Once the transition to their new religion is complete, almost immediately, any ideas that conflict with the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Deng and Xi (never mind that they all contradict with each other) create desperate cognitive dissonance in their minds. So these pasty emotionally-stunted people angrily lash out at the unindoctrinated for being “radlibs”, “western chauvinists” and “imperialists” rather than risk parting with their new-found identity, community and belonging.
Once the majority in the newly minted left-unity community are comfortable joking about rounding up and killing “kulaks”, “anarchist bandits” or more recently “Uighur terrorists” and quoting Chinese state media to counter all the “imperialist western propaganda” from the mouths of the various minority groups being imprisoned and enslaved by the Chinese state (for their own good, they’ll insist), the shaming campaign begins.
Anyone in the space who breaks with the red fash party line is lambasted and ridiculed into submission. The remaining libertarians in the space now find themselves hopelessly outnumbered by scornful white settlers with daddy issues telling them they’re imperialist CIA stooges for thinking the Uighurs maybe shouldn’t be put in concentration camps or the Hong Kong and Tibetan people should get self-determination (watch tankies insist Tibetans who don’t want to be ruled by China are fascists and China is, in fact, saving them from themselves).
Most of it to be quite honest. Is it that we're just all hopelessly caught in an echo chamber unlike your enlightened self who is active on far right and far left forums to synthesize a truly correct take? Because if that's the case, I think you need to work on your presentation and sourcing, reading your writing is a slog ignoring the actual substance
p.s. still waiting to see what authoritarian means to you, was a simple question you have continued to avoid
The Tibetan theocratic aristocracy of old does not represent the peasantry they enslaved. That's like saying Emancipation was "freeing Southerners from themselves". There were slaves, slavers, and yeomen. It freed group one from group two.
There are Tibetans and Muslims in Xinjiang that didn't want to be ruled by the Chinese. For Tibet, those monarchists (because that is what they were and still are) took their shot at counter-revolution and failed, and when they failed they ran away to complain in luxury in the West like every comprador class before them. They sought to use their own authority to retain power and failed because, honestly, the peasantry was pretty sick of their shit.
Within Xinjiang, the popular sentiment was with joining with China, because the alternative was becoming a completely land-locked country at the mercy of it's neighbors, far better to ally with the regional power. In the light of multiple devastating terrorist attacks that primarily killed Xinjiang Muslims, mandatory education for adults was installed, and the facilities to bring about that policy was made, alongside checkpoint systems across the region (a system that would be re-used in order to combat COVID a decade later). There were no genocides in Xinjiang, no U.S. style door-to-door raids and mass arbitrary imprisonment of military age males. You either showed up to school or you were sent to jail, so most showed up. And it's been effective because there have been no terrorist attacks since these policies were implemented, even as they have been wound down by the state.
If Hong Kong gets self-determination, it might surprise you to learn that the majority would probably vote to join China. We can guess that because the majority faction within the Hong-Kong government is the pro-CPC faction, unless you are meaning to imply that Hong-Kong might not be a bastion of freedom and democracy (which is where my money is honestly).
I think polling shows that most people in HK support the mainland anyway, though of course this is due to support from the poorer population and not the mostly wealthy ones who made up the HK rioters.
What part of this do you not understand?
It's honestly embarrassing that people like you are running around acting like you are any kind of authority on anarchism.
Most of it to be quite honest. Is it that we're just all hopelessly caught in an echo chamber unlike your enlightened self who is active on far right and far left forums to synthesize a truly correct take? Because if that's the case, I think you need to work on your presentation and sourcing, reading your writing is a slog ignoring the actual substance
p.s. still waiting to see what authoritarian means to you, was a simple question you have continued to avoid
The Tibetan theocratic aristocracy of old does not represent the peasantry they enslaved. That's like saying Emancipation was "freeing Southerners from themselves". There were slaves, slavers, and yeomen. It freed group one from group two.
Regarding genocide: https://sci-hub.se/10.2307/3182072
There are Tibetans and Muslims in Xinjiang that didn't want to be ruled by the Chinese. For Tibet, those monarchists (because that is what they were and still are) took their shot at counter-revolution and failed, and when they failed they ran away to complain in luxury in the West like every comprador class before them. They sought to use their own authority to retain power and failed because, honestly, the peasantry was pretty sick of their shit.
Within Xinjiang, the popular sentiment was with joining with China, because the alternative was becoming a completely land-locked country at the mercy of it's neighbors, far better to ally with the regional power. In the light of multiple devastating terrorist attacks that primarily killed Xinjiang Muslims, mandatory education for adults was installed, and the facilities to bring about that policy was made, alongside checkpoint systems across the region (a system that would be re-used in order to combat COVID a decade later). There were no genocides in Xinjiang, no U.S. style door-to-door raids and mass arbitrary imprisonment of military age males. You either showed up to school or you were sent to jail, so most showed up. And it's been effective because there have been no terrorist attacks since these policies were implemented, even as they have been wound down by the state.
If Hong Kong gets self-determination, it might surprise you to learn that the majority would probably vote to join China. We can guess that because the majority faction within the Hong-Kong government is the pro-CPC faction, unless you are meaning to imply that Hong-Kong might not be a bastion of freedom and democracy (which is where my money is honestly).
I think polling shows that most people in HK support the mainland anyway, though of course this is due to support from the poorer population and not the mostly wealthy ones who made up the HK rioters.