Re: On the issue of Tibet...

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 15:58:39 -0700 (PDT), john.jsm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

>On 23 Mar, 22:47, ni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 13:52:49 -0700 (PDT), john....@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>> >On 23 Mar, 21:19, ni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 09:34:39 -0700 (PDT), john....@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>> >> >On 21 Mar, 12:15, nid...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:05:46 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>
>> >> >> <jsav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 01:32:06 -0700 (PDT), "fyfp...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
>> >> >> ><fyfp...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote, in part:
>>
>> >> >> >>There's an American senator named Charlie Keel. He believes
that China
>> >> >> >>occupied the country of Tibet in 1951. Many Americans believe
in this
>> >> >> >>claim as well, mainly because their geographical knowledge is
too
>> >> >> >>poor. Recently, the American media starts to spread this false
claim
>> >> >> >>again, and they said such things like even though Japan changed
>> >> >> >>history in its textbooks, China also concealed the occupation
of
>> >> >> >>Tibet. This post will clarify many things and review some
history with
>> >> >> >>you.
>>
>> >> >> >>In 1951, China occupied Tibet, this is a fact. The reason is
that as
>> >> >> >>the Chinese Civil War ended, Chinese troops from 1948-1951 not
only
>> >> >> >>occupied Tibet, it also occupied Heilongjiang, it also occupied
Hainan
>> >> >> >>Island, it also occupied all provinces of China. So occupation
of
>> >> >> >>Tibet is natural, because Tibet has of course always been a
part of
>> >> >> >>China.
>>
>> >> >> >Taiwan has always been part of China, too. The Communist rebels
did
>> >> >> >not always control China, though. They were evil bullies. We
know this
>> >> >> >because of how Mao, to keep his control of power, abandoned the
>> >> >> >successful measures of other people in feeding China, and
instituted
>> >> >> >the Great Leap Forwards which caused mass starvation; we know
this
>> >> >> >because of the Cultural Revolution.
>>
>> >> >> >Tibetans did not endure such abuses of their religion
>>
>> >> >> There has never been any religion in Tibet. There was only an
evil
>> >> >> cult in Tibet which stole and tempered the teaching of Buddha to
put
>> >> >> it into its own use for the purpose of ruling over the Tibetan
people
>> >> >> both politically and religiously. This cult is in blatant
>> >> >> contradiction with the teaching of Buddha which advocates helping
all
>> >> >> sentient beings instead of ruling over them with slavery.
>>
>> >> >> You and the entire western world have been fooled by Da-Lie Lama.
>>
>> >> >Only in Tibet through the gelugpas did Buddhism gain control of the
>> >> >state. The profoundly philosophical sceptical tenor of the Mahayana
>> >> >ensured that even this 'theocracy' was not founded in superstition
but
>> >> >had a rational base.
>>
>> >> >Catholics once thought lamaism the work of the Devil because it was
so
>> >> >like Catholicism. In some respects the Christianity of the west
seems
>> >> >markedly inferior to Buddhism, constructed by people, the Church
>> >> >Fathers, scarcely to be thought of as wise.
>>
>> >> Lamaism has nothing to do with Buddhism. It's only using Buddhism as
a
>> >> cover. In reality, it's filled with superstitions and evil satanic
>> >> rituals. The Catholics were quite right in calling Lamasim the work
of
>> >> the Devil. DL is the Devil incarnate.
>>
>> >Yours is a point of view. Most people here think that Tibetan culture
>> >is fascinating, and would like to see an independent Tibet if only for
>> >the sake of human diversity.
>>
>> There is a difference between Tibetan culture and Lamaism. Lamaism is
>> the cancer of Tibetan culture. You can always learn Tibetan culture by
>> living with the ordinary Tibetan people. It doesn't have to be Lamaism
>> since Lamaism is something only for the privileged few. It's hidden
>> behind the temple walls out of reach for most Tibetans. Exactly due to
>> this reason, it's filled with insidious evil and deceit.
>>
>>  If most ethnic Tibetans would rather be
>>
>> >part of the Chinese Empire, then they would vote that way in an
>> >internationally supervised referendum. The British, French, and soviet
>> >Empires have all gone, why should the Chinese keep theirs?
>>
>> Unfortunately, western democracy is incompatible with eastern society.
>> Democracy is not just a ballot box. Democracy is based on the
>> precondition where people have the power to give their vote and revoke
>> their vote at any given time. Such condition is based on highly
>> advanced modern social structure and economical condition. Until China
>> has advanced enough in his economical and social development, it is
>> impossible to implement western style democracy.
>
>I'm not much bothered about democracy. A referendum would just be a
>way of testing your statements:-

There can not be referendum when the threat of religious tyranny of
Dalai Lama is still alive and real, and the Tibetan people are still
yet independent enough to be free from their mental prison of Tibetan
Lamaism. Given time, when the majority of Tibetan people embrace
modern science and technology by abandoning the superstitious Lamaism,
then we can talk about referendum of some sort if the residents of
Tibet seriously desire it. Until then, it's all western propaganda and
naive wishful thinking.

>
>"I doubt any ordinary Tibetans would want the Han Chinese to leave to
>be thrown back into the hands of their former slave owners. "
>
>and
>
>"It's only your imagination that by "self-determination" that Tibetan
>people will automatically follow their former slave owner to become
>slaves again by rejecting today's freedom and the pursuit of happiness
>under the protection of the Chinese government."
>
>and could you answer my question:-
>
> "The British, French, and soviet Empires have all gone, why should
>the Chinese keep theirs?"

China never was, is, or will be an empire. China is China today
because China attracts and absorbs people to be Chinese throughout
history.