Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
To say that the Chinese have a model of foreign policy which is in anyway altruistic is IMHO deeply racist - in the "Oh Noooo they are not like THAT".
erosoplier wrote:8bitagent wrote:Thats because the media is NOT anti China.
Its just like how AIPAC makes sure any criticism of Israel is censored in the American media.
Oh, I see, except nearly no negative opinions of Israel are to be seen on American TV, yet every other American political or military drama will use China as the bad guy, and every other US citizen has a "bad feeling" that one day there will be a "confrontation," a "reckoning" with China. How does that come about when it's "just like" with AIPAC?How come we dont hear about China forcing abortions, ripping out organs out of people, the rounding up and execution of countless innocent people, etc? All just conspiracy theories?
In case you hadn't noticed, the abortion figures in the West are nothing to be proud of either. And in case you hadn't noticed, China has had to deal with the most outrageous population growth issues. It literally has been a choice between abortions now or famine later for China. They chose the former. Do you really have a problem with their choice in this matter?
And re. the rest - pot, kettle, black. At least they stay home and mistreat and murder their own, rather than lobbing in some foreign land to do the same. (And let's be aware that Americans are foremost among those who purchase organs which just happen to have been ripped out of desperate/unsuspecting poor people. All a beautiful capitalist success story of the market "facilitating the meeting of demand," hey?).Oh my God, I actually call out both the US government AND China as evil. Oh noes!
The United States government, England, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Dubai, Sudan, European Union, China, Russia, North Korea, etc. These are all human rights abusing, power hungry, despotic gangsters within the new world order system. One look at what their corporate proxies do throughout Africa, and its clear what the agenda is.
Funny how people like you will go on about a 9/11 setup, yet fail to see how it aint just America into staging terror and putting a steel toed boot on the throat of humanity.
9/11 happened, and Europe has been choking on its corn flakes every morning since. It was called Project for a New AMERICAN Century, remember?
AlicetheKurious wrote:
Now. Just as there are many things to admire about China (and I think it's impossible to be familiar with that country without admiring and respecting a great deal), there are many things that need to be opposed and denounced. However, China's policy in Sudan is not one of them.
Sounder wrote:I remember when the Chinese leader (Hu?) spoke to our congress. I was surprised that the speech was broadcast out to us peons.
compared2what? wrote:The Nazis had a STRONG interest in Tibet, because of their Thule/Theosophic like belief of Aryan super gods living in a portal above Tibet.
I mean, Gandhi was a well known adept of Blavatsky doctrine, someone(Blavatsky) I feel whose occult mastery descended into some pretty racist like ideas. That doesnt mean Gandhi was bad
I don't vigorously dispute the first point, as far as it goes, assuming you are asserting it as opinion. But I don't see that the prima facie case for arguing that Nazi interest in Tibet was strong because of their Thule/Theosophic-like beliefs is so strong that it can be assumed without any argument at all. They had a strong interest in Tibet and they had a significant interest in esoteric mysticism. But so did the guys running the show in Great Britain and the United States at that point in history. It's not like the Nazis invaded Poland as an opening maneuver in a grand plan the ultimate prize of which was to be the triumphant siege of Tibet.
Blavatsky was a woman of her time, which was the nineteenth century, during which there was a general surge of interest in the mystic east, for reasons that are more complex and compound than esoteric mysticism qua esoteric mysticism. Nor were her racial views very unusual for a person of her class, place and time, at least in degree. They were definitely remarkable in form, but even so, most of the science that makes them look so manifestly out-there in the present was either in its infancy (Darwinian evolutionary theory) or unknown (plate tectonics) at the time, and it was a time in which information traveled at a much slower pace than it does now. For most people, Lemuria probably sounded as reasonable (or unreasonable) as having an ancestor in common with a primate. It's also worth noting that every national and imperial power big enough to try to monopolize a major trade route in a very large market had a strong interest in Tibet between the turn of the century and the Second World War. As well as before and after. It was and is a geopolitical hot spot.
chlamor wrote:The Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, has said that the United States bombing campaign against Afghanistan represents a more mature approach than taken during previous wars.
Searcher08 wrote:As for the piece about Sudan, the way they treated the Dinka in Southern Sudan absolutely classes as a genocide. They would kill a whole village except for the male children and young teenagers, who would then have a life of daily rape and beatings awaiting them. The Sudanese governments attitude to the Christian blacks was that they were worth less than cattle, apart from the rape opportunities.
To say that the Chinese have a model of foreign policy which is in anyway altruistic is IMHO deeply racist - in the "Oh Noooo they are not like THAT".
Read about Chinese involvement with Mugabe or Equatorial Guinea or Angola.
China's economic progress has come with terrible problems - huge dislocations within the society, mass human migration to the cities, incredible corruption at local levels - where there have been pitched battles between local corrupt Party officials and the populace they are exploiting - ending up in total suppression by the PLA.
Searcher08 wrote:When I spent my time in China, I was impressed with the ordinary Chinese person - relatively speaking I found them better listeners, more tactile, relatively freer from emotional baggage, and just plain smarter than similar Europeans or Americans I have met. I found that they were very different from the Western stereotypes - yet there were other stereotypes they fitted into.
When it comes to the calculus of balancing freedom of expression with security, freedom doesn't get a look-in. Just act Falun Gong about that.
AlicetheKurious wrote:Collaboration between China and Sudan is a win-win strategy for both, and a blow to the hegemonic USRAELI global matrix. Now THAT's sane.
More power to them.
For an interesting look at the cynical provocation of mass slaughter to further Western interests, see Tactical Use of Genocide in Sudan and the Five Lakes Region
compared2what? wrote:Oh, hi --
Just thought I'd post because I do still have a simple question for 8bit in the queue that was honestly asked. And since hope springs eternal in the human heart, I'd like to reiterate it in the interest of increasing the likelihood of a response.
8bit, what's the basis for asserting that Gandhi was a Blavatsky adept? Inquiring minds really do want to know.
Please feel free to overlook the rest of the prior post. It did strike me that there was an element of anachronistic conflation in your representation of the bigger picture, but since you're not submitting a scholarly paper for peer review, how you reach your understanding of events and for what purpose is not, strictly speaking, anyone's business but yours, within reasonable parameters.
However, out of a pure interest in the quirks of history, I really would like to know from what you're adducing the Blavatsky-Gandhi connection. Because it's a mad interesting quirk.
What's up with that?
Dali Lama-ists, -- sorry to interrupt. As you were, and thank you for the stimulating discussion.
what's the basis for asserting that Gandhi was a Blavatsky adept? Inquiring minds really do want to know.
8bitagent wrote:compared2what? wrote:Oh, hi --
Just thought I'd post because I do still have a simple question for 8bit in the queue that was honestly asked. And since hope springs eternal in the human heart, I'd like to reiterate it in the interest of increasing the likelihood of a response.
8bit, what's the basis for asserting that Gandhi was a Blavatsky adept? Inquiring minds really do want to know.
Please feel free to overlook the rest of the prior post. It did strike me that there was an element of anachronistic conflation in your representation of the bigger picture, but since you're not submitting a scholarly paper for peer review, how you reach your understanding of events and for what purpose is not, strictly speaking, anyone's business but yours, within reasonable parameters.
However, out of a pure interest in the quirks of history, I really would like to know from what you're adducing the Blavatsky-Gandhi connection. Because it's a mad interesting quirk.
What's up with that?
Dali Lama-ists, -- sorry to interrupt. As you were, and thank you for the stimulating discussion.
In 1891, Gandhi became obsessed with Blavatsky doctrine in London.
There's no conspiracy here, this is something theosophists and Gandhi researchers fully acknowledge. Here's a quick google index of thousands of articles on it all:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ga ... gle+Search
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 155 guests