreme realization and enlightenment. […] I also acquired supernatural powers” (Asahara, 1991, vol. 2, p. 13).

I think all kinds of people want to visit the Dalai Lama, maybe several times, and if some of those people turn out to be crazy it is not necessarily the Dalai Lama's fault. The book draws a different conclusion:

It was precisely because of these spiritual encounters with the god-king and his “viceroys” and his intensive study of the Tibetan/tantric esoterica and apocalyptica that the inexorable madness developed in Asahara’s mind which made him become the doomsday guru of the western press.

The authors’ most provocative contention is that the global spread of Tibetan Buddhism may be laying the seeds for a new, highly aggressive, and virulently anti- Islamic form of fundamentalism. They suggest that Tibetan Buddhism’s user-friendly facade is simultaneously a lure and an anesthetic: it draws people to the religion while numbing their religious skepticism. As they get deeper into the movement, as their egos dissipate and their consciousness is populated by the images of Tibetan deities and demons, students may mistake indoctrination for enlightenment. This is a danger in the West, but is perhaps even more threatening in the East, where the Tibetan faith is rapidly growing at the expense of other forms of Buddhism.

- from the review of the book.

One of the Dalai Lama's frequently repeated messages is that different religions suit different people, and not that everyone should become a Buddhist. For example, in the following video, where is asked what he thinks of Buddhists in Burma attacking Muslims:
_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YPZYV6Sc8k

Would Ghandi, King, or Tutu ever hug Senator Jesse Helms like the Dalai Lama did in September 1995?

- from the review.

I think this is the Dalai Lama's schtick - he hugs everyone. He is not the person who will tell you George Bush is a lying psychopath.

Why, I’ve wondered, hasn’t the 14 th Dalai Lama, the God-King of Tibetan Buddhism, explicitly condemned the US military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq?

- from the review.

Often the Dalai Lama when called on to explain one or other serious problem will initially reply "hard to say" or "I don't know", suggesting that problems can be complicated and he doesn't have all the answers. He will then go on to give an easily digestible message about war or violence being bad, and mutual respect and communication being better ways of solving problems if possible. He talks briefly on Afghanistan and Iraq in these videos:
_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShVGJRrGRvc
_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UEkHkXL8UA

I certainly don't think the Dalai Lama should be seen as being a geopolitical master strategist or oracle. I think it is pretty clear from watching him talk about various things that he is absorbing and repeating the mainstream media's lies, e.g. you won't find him talking about false flags.

 

[Siberia]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

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.

Here is an interesting article by Associated Press on the topic (keep in mind, that AP is a US media asset):

China to ease 1-child policy, abolish labor camps

Nov. 15, 2013

BEIJING (AP) — China's leaders announced Friday the first significant easing of its one-child policy in nearly 30 years and moved to abolish its labor camp system — addressing deeply unpopular programs at a time when the Communist Party feels increasingly alienated from the public.

Beijing also pledged to open state-dominated industries wider to private competition and ease limits on foreign investment in e-commerce and other businesses in a sweeping reform plan aimed at rejuvenating a slowing economy.

The extent of the long-debated changes to the family planning rules and the labor camp system surprised some analysts. They were contained in a policy document issued after a four-day meeting of party leaders one year after Xi Jinping took the country's helm.

"It shows the extent to which Xi is leading the agenda. It shows this generation of leaders is able to make decisions," said Dali Yang, a China expert at the University of Chicago. "This is someone who's much more decisive, who has the power, and who has been able to maneuver to make the decisions."

Far from sweeping away all family planning rules, the party is now providing a new, limited exemption: It said families in which at least one parent was an only child would be allowed to have a second child. Previously, both parents had to be an only child to qualify for this exemption. Rural couples also are allowed two children if their first-born child is a girl, an exemption allowed in 1984 as part of the last substantive changes to the policy.

Beijing says the policy, which was introduced in 1980 and is widely disliked, has helped China by slowing population growth and easing the strain on water and other limited resources. But the abrupt fall in the birth rate is pushing up average age of the population of 1.3 billion people.

Demographers have argued that this has created a looming crisis by limiting the size of the young labor pool that must support the large baby boom generation as it retires.

"It's great. Finally the Chinese government is officially acknowledging the demographic challenges it is facing," said Cai Yong, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

"Although this is, relatively speaking, a small step, I think it's a positive step in the right direction and hope that this will be a transition to a more relaxed policy and eventual return of reproductive freedom to the Chinese people," Cai said.

The government credits the one-child policy introduced in 1980 with preventing hundreds of millions of births and helping lift countless families out of poverty. But the strict limits have led to forced abortions and sterilizations by local officials, even though such measures are illegal. Couples who flout the rules face hefty fines, seizure of their property and loss of their jobs.

The update on birth limits was one sentence long, with details on implementation left to the country's family planning commission. It was unclear what might happen to children born in violation of rules, whose existence have been concealed and thus lack access to services.

Cai said some experts estimate the policy change might result in 1 million to 2 million extra births in the first few years. But he said the figure might be significantly lower because of growing acceptance of small families.

Last year, a government think tank urged China's leaders to start phasing out the policy and allow two children for every family by 2015, saying the country had paid a "huge political and social cost."

The China Development Research Foundation said the policy had resulted in social conflict and high administrative costs, and led indirectly to a long-term gender imbalance because of illegal abortions of female fetuses and the infanticide of baby girls by parents who cling to a traditional preference for a son.

The party also announced it would abolish a labor camp system that allowed police to lock up government critics and other defendants for up to four years without trial. It confirmed a development that had been reportedly announced by the top law enforcement official earlier this year but was later retracted.

Also known as "re-education through labor," the system was established to punish early critics of the Communist Party but has been used by local officials to deal with people challenging their authority on issues including land rights and corruption.

Pu Zhiqiang, a prominent Beijing lawyer who has represented several former labor camp detainees in seeking compensation, welcomed the abolition of the extra-legal system.

"There have been many methods used recently by this government that are against the rule of law, and do not respect human rights, or freedom of speech," Pu said. "But by abolishing the labor camps ... it makes it much harder for the police to put these people they clamp down on into labor camps."

"This is progress," Pu said.

Earlier this year, state broadcaster CCTV said China has 310 labor camps holding about 310,000 prisoners and employing 100,000 staff, although some estimates range higher.

The party report also promised to improve the judicial system and help farmers become city residents. It also elaborated on the party's previous announcement that it would set up a national security commission.

How is that for a "horrible STS monster"?

 

[l apprenti de forgeron]

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.

Sorry, but, what?. Their views yes are representative of SOTT; and all we here are STS. You too.

Masses should be denied what they want.
A benelovent philosopher king/council should decide what is best for masses.

It does not seem like STO to deny a person what they want and instead decide for them.

Again, what? This is what happens in reality!.

not be 'entitled to their opinions'

we see how easily people are manipulated into supporting causes that are objectively bad for both the people being manipulated and others who suffer the consequences

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.

Defeated? I think you're doing a competition of this thread and bringing the issue to a moral field, with ethical arguments as weapons, to know the winner: "who is more holy"...Which are the battles of the "moral man". But here we are talking about POWER, and how things work in reality.
We are in a very dark reality, and we must strive to see the nuances. All these rights for the people that you mention are never free. Freedom is not free!. "Democracy" is not a stupid little word (like it is used in the media); but a regime of power that must be conquered and imposed.
It is increasingly evident that most moral systems, compared to real power, are just wishful thinking. The obvious example are all those people filling the streets repeating "Je suis Charlie" and "freedom of expression", and all they do is to further strengthen the control system. The elites know very well how to manipulate to the "moral man".

 

[Joe]

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.

I think it might be time for you to get over yourself. We're not "pro" anything, other than the truth, unlike you it seems, who appears to have such a hang up about this issue that you can't understand the larger picture.

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.

"defeated"? I wasn't aware we were in any kind of "win or lose" situation. We have never said China was "all good" or has not engaged in harsh tactics. It appears at this stage that there is no point discussing this with you any further since you've decided on "your truth". So be it.



Mod's note: fixed quote box

 

[Sol Logos]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

I certainly don't think the Dalai Lama should be seen as being a geopolitical master strategist or oracle. I think it is pretty clear from watching him talk about various things that he is absorbing and repeating the mainstream media's lies, e.g. you won't find him talking about false flags.

Why wouldn't someone in his position talk frankly about such things? He might lose some high ranking friends?

 

[whitecoast]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

I don't intend to speak on behalf of the chief editors on SOTT, but my impression on why SOTT doesn't primarily concern itself with Chinese ponerology is as follows.

If someone were interested in learning about the evils of the Chinese government, they have opportunities to do so in virtually every newspaper, radio show, television broadcast, blog, twitter account, etc. that is connected with the mass media establishment in the west. All of it certainly will be colored by US political interests of course, but generally you can be sure there is some truth in a number of those elements.

The problem is with the lines of force. Every criticism of the Chinese government carries with it implicitly the recommendation that the communist government of China has got to go. This is not necessarily a controversial sentiment for those who were born and raised in the west, where anything not resembling multi-party democracy-in-quotation-marks is "literally Hitler."

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]SOTT's Aim is to wake people up, to shock them to the realities surrounding us every day that we are blind to. Complaints of China's mismanagement due to pathology or incompetence, even in passing, do not serve that purpose. You might as well be sharing with us the plight of the panda bear ("are those things STILL going extinct? They've been going extinct for the past 40 years!") What wakes people up is learning that this alliance of nations we've been raised to adore is THE evil empire, that mass media is controlled, that attacks against "us" are all staged, that all ideologies have been infected with psychopathy and are used in every capacity to dismantle human values and physical/psychological health. I could go on but you get the point.[/font]

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]The west stands on the edge of oblivion and THAT's the editorial line that needs to be pushed. Nitpicking over Chinese internal problems that have far less geopolitical and international implications is a distraction.[/font]

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]That, at least, is my own view.[/font]

 

[hlat]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

We're not "pro" anything, other than the truth, unlike you it seems, who appears to have such a hang up about this issue that you can't understand the larger picture.

Where is the truth in the following lies against me that I have a West is the best illusion or that I think Western perspective of China has merit?

I'm not sure what I have said specifically triggered this response. I have a Western perspective of China? Maybe a lot of this conversation has been you responding to previous conversations with other people.

Maybe. And maybe that's not it at all. Maybe the "triggered response " here stems from an "invested position" of maintaining the illusion that 'the West is the best', despite all indicators to the contrary.

I do understand the realpolitik "larger picture" you have been espousing. It is an STS picture and STS game; power politics where the people are just cannon fodder, dumb donkeys, cockroaches in the view of the power players. Supporting one thug (China) to take down the top dog (US/West) will just lead to the thug becoming the new top dog, and then the cycle repeating: supporting yet another thug to take down the new top dog.

I wasn't aware we were in any kind of "win or lose" situation.

Themes I have noticed in some responses:
Masses don't know what is best for them.
Masses should be denied what they want.
A benelovent philosopher king/council should decide what is best for masses.
Support the current Chinese government because: they are a geopolitical counter to Western hegemony; or the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

All true.

not be 'entitled to their opinions' because their opinions are not only not worth a damn, they contribute to the fragmentation of social cohesion

There is a larger picture than your realpolitik one. It is STO vs STS, and it is a win lose situation where we have to fight for STO and defeat STS. The bigger enemy are the psychopaths, the elites, running every country, running every corporation. The bigger battle is trying to figure out how to stop them from eating the people. So when you start advocating denying people's free will, suppressing their expressions, and supporting a psychopathic regime, all I see is you being caught up in an STS power struggle using STS methods against the people.

We have a duty to try to figure out STO ways of living (which is not using an enemy of my enemy tactic and supporting one STS against another STS). Maybe Putin is the closest thing to a Caesar with STO qualities and an actual benevolent philosopher king. But you guys are smart and I thought you would be able to see that the Chinese politburo is nowhere close to being compared to STO, Caesar, or Putin. Start seeing the pain and suffering of the people under tyranny, whether the tyrants be Western, Chinese, or any other elite. People everywhere have the right to self defense, and it is not moral or just to support a tyrant just because it advances your side of geopolitics. Let's be the conscience of the world, not the conscience of the west.

 

[Mal7]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

If someone were interested in learning about the evils of the Chinese government, they have opportunities to do so in virtually every newspaper, radio show, television broadcast, blog, twitter account, etc. that is connected with the mass media establishment in the west. All of it certainly will be colored by US political interests of course, but generally you can be sure there is some truth in a number of those elements.

From my regional perspectival in Dunedin, New Zealand, I think the Chinese Government gets treated pretty well in the local press. Dunedin has a sister city relationship with Shanghai, and regular delegations go back and forth looking at improving links between the two cities, particularly in the areas of trade and education. Our city council delegations do not hassle their Chinese counterparts about alleged human rights issues. Our Mayor declined an invitation to meet with the Dalai Lama when he was in Dunedin. A few years ago Dunedin built its own NZ$7 million Chinese Garden, designed by a team in Shanghai, and built with rocks shipped over from Shanghai. This was built to honor the long history of Chinese settlers to this region, beginning principally with the gold miners who came during an 1860s gold rush. The public library here has a prominent permanent display of books on China and Chinese history donated by the Shanghai Public Library.

Here for example is an opinion piece from the editorial page of Dunedin's daily newspaper:

_http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/323905/door-opening-between-china-and-nz-regions

Dunedin is a glowing example as agreement between local governments in China and New Zealand paves the way for regional growth, writes the president of Local Government New Zealand, Lawrence Yule.
This week's visit to New Zealand by Chinese President Xi Jinping is arguably the most important by a foreign leader in recent history - particularly for New Zealand's regions.

It would be difficult to understate China's importance to our economy, usurping Australia last year as our largest trading partner.

As well as building on strengthening trade, economic and cultural links at a national level, President Xi Jinping's visit will establish a strategic relationship at a sub-national level, between local governments of the two countries [. . .]

The daily paper does of course also get and publish the international press releases from Reuters etc.

 

[SeekinTruth]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

Isn't it interesting what is going on in the world RIGHT NOW, and which memes are the focus of this thread?

As far as biases go, I'll put out the possibility that it's not only those who raised the biases of SOTT editors' projecting their own biases; it's beyond biases - it's obsession. If you look at the original article and what was lifted from it to make the comment to the article and then start this thread, would a non-identified, non-obsessed person have posted so much material based on what triggered the whole thing? That's not even talking about the attitudes displayed in this thread as it progressed.

There are many ways we try to show people what they can't see themselves in the Work done on the forum. But in this instance, I think it would be good for Mal7, and especially hlat to reread this thread as if they were an uninvolved observer - could be a good exercise.

To hlat, it is more obvious that you've been triggered big time and can't think straight at all. You keep using words and terminology from this forum without understanding their meanings (and twisting the meanings to fit your agenda). First of all, as was pointed out several times already, we are all STS here, including YOU. Second, STO doesn't try to defeat STS as you proclaimed is their duty to do - THAT'S STS! STO knows that one can't exist without the other and defends against the attacks from STS in its impossible attempts to eradicate creativity. STO is balance, STS imbalance and obsession. See?

 

[Mal7]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

Isn't it interesting what is going on in the world RIGHT NOW, and which memes are the focus of this thread?

I have just had 9 tabs on Charlie Hebdo open on my computer, and have just finished watching a video of a Kalashnikov execution. You can check it out here if you are interested:
_http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=db7_1399052139

Maybe I check-in to this thread for some light relief?

First of all, as was pointed out several times already, we are all STS here, including YOU.

I think if you read hlat as meaning "STO-oriented" when s/he writes "STO" then it is easier to understand what s/he is intending to say.

 

[luke wilson]

Re: Pro-China bias on SOTT?

China in no princess, nor is Russia, nor is Brazil, nor is India, nor is South Africa, nor is the US, nor is Britain, nor is any powerful country. They are all based on hierarchy, poverty is rife etc...

However, I think the 'pro-china' accusation is diverting from the main global issue on SOTT. To have a multi polar or a uni polar world? If SOTT gives the impression that they are pro china, its only because they are pro multi polar world. Take china away from the picture and you'll find sott give the impression they are pro all countries that are pro multipolarity. None of these countries taken in isolation are angels... But I think you'd agree that unipolarity needs to be challenged on an international level the way these countries, including china, are doing.

Is this changing one thug for another? Is it really? Really? In a multi polar world, one country or region won't be running around like a mad dog without challenge.