[QUOTE] “Iconsider myself a Marxist,” theDalai Lama declared during a talk in front of 150 Chinese students at theUniversity of Minnesota in early May.
He injected a caveat: “But not a Leninist.”
Whew. What a relief.
This wasn’t the first time the 14th Dalai Lama (Tibet’s mostesteemed religious figure) proclaimed his allegiance to Marxism. Buddhism’sleading apostle to the West madea similar statement onMay 20, 2010, in New York during a series of paid public lectures.
So how can the Dalai Lama possibly square his pleas fornonviolence toward “allsentient beings” withMarxism? His answer: Marxism has moral ethics, as opposed to capitalism, whichis all about profits.
Let’s chew on that for a moment. Virtually every socio-politicalmovement has some noble ambition — some set of ethics — that can be teased fromits viscera. TheNazi Party platform, for example, contains calls for equal rights,profit-sharing, national health care, pensions, education access, employmentopportunities, and the rights of citizens to select political leaders and makelaws.
By implication, isn’t the Dalai Lama saying these are sufficientgrounds to legitimize, exonerate — even embrace — Nazism? And if not, why not?
See all at: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-tyranny-of-the-dalai-lama/?singlepage=true
When in need of a drink to Refresh the soul
Drop into the Knight & Drummer Free House.
Always leave a Comment as a tip.
Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum
Love the Sinner but not the Sin.
“ For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against Principalities, against Powers,
against the Rulers of the Darkness of this world, against Spiritual Wickedness in high places. “
(and within ourselves)
A Feminist is a human being who has lost her way and turned vicious. If you meet one on the road as you
Go your Own Way, offer kindness but keep your sword drawn.
What a truly obscene concept. A man who does absolutely nothing but attempts to restore himself to a position of absolute, dictatorial authority over his serfs as an hereditary monarch claims affiliation to Marxism? The Dalai Llama is no better than any other opposed warlord/tyrant shucking politically in a desperate attempt to regain an office of prestige, importance and wealth which he simply should never have held. Bugger him. And bugger the idea of any monarch claiming to be a Marxist; it shows an insane degree of cognitive dissonance.
Marxism is not incompatible with a doctrine of non-violence. And this dishonest question is nothing more than an attempt to smear a concept which is already buckling under the weight of the mountain of criticism which is constantly heaped upon it (usually by libertarians, free-form babbling about kulaks and the Soviet Union) but to what end? It is a revolutionary doctrine, but revolutions need not involve bloodshed. The central ethic of Marxism is, bottom line, a more moral concept than is that of capitalism. While it is a legitimate criticism that said ethic often fails in the real-world (devolving into corruption and totalitarianism) so does capitalism in many cases.So how can the Dalai Lama possibly square his pleas for nonviolence toward “allsentient beings” with Marxism?
The answer to this imbecilic attempt to provoke the small-minded into seeing an appreciation of Marxist thought as analogous with an urge toward totalitarianism is a simple no. The central ethic of Nazism, and Marxism are not interchangable quantities. The vast majority of people attracted to Marxism do not condone its past abuses and are merely idealistic proponents of its central dictate, which is perfectly logical and moral. Whether or not they have the intelligence to appreciate whether or not it is workable is another matter, yet it is calumny to align idealism with totalitarianism.Let’s chew on that for a moment. Virtually every socio-political movement has some noble ambition — some set of ethics — that can be teased from its viscera. TheNazi Party platform, for example, contains calls for equal rights, profit-sharing, national health care, pensions, education access, employment opportunities, and the rights of citizens to select political leaders and make laws.
Side point: I realize this is not one-hundred percent relevant, but in the interests of clarity here is why Marxism (whether the Dalai Llama is among them I do not purport to know, but I stake nothing on his intellect/decency) tends to draw the appreciation of certain persons: capitalism simply does not contain a mechanism for ensuring the majority of humans living on earth do so under conditions conducive to human dignity. Marxism does, and while there is a gulf between the theory of Marxism, and the reality of its practise many persons feel this problem can be overcome. Ideologies can after all be adjusted, altered, tinkered with, and re-tuned. A scientific metaphor for the political aversion to Marxism espoused on this basis (equating it with totalitarianism) on the basis of its past failings, would be: there are two potential cures for an endemic disease. One only cures the disease in 40% of cases, but has no negative side effects. The other could potentially cure the disease in 100% of cases, but has potentially fatal side effects. One could reject neither, but use only the first cure, while continuing to experiment with the second cure in the hopes that it will eventually be rendered usable, but the anti-Marxist, instead, says no, and if you even talk about the second cure proceeds to accuse you of wanting to murder people en masse by feeding them a highly toxic drug.