The Dalai Lama identified himself as a Marxist during a speech in India, yesterday.
“We must have a human approach,” he said, while delivering remarks for his “A Human Approach to World Peace” lecture for the Presidency University, Newsweek reports. “As far as socioeconomic theory, I am Marxist.”
He also went on to blame capitalism for the world’s ills.
“In capitalist countries, there is an increasing gap between the rich and poor,” he said, according to Newsweek. “In Marxism, there is emphasis on equal distribution … "
He apparently has missed the part about Marxist regimes being coercive and far from tolerating in a peaceful mannr views opposed to Marxism. And he apparently has missed the hundreds of millions killed under Marxisr regimes. (SEE: Death By Government)
And why is it all these types, like the Lama, who profess to not be interested in material things, are so concerned about differences in material income?
Finally, it appears that Lama fails to make a distinction between those who are wealthy because they have provided goods and services desired by consumers, and those who are wealthy because they are close to government and have been granted special priviliges by government.
He also seems to have forgotten that his country, Tibet, has been occupied by Marxist Chinese with the intent of eradicating its culture and identity.
ReplyDeleteJust another idiot with authority.
ReplyDelete"He apparently has missed the part about Marxist regimes being coercive and far from tolerating in a peaceful mannr views opposed to Marxism. And he apparently has missed the hundreds of millions killed under Marxist regimes."
Yeah. Funny how they always forget that part. The moron.
Another POS. Well.. at least he admits it.
ReplyDeleteProbably homosexual and a pedophile which would bring him up to par with Congress.
So I guess he likes the "Marxist" solution to redistribute Tibetan lands to ethnic Chinese.
ReplyDeleteWhatever.
Just another useless media star.
He's probably seen the attention the Pope is getting
ReplyDeleteHe's the prototypical Marxist, sitting around all day & pontificating on what others should be doing while living off the good graces of those bamboozled enough to pay his for almost zero productivity.
ReplyDeleteI'm guesing that the Dali Lama and the Pope think that the mass murder that went along with every marxist regime up until now occured because the wrong people were in charge.
ReplyDeleteDId the Lama also miss the fact that a marxist country has been oppressing Tibet? Man, I lost a lot of respect for this guy. What a crock of shit.
ReplyDeleteOne of the stated goals of Tibetan Buddhism is to eliminate suffering. When the leader of this institution professes its support for Marxist policies, then the whole religion must be condemned.
ReplyDeleteThe Dali Lama is a human being and he's ignorant in this area for whatever reasons. Unwittingly or otherwise his support of marxism is counter to the teaching and ethics of Buddhism. So no, you don't have to condemn the religion because its principal practicioner and authority figure holds views counter to its basic tenants; any more than you have to condemn Christianity because a whole slew of Christian ministers are cheerleaders for the warmongering state.
DeleteThey don't understand that one doesn't need wealth to be happy. There are countless millionaires that are miserable. There are individuals that are in poverty that are happy. It isn't necessarily a childish economic philosophy. But, It is one that tells people they are not good enough, and can not be happy until they make X$/year.
ReplyDeleteIt has been decades since progressives were able to use the excuse of the homeless and starving elderly. The basic necessities for life have been guaranteed for many decades. They see the cars and homes of the super wealthy and determine that they (the non-wealthy) are incapable of happiness due to the disparity.
The truth is that we are all capable of happiness regardless of net worth. We choose to be happy or sad based on our perception of the world.
Does he remember why he had to leave Tibet?
ReplyDelete--“We must have a human approach,"--
ReplyDeleteLike thay human approach that saw his country invaded by a Marxist regime and his culture sent to oblivion?
Didn't the Marxists, i.e., Red Chinese annex Tibet and exile him?
ReplyDeleteExactly
DeleteMaybe he and the Pope could get together and exchange outfits once in a while...
ReplyDeleteHa! +1 on this.
DeleteObviously the 14th Dali Lama is not enlightened. An awakened one would know better than to make comments on subjects that he is ignorant and or get involved in politics.
ReplyDeleteThe Lama's record as ruler of Tibet bears out his claim to be a Marxist -- he directed virtually all economic activity centrally from his high throne. It's great to be a Marxist when you're in charge!
ReplyDeleteLet him live in a real Marxist regime and put his ass out in the field picking fruit providing his fair share of manual labor. And by the way, no one needs a Dali Lama or any religious figure in a Marxist society. That's what the state is for. Maybe he can team up with the Pope and get a Marxist society going so they can both pick fruit together.
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind that communism is probably an improvement over the truly horrifying religious tyranny of Tibet when it was ruled by the Dalai Lama.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
Post this up, RW!
Hey. Google Times article "At Home with the Dali Lama" and check out this clowns' pad!! Living large. Is hypocracy a prerequisite for commies? What a joke these people are.
ReplyDeletePerfect!
DeleteIt ends up he's just another Lord living high above the people in style with armed guards to keep them away:
http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1723964_1551982,00.html
Well, as usual Marc these "leaders" always mean money, wealth, and prosperity for us but Marxism for everyone else. It's about power. It always is. That's why I just don't get this stupid worship of government and religious leaders who promote it. Isn't their hypocrisy BLATANTLY obvious to these idiots?
Delete"Finally, it appears that Lama fails to make a distinction between those who are wealthy because they have provided goods and services desired by consumers, and those who are wealthy because they are close to government and have been granted special priviliges by government."
ReplyDeleteThis is the key point that we need to hit home every chance we get!
Yup. And hit it HARD every time.
Delete