IHaveHugeNick
Arcane
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2015
- Messages
- 1,870,558
The most striking example of this isn't even related to European colonialism, but to Chinese occupation of Tibet.
Holywood celebrities just cream themselves about Dalai-Lama and we're supposed to believe he is this great spiritual leader and a force for good. He has movies and documentaries made about him, picturing him as this serene philosopher, who produces timeless wisdom every time he opens his mouth.
And yet, let's ask a question: who is the most tyrannical ruler of the XX century? Was it Stalin? Hitler? Surely Mao would be a contender?
Unfortunately, all of those jokers are complete amateurs compared to good ol boy Dalai-Lama. Fucker was a God, a medieval King, and a highest ranking priest, all rolled into one person. That is the highest level of government tyranny that can even be conceived. A ruler with that much power cannot be resisted, cannot be opposed, he cannot be removed, he literally fucking owns you.
The Tibetan people were living in a feudal serfdom, one step away from slavery, 95% of population was illiterate, and those eary monks, while they weren't busy making their cute mandalas, would beat and rape and torture anyone who stepped out of line.
It's not an understatement to say that Dalai-Lama led Tibet makes North Korea look like paradise on Earth. And this is a guy for whom many westerners unironically campaign that he needs to be brought back as ruler and "save" the locals from opression.
wtf.
As much as I sympathize with the plight of Tibetans and under-industrialized people, this is just plain wrong. Dalai Lama did most *certainly* not oppress people of Tibet. Neither did he dictate the way you cynically suggest the actual individual choice of Tibetans. There is stupidity in accepting a poor and backward life and at the same time equal amount of obtuseness in wanting a radical change in the lifestyle just because it is the right thing/direction. The latter is what the "progressives" are guilty of.
Having your population live in slavery is literally a definition of oppression. As for people not having their choices forced on them, what do you think Tibet was? A friendly and benevolent feudalism? Enlightened aristocracy ruled with gentle hand, repaying hard work of their feudal subjects with kindness and spiritual enrichment? How naive are you?
Anna Louise Strong visited an exhibition of torture equipment that had been used by the Tibetan overlords. There were handcuffs of all sizes, including small ones for children, and instruments for cutting off noses and ears, and breaking off hands. For gouging out eyes, there was a special stone cap with two holes in it that was pressed down over the head so that the eyes bulged out through the holes and could be more readily torn out. There were instruments for slicing off kneecaps and heels, or hamstringing legs. There were hot brands, whips, and special implements for disembowling.
Yeah, it surely sounds like the individual choice of Tibetan people was respected.
Dalai-Lama is in a unique position - the left sucks his dick because of spiritual woo-woo, and the right sucks his dick because he resisted communists. As such he was never under any scrutiny and could spend his days posing as the enlightened overlord.