Skip to content

Hello Dalai, This Is A Fisk, Dalai [Updated Below]

21 May 2010 @ 18:38

You and I both got to start off our days today by enjoying a righteous Fisking of El Presidente di Basketa Caseo [trans: President of Mexico] Felipe Tony Montana Calderon by Rúsh Limbáugh.  While I preach moderation in all things [full disclosure: I don’t practice what I preach because I am a fallen Bobolic], I don’t believe there’s anything wrong with a little snacking.  So, how about we have a Tea Time [if you’re British] or Happy Hour [if you’re American] appetizer Fisking, cooked and prepared in the mess by Smitty Stacy McCain…

From News.Com.Au, we learn something interesting about the Dalai Lama:

“Still I am a Marxist,” the exiled Tibetan Buddhist leader said in New York, where he arrived today with an entourage of robed monks and a heavy security detail to give a series of paid public lectures.

“(Marxism has) moral ethics, whereas capitalism is only how to make profits,” the Dalai Lama, 74, said.

Smitty’s Stacy’s Fisking is but two low-calorie sentences long, so I’ll only quote one of them:

Tell that “moral ethics” stuff to the 100 million people who have died at the hands of Marxist governments in power….

And that’s just at the hands of Mao and his murderous minions.

So this man of peace, this gentle monk, this victim of Red Chinese oppression, embraces the same philosophy as the murderers of his own people do.

Perhaps we should rename the ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ the ‘Tibet Syndrome’ and DL should change his name to the Dalai Lama-To-The-Slaughter?

UPDATE on 22MAY2010 at 1137…

-In the Comments Section, Irish Cicero, Supreme Commander of the Washington Rebel, expresses several thoughts that I should have put in my original posting above:

It is breathtaking how dull-witted the Lama is. That will be the last time I give him a shred of deference.

And, it’s a brutal reminder of how many people like that are running around.

They are certainly a group of significant size in this country.  The only question I have is: Are they Sheeples or Instinctualists?

Thanks, Irish — the next round’s on me.

-Corrected the attribution of who did the Fisking over at The Other McCain [thank you Smitty for pointing out my error.  My only excuse is that I had just been reading several of your postings and you were on my mind, it seems…now, get out of it!…I’m serious…you”re stuck in my head like that bad Bon Jovi song (Livin’ On A Prayer)Mrs. B. put in my brain a week ago and is still playing as I type!]

UPDATE on 22MAY2010 at 1419…

In the Comments Section, Rob De Witt makes the definitive case for saying ‘Goodby Dalai’:

The Dalai Lama, PBUH, has made the perfect argument for the separation of Church and State – e.g., spiritual leaders tend to ascribe morality to “humans” who don’t recognize the concept.

His entire comment was as follows:

Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes–that is, the majority–as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently read an article in a paper where His Holiness the Pope also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism.

As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the former USSR, or China, or even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes, for they were far more concerned with their narrow national interests than with the Workers’ International; this is why there were conflicts, for example, between China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have occurred.

I think the major flaw of the Marxist regimes is that they have placed too much emphasis on the need to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and this causes them to encourage hatred and to neglect compassion. Although their initial aim might have been to serve the cause of the majority, when they try to implement it all their energy is deflected into destructive activities. Once the revolution is over and the ruling class is destroyed, there is nor much left to offer the people; at this point the entire country is impoverished and unfortunately it is almost as if the initial aim were to become poor. I think that this is due to the lack of human solidarity and compassion. The principal disadvantage of such a regime is the insistence placed on hatred to the detriment of compassion.

The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.

“Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation.”

“China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have occurred. ”

“I think the major flaw of the Marxist regimes is that they have placed too much emphasis on the need to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and this causes them to encourage hatred and to neglect compassion.”

This is astonishing stuff. He can see what has happened in every case without fail, yet he continues to view the inherent rottenness of Marxism and the Politics of Envy as a bug, when in fact it is a feature.

So much for Buddhism.

7 Comments
  1. 21 May 2010 @ 22:48 22:48

    Marxism is driven by moral ethics?

    I suppose the Islamists have a certain moral ethics to them as well. Ditto the Hutus in their genocidal wars with the Tutsis, the Khmer Rouge, the Jacobins, and of course, the Nazis. Profitability was definitely secondary to these fine examples of moral ethics in practice.

    Perhaps moral certainty is not something for us to be putting our faith in.

  2. 22 May 2010 @ 10:14 10:14

    Just goes to show you, people are naifs when it comes to politics.

    Solzhenitsyn wrestled with the problems of capitalism. Couldn’t call himself dead-center pro American, but he’d seen Communism straight up, as has D. Lammer! He understood fully that putting the State in charge was a moral disaster — not to mention all the other consequences.

    The point I always make is, you can put a corporation out of business, or sue them for damages, but if the State says you need your appendix out, it’s coming out, along with your gall bladder and a few other things, and there’s nothing you can do about it, except say ‘thank you.’

    It is breathtaking how dull-witted the Lama is. That will be the last time I give him a shred of deference.

    And, it’s a brutal reminder of how many people like that are running around.

    • bobbelvedere permalink*
      22 May 2010 @ 11:30 11:30

      1) RE: You spot-on comments on Solzhenitsyn: I would only add that the great man, like the current Pope and John Paul The Great, understood that a free market unrestrained by a moral sense and Right Reason in most of the participants could be almost – almost – as bad as totalitarianism. I believe this is one of the principles you have been urging in your recent postings over at Washington Rebel.

      2) That will be the last time I give him a shred of deference. This is a thought I should have put in my posting, but forgot; thanks for the reminder [full credit will go to you, of course].

  3. 22 May 2010 @ 12:54 12:54

    The Dalai Lama, PBUH, has made the perfect argument for the separation of Church and State – e.g., spiritual leaders tend to ascribe morality to “humans” who don’t recognize the concept.

    His entire comment was as follows:

    Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes–that is, the majority–as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently read an article in a paper where His Holiness the Pope also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism.

    As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the former USSR, or China, or even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes, for they were far more concerned with their narrow national interests than with the Workers’ International; this is why there were conflicts, for example, between China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have occurred.

    I think the major flaw of the Marxist regimes is that they have placed too much emphasis on the need to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and this causes them to encourage hatred and to neglect compassion. Although their initial aim might have been to serve the cause of the majority, when they try to implement it all their energy is deflected into destructive activities. Once the revolution is over and the ruling class is destroyed, there is nor much left to offer the people; at this point the entire country is impoverished and unfortunately it is almost as if the initial aim were to become poor. I think that this is due to the lack of human solidarity and compassion. The principal disadvantage of such a regime is the insistence placed on hatred to the detriment of compassion.

    The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.

    “Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation.”

    “China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have occurred. ”

    “I think the major flaw of the Marxist regimes is that they have placed too much emphasis on the need to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and this causes them to encourage hatred and to neglect compassion.”

    This is astonishing stuff. He can see what has happened in every case without fail, yet he continues to view the inherent rottenness of Marxism and the Politics of Envy as a bug, when in fact it is a feature.

    So much for Buddhism.

    • bobbelvedere permalink*
      22 May 2010 @ 14:22 14:22

      Added your comments to the main posting because they’re dead solid perfect. Thanks, Rob.

Trackbacks

  1. The Spot-On Quote Of The Day… « The Camp Of The Saints
  2. Nation of Cowards » Blog Archive » Rule 5: Was Morgan Elizabeth Woolard Skunked W/ Political Question?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: