Slashdot Mirror

How do you define "seriously"? http://www.michaelparenti.org/stolenelections.html

Do you realise that before the Commies went in, Tibet was a giant concentration camp in the hands of the lamas? The population was kept ignorant and desperate through illiteracy, denial of basic technology such as the wheel, lack of medicines (except lama piss and sweat—they are holy men so it must work, right?). You can read than in the book "7 Years in Tibet", written by an SS officer (in the movie this was bowlderised somehow) who was even sympathetic to the lama regime, but could not help noticing the inhumanity. Googling around I found this article with a few references.

The lamas' Tibet was worse than Saudi Arabia. A society ruled by religious fundamentalism that oppressed and exploited the peasants for the benefit of a small elite.

Didn't the Chinese call Tibet a dictatorial theocracy before they invaded^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hliberated it ?

Calling for China to cease their occupation and Chinesification of Tibet doesn't make the above claim untrue. Religious rule and serfdom doesn't exactly make it good place even before the occupation. That the current situation is bad, doesn't make the past good.

Yeah, lets get back to a repressive theocracy feudal state!

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

Sigh.

Here we are discussing comments by Google's CEO (that only criminals worry about privacy) that are ideologically native to the Chinese "communist" dictatorship and a fan of said regime gets modded "informative" for further propagating that regime's twisted political indoctrination...

In his essay "A Lie Repeated - The Far Left's Flawed History of Tibet" Josh Schrei, among others, has thoroughly debunked the Maoist propaganda behind these useful Western Marxist idiots' like Parenti's excuses for the brutal colonial genocide of China's peaceful neighbouring state Tibet in the name of "liberation" (and annexation).

Of course any documents challenging the Chinese Communist Party's make-believe rewritten "history" are absolutely banned under their rule. Must have One Truth for the One Volk under One Reich Rule.

So, any country with some local abuse of power (ie. all the countries that ever existed) simply deserve to be invaded, annexed and kept under repressive martial rule by the likes of Mao, Stalin and their successors until the colonized peoples' unique national identities, natural resources, cultural heritage and art, languages, religious traditions, any decree of national self-determination etc. (in Tibet's case all of the above) are irrevocably extinguished?

Interestingly, the Tibetan exile government you're referring to as "a repressive theocracy feudal state" is democratically elected while the colonial military dictatorship of the CCP occupying Tibet, besides perpetrating genocide against the completely non-Chinese people of Tibet, is also operating the most unequal distribution of wealth in China's entire history.

>I am a supporter of a free Tibet, and would love nothing more than to see His Holiness the Dalai Lama returned to his rightful place in Tibet.

Yeah, lets get back to a repressive theocracy feudal state!

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

As in a free labor system and unlike slavery, the overlords had no responsibility for the serf's maintenance and no direct interest in his or her survival as an expensive piece of property. The serfs had to support themselves. Yet as in a slave system, they were bound to their masters, guaranteeing a fixed and permanent workforce that could neither organize nor strike nor freely depart as might laborers in a market context. The overlords had the best of both worlds.

One 22-year old woman, herself a runaway serf, reports: "Pretty serf girls were usually taken by the owner as house servants and used as he wished"; they "were just slaves without rights."18 Serfs needed permission to go anywhere. Landowners had legal authority to capture those who tried to flee. One 24-year old runaway welcomed the Chinese intervention as a "liberation." He testified that under serfdom he was subjected to incessant toil, hunger, and cold. After his third failed escape, he was merciless beaten by the landlord's men until blood poured from his nose and mouth. They then poured alcohol and caustic soda on his wounds to increase the pain, he claimed.19

The serfs were taxed upon getting married, taxed for the birth of each child and for every death in the family. They were taxed for planting a tree in their yard and for keeping animals. They were taxed for religious festivals and for public dancing and drumming, for being sent to prison and upon being released. Those who could not find work were taxed for being unemployed, and if they traveled to another village in search of work, they paid a passage tax. When people could not pay, the monasteries lent them money at 20 to 50 percent interest. Some debts were handed down from father to son to grandson. Debtors who could not meet their obligations risked being cast into slavery.20

The theocracy's religious teachings buttressed its class order. The poor and afflicted were taught that they had brought their troubles upon themselves because of their wicked ways in previous lives. Hence they had to accept the misery of their present existence as a karmic atonement and in anticipation that their lot would improve in their next lifetime. The rich and powerful treated their good fortune as a reward for, and tangible evidence of, virtue in past and present lives.

Everything you need to know about pre-invasion Tibet is written by Michael Parenti. It was an oppressive feudal theocracy. Here's a snippet:

The Tibetan serfs were something more than superstitious victims, blind to their own oppression. As we have seen, some ran away; others openly resisted, sometimes suffering dire consequences. In feudal Tibet, torture and mutilation--including eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation--were favored punishments inflicted upon thieves, and runaway or resistant serfs. Journeying through Tibet in the 1960s, Stuart and Roma Gelder interviewed a former serf, Tsereh Wang Tuei, who had stolen two sheep belonging to a monastery. For this he had both his eyes gouged out and his hand mutilated beyond use. He explains that he no longer is a Buddhist: "When a holy lama told them to blind me I thought there was no good in religion."21 Since it was against Buddhist teachings to take human life, some offenders were severely lashed and then "left to God" in the freezing night to die. "The parallels between Tibet and medieval Europe are striking," concludes Tom Grunfeld in his book on Tibet. 22

In 1959, 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, gouging out eyes, breaking off hands, and hamstringing legs. There were hot brands, whips, and special implements for disemboweling. The exhibition presented photographs and testimonies of victims who had been blinded or crippled or suffered amputations for thievery. There was the shepherd whose master owed him a reimbursement in yuan and wheat but refused to pay. So he took one of the master's cows; for this he had his hands severed. Another herdsman, who opposed having his wife taken from him by his lord, had his hands broken off. There were pictures of Communist activists with noses and upper lips cut off, and a woman who was raped and then had her nose sliced away

Tibet was an oppressive Feudal theocracy where serfs had almost no rights. Michael Parenti has written about this extensively:

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

The idea that another god-king would have brought in reforms needs some kind of cite. If anything this Lama was no different than the rest. Heck, he was even admittted that if China ever lets Tibet go he would built a western-style government based on the SECULAR enlightenment, not the bullshit fairytales of his religion and all its abuses. Educate yourself before you start defending theocracies on the internet.

The Tibetan serfs were something more than superstitious victims, blind to their own oppression. As we have seen, some ran away; others openly resisted, sometimes suffering dire consequences. In feudal Tibet, torture and mutilation--including eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation--were favored punishments inflicted upon thieves, and runaway or resistant serfs. Journeying through Tibet in the 1960s, Stuart and Roma Gelder interviewed a former serf, Tsereh Wang Tuei, who had stolen two sheep belonging to a monastery. For this he had both his eyes gouged out and his hand mutilated beyond use. He explains that he no longer is a Buddhist: "When a holy lama told them to blind me I thought there was no good in religion."21 Since it was against Buddhist teachings to take human life, some offenders were severely lashed and then "left to God" in the freezing night to die. "The parallels between Tibet and medieval Europe are striking," concludes Tom Grunfeld in his book on Tibet. 22

In 1959, 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, gouging out eyes, breaking off hands, and hamstringing legs. There were hot brands, whips, and special implements for disemboweling. The exhibition presented photographs and testimonies of victims who had been blinded or crippled or suffered amputations for thievery. There was the shepherd whose master owed him a reimbursement in yuan and wheat but refused to pay. So he took one of the master's cows; for this he had his hands severed. Another herdsman, who opposed having his wife taken from him by his lord, had his hands broken off. There were pictures of Communist activists with noses and upper lips cut off, and a woman who was raped and then had her nose sliced away

>Who's to say that as time went forward during his reign, things wouldn't have changed naturally and of their own course?

Michael Parenti has written extensively about pre-invasion Tibet. It was a harmful theocracy run on the feudal system. It wanst just "under-developed." Money, law, etc was dictated by monks. Serfs had few rights. It was a human rights nightmare.

I dont know why people who have a political interest in Tibet cant simply accept that all theocracies are terrible because its a terrible form of government. This one was no different. Even the Lama himself has said that if Tibet would be freed it would not be anything like the old oppressive state, but a Western-style government based on the SECULAR enlightenment. Funny how that works.

>Invading Tibet wasn't a move to "free" the people of Tibet, it was a move to seize the territory during a time of political instability.

Actually it was both. An idealistic revolution isnt going to sit there and have a feudal theocracy on its border, especially one with a mismanaged military that would be easy to take.

Negative - destroying the tax base (the vast majority of corporations pay no federal taxes - per GAO studies, and numerous other independent studies - and thereby account for 7% or less than the federal revenue tax base), while dramatically spreading poverty with their credit derivatives' scams is indeed comparable.

Suggesting mark-to-market is unrealistic - when all it does is establish fair market value is a nonsensical comeback - and suggesting there is governmental control over the banks, when the reality is that the banksters exert control over the government (note the recent Senate vote on cram down, plus everything else voted on) is either completely dishonest or completely ignorant.

Suggest you peruse this article then next follow it with this article and perhaps then you will be a bit more educated on the matters at hand.

A couple popular ones:
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/tibetanSociety/social.htm

Etc., etc. Now, the fact that Tibet was formerly ruled by an oppressive, fanatical, and theocratic regime characterized by slavery doesn't make what China is doing now correct.

However, from the perspective of someone fighting for human rights, claiming that it was some sort of "peaceful paradise" can only undermine positive efforts.

Acknowledge that life in pre-China Tibet was absolutely terrible for the average person, acknowledge that life for the average Tibetan has improved dramatically in terms of education, quality of life, etc., and then, from this more realistic position, demand more.

Propping up what is understood by anyone knowledgeable about Tibet as a myth only hurts efforts to improve human rights and religious freedom in China.

"Free Tibet" is about Tibetans ruling themselves. Nothing more, nothing less.

Before the Chinese they were a feudal theocracy... in reading this .. http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html it doesn't sound very "free" ... to many movies of smiling peaceful monks, I reckon.

Ahhh Parenti! The leftist history scholar who never went to Tibet or spoke to Tibetans and who speaks neither Tibetan nor Chinese... Ask him what he thinks about China's swerve from communism to fascism.

A Lie Repeated - The Far Left's Flawed History of Tibet

China's Favorite Propaganda on Tibet ...and Why It's Wrong

These articles are under the Fact vs. Myth category alongside CCP propaganda so people can evaluate both sides on merit. The CCP only allows you to see their highly revised version of reality, wonder why is that?

Do you reckon the Tibetans are smiling now, behind the great wall of Chinese PLA and PAP troops?

After reading and hopefully understanding the above-mentioned articles, it would be nice to hear if you gained any understanding for the Tibetans' struggle for national self-determination.

Good question. The short answer is that the Lamaist (Buddhist) theocracy is very cruel and inhumane. It would be of your interest to see the two quotes below: http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html "...Since it was against Buddhist teachings to take human life, some offenders were severely lashed and then "left to God" in the freezing night to die." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cp6l6yTi9M "Radio France Internationale released an interview with Dawa Tsering. He denies violence in Tibet The reporter asked Dawa Tsering, spokesman for Tibet's Gov. in Exile, why hadn't he condemn the savage killings of Han Chinese by Tibetan rioters. Mr Tsering answered: "First of all, I have to declare that during the whole event Tibetans did not take any violent actions. From the view of Tibetans, violence means hurt to a person's life. From the videos we can see, there were beatings on Han Chinese. But those were only beatings. After beating, those Han Chinese would run away. That's just beating, not a hurt to human life. All those being killed are just because of accidents, which can be clearly observed in the news from CCP. They would hiding upstairs when Tibetans smashed the doors. They were just hiding and did not run away when Tibetans set the fire. They were burnt to death by accident. Those who set the fire did not know there were Han Chinese hiding upstairs."

Before the Chinese they were a feudal theocracy... in reading this .. http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
it doesn't sound very "free" ... to many movies of smiling peaceful monks, I reckon.

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html But what of Tibetan Buddhism? Is it not an exception to this sort of strife? And what of the society it helped to create? Many Buddhists maintain that, before the Chinese crackdown in 1959, old Tibet was a spiritually oriented kingdom free from the egotistical lifestyles, empty materialism, and corrupting vices that beset modern industrialized society. Western news media, travel books, novels, and Hollywood films have portrayed the Tibetan theocracy as a veritable Shangri-La. The Dalai Lama himself stated that "the pervasive influence of Buddhism" in Tibet, "amid the wide open spaces of an unspoiled environment resulted in a society dedicated to peace and harmony. We enjoyed freedom and contentment." 4 A reading of Tibet's history suggests a somewhat different picture. "Religious conflict was commonplace in old Tibet," writes one western Buddhist practitioner. "History belies the Shangri-La image of Tibetan lamas and their followers living together in mutual tolerance and nonviolent goodwill. Indeed, the situation was quite different. Old Tibet was much more like Europe during the religious wars of the Counterreformation." 5 In the thirteenth century, Emperor Kublai Khan created the first Grand Lama, who was to preside over all the other lamas as might a pope over his bishops. Several centuries later, the Emperor of China sent an army into Tibet to support the Grand Lama, an ambitious 25-year-old man, who then gave himself the title of Dalai (Ocean) Lama, ruler of all Tibet. Here is a historical irony: the first Dalai Lama was installed by a Chinese army.

I am 100% sure, the Chinese army would not do that. To stop such stupid argument, you just need to know one fact (as a bottom line): the STD infection was terrible when the army came to the Tibet 1959 and the Tantra scripts probably didnt mention the receipts of penicillin.

Please read this FACT before you reply: http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

Not all Tibetan exiles are enamoured of the old Shangri-La theocracy. Kim Lewis, who studied healing methods with a Buddhist monk in Berkeley, California, had occasion to talk at length with more than a dozen Tibetan women who lived in the monk's building. When she asked how they felt about returning to their homeland, the sentiment was unanimously negative. At first, Lewis assumed that their reluctance had to do with the Chinese occupation, but they quickly informed her otherwise. They said they were extremely grateful "not to have to marry 4 or 5 men, be pregnant almost all the time," or deal with sexually transmitted diseases contacted from a straying husband. The younger women "were delighted to be getting an education, wanted absolutely nothing to do with any religion, and wondered why Americans were so naive [about Tibet]."

Even better is this article that describes the serf existance of most tibetans before the 1959 : http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

I'm not defending the present Chinese regime, but it's important to attack it for the right reasons and defend the good things that the Maoists did when they were in power. ie before Daddy Bush brought Deng Xiao Ping into power

Here is a great article which rips to shreds this misplaced concern for the Dalai Lama and Tibetan culture and lays bare that the Tibetan system was based on one of the most evil forms of serfdom and oppression of women the world has known.

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

Here's an excerpt:
Shangri-La (for Lords and Lamas)

Religions have had a close relationship not only with violence but with economic exploitation. Indeed, it is often the economic exploitation that necessitates the violence. Such was the case with the Tibetan theocracy. Until 1959, when the Dalai Lama last presided over Tibet, most of the arable land was still organized into manorial estates worked by serfs. Even a writer sympathetic to the old order allows that "a great deal of real estate belonged to the monasteries, and most of them amassed great riches. . . . In addition, individual monks and lamas were able to accumulate great wealth through active participation in trade, commerce, and money lending."6 Drepung monastery was one of the biggest landowners in the world, with its 185 manors, 25,000 serfs, 300 great pastures, and 16,000 herdsmen. The wealth of the monasteries went mostly to the higher-ranking lamas, many of them scions of aristocratic families.

Secular leaders also did well. A notable example was the commander-in-chief of the Tibetan army, who owned 4,000 square kilometers of land and 3,500 serfs. He also was a member of the Dalai Lama's lay Cabinet.7 Old Tibet has been misrepresented by some of its Western admirers as "a nation that required no police force because its people voluntarily observed the laws of karma."8 In fact. it had a professional army, albeit a small one, that served as a gendarmerie for the landlords to keep order and hunt down runaway serfs.

Young Tibetan boys were regularly taken from their families and brought into the monasteries to be trained as monks. Once there, they became bonded for life. Tashì-Tsering, a monk, reports that it was common for peasant children to be sexually mistreated in the monasteries. He himself was a victim of repeated rape, beginning at age nine.9 The monastic estates also conscripted impoverished peasant children for lifelong servitude as domestics, dance performers, and soldiers.

In Old Tibet there were small numbers of farmers who subsisted as a kind of free peasantry, and perhaps an additional 10,000 people who composed the "middle-class" families of merchants, shopkeepers, and small traders. Thousands of others were beggars. A small minority were slaves, usually domestic servants, who owned nothing. Their offspring were born into slavery.10 The greater part of the rural population---some 700,000 of an estimated total of 1,250,000---were serfs. Serfs and other peasants generally were little better than slaves. They went without schooling or medical care. They spent most of their time laboring for high-ranking lamas or for the secular landed aristocracy. Their masters told them what crops to grow and what animals to raise. They could not get married without the consent of their lord or lama. And they might easily be separated from their families should their owners send them to work in a distant location.11

One 22-year old woman, herself a runaway serf, reports: "Pretty serf girls were usually taken by the owner as house servants and used as he wished." They "were just slaves without rights."12 Serfs needed permission to go anywhere. Landowners had legal authority to capture those who tried to flee. One 24-year old runaway welcomed the Chinese intervention as a "liberation." He claimed that under serfdom he was subjected to incessant toil, hunger, and cold. After his third failed escape, he was merciless beaten by the landlord's men un

Fascism, as introduced by Mussolini, is corporate government. At the olympics, they've used sports to morph patriotism to corporatism, so enemy corporations are excluded from the sponsor's territory.

http://www.unknownnews.net/fis020603.html
http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/politics/rape/nan ag/
http://english.pravda.ru/diplomatic/2001/12/21/241 41.html
http://www.brasscheck.com/yugoslavia/directory/517 99a.html
http://www.michaelparenti.org/MediaAtrocities.html
http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/mandel_canada.htm
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/sinclair/why. htm

If you can provide links to websites that actually can provide hard evidence of the things that required something drastic to be done, I'd love to read them. I'd also love to read any websites you have that explain how the US was dragged kicking and screaming. Thanks.

They still need to use these words:

• Unilateral
• Unprecedented
• Bipartisan
• Peace-keepers

Only then can their news be stale and boring.

Read what Michael Parenti has to say about the media.

It looks like typical answer dodging to me. Don't be surprised.

For some helping on becoming just like the guy being interviewed, read Michael Parentti's tips.

Notice what he says through the double talk. He says Microsoft had to "retool the way we do things". What was new? Security consciousness! That was new!

Reading the trivial vulnerabilities that are discovered every day reminds me of the community of trust that was still around on the Internet in the early 90s. Later in that decade some people became malcious and started attacking. There were attacks before then, but it wasn't this widespread (to my knowledge).

In essence he is saying that after getting repeatedly abused for their total ignorance of security they are "retool"ing the what they do.

Security of the software should be paramount - not an afterthought like they have been treating it for so long.

PS, it is currently December 2001.

http://www.michaelparenti.org/MonopolyMedia.html

http://www.projectcensored.org/

CNet and ZDNet aren't exactly what I would call cross-referencing. After CNet bought ZDNet, CNet's reporting turned into the trash ZDNet always spewed. Then Gamecenter was given the chop in favour of boring (and ugly) Gamespot.

Have a little read at the list of companies CNet owns, and weep to think that all news is manipulated by monopolies.

Nothing but sensational trash. It is nothing like Code Red. I'm not an expert, but from the shabby detail in the article I can see several reasons:

• Market share - vulnerable installs of Linux are not widespread enough to reach a critical mass. CR became huge because every second host practically was running a vulnerable install. (So I exaggerate the number - but evangelism aside, there aren't THAT many vulnerable hosts out there.)
• No scanning attack - it stays on the local system
• No privilege elevation - its only a user level root shell. Someone could potentially upgrade that via another buggy daemon or a ptraceable kernel, but otherwise you are limited to Jim Bob's shell. Still a concern, but not as bad as r00ting.

They shouldn't compare it to Code Red. CR was a disaster because a company called Microsoft encouraged people to install trash software that shouldn't have passed QA.

They should instead compare it to, say, an Outlook virus because it spreads via email:

The replication process of the Remote Shell Program can only effect binary files within the access privileges of the user who launched the originally infected program.

Have a read of Michael Parenti's Monopoly Media Manipulation and see how many of the points you can spot in press release.

A lot of sensational bollocks.