What did he mean by this?

What did he mean by this?

edggggyyyyyyyy

Seems he Tweeted not one but two historical facts.

It's strange how plenty of people who are very critical of institutions like Catholicism are so eager to see the Dalai Lama as some sort of wonderful and pure being. I read a poll some years ago showing the Dalia Lama as more popular among Catholics than their own Pope (was either JP2 or Ratzinger then). The Buddhists in Tibet had all the horrible shit you would expect from a Christian institution, with institutionalized child rape (I read a text about how to call a fuck-slave based on the age, text starting at single-digit age) and serfs drowning in debt, their kids inheriting the debt, and those wonderful and peaceful monks would gouge out your eyes or rip out your tongue or chop of your hands for insubordination.

So, that twitter tankie is right basically. Though one shouldn't expect killing the Dalai Lama would have changed much in itself (that would be the great-man approach to understanding history; besides, killing a DM doesn't work like erasing an a royal family).

...

Finally, someone on Twitter talking sense.

...

Tibetans deserve self-determination though, regardless of wether the initial invasion was justified

That's true, but the restoration of a theocracy is hardly self-determination though, no?

The thing is at this point Tibet is like 90% Han Chinese.

While I agree with the twitter tankie to an extent, I do want to point out the hypocritical nature of twitter tankies and their obsession with "anti-imperialism," but are fine with it when their idols do it. If you madlibed Mao out for an American, British, or French figure, suddenly they would declare the Dalai lama an anti-imperialist figure that they must support.

I'm not a tankie, but he isn't wrong tbh, Tibet was a slave society and China did liberate them. He's definitely being an edgelord about it, but he's not wrong. Today the exiled former ruling class of Tibet live in furnished mansions in India, they certainly don't deserve much sympathy.

Yeah, obviously the monarchy would have to go, or at least be reduced to a constitutional one. Didn't the Dalei Lama already give up the claim to political power?

If it involves conflicts between two nations/territories, it's almost guaranteed that both sides are equally retarded in direct proportion to how strongly the tankies/Maotists support one. Take a look at Israel-Palestine and then the Rojava situation - they say they support Assad when you bring it up and don't all say that Rojava is a US proxy although most of them do, but will not shut up about Palestine. They won't even mention Chiapas because the Zapatistas did nothing wrong.

The liberation of Tibet was 1000% justified as it is and has always been Chinese clay not to mention the reactionary theocracy which lorded over the peasants. I should be pointed out that during the liberation, the ones who were most brutal against the old regime and it's religious super structure were the freed serfs who held nothing but contempt for their former masters. I'd like to see one of those 'free Tibet' morons justify live flaying and other unusual forms of punishments the cult of Tibetan Buddhism practiced before their Regime was obliterated.

There's nothing inconsistent here. Tankie logic works according to the principle that the AmeriKKKan (and the Anglo more generally) is equivalent to capitalism.

Tibetans deserved it, they're the Kulaks of East Asia.

Literally all it takes is for them to not look bad, have a charming smile and say a couple platitudes about the poor every now and then. Just look at all the groveling (even in here) about Pope Francis.

How am I wrong?

Imperialism is an economic relation, dumbfuck. If you're accusing Mao of imperialism, you have to prove that China extracted wealth from Tibet.

Hes right tbh

Dalai Lama is just a religious leader, like any other, but Mao was shit, and you can hate them both.