It is remarkable to note in passing that following New Labour’s landslide electoral victory in 1997, the toryite leader of the Labour Party – Tony Blair – actually chose to leave Chris Patten in place, presumably as his naturally rightwing political leanings, or so Blair thought, represented the New Labour ethos exactly. Of course, not to remain insular and Eurocentric about this serious matter, the British rightwing made use of Chris Patten to eulogise a dying idea of the despicable institution of ‘empire’, and inflicted Patten’s ignorance upon the Chinese people of Hong Kong, who had to continue to kowtow to the continuous injustices inflicted physically and psychologically upon them by the presence of foreign invaders, and their proselytising Judeo-Christian church. The measure of Chris Patten’s Eurocentric ignorance, racism, prejudice, and discriminative attitude, can be found with just a superficial reading of his memoirs of his time lording it over the Chinese people. He is unrepentant and fully committed to a ‘Little England’ mentality that simultaneously reduces the rest of the world to an uncivilised and as of yet unChristianised mess that is just waiting for people like him to save it from its own innate, inferior barbarism. It is true that by the time of his tenure, Hong Kong had been preparing for reversion back to Chinese rule for some time, and the British military and police forces were keeping a low profile so as not to antagonise the local Chinese population, or trigger the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) from prematurely coming over the border and freeing the area by force.
UN anti-racism is thoroughly bourgeois in nature and those of the Left should treat it with the contempt it deserves, whilst simultaneously using the ‘official status’ of the UN day to work for the true ending of racism through the complete over-throw of the inherently unequal, uncaring, and brutal bourgeois capitalist system. Bourgeois ‘equality’ is not equality at all, but a sinister mirage designed to make fools of its intended beneficiaries.
These events have occurred in predominantly Theravada Buddhist countries, and have led to an intellectual climate which feels comfortable enough to routinely express sentiments of Islamophobia – an expression that legitimises itself by masquerading as a manifestation of Buddhist wisdom, when in reality it is nothing more than the product of greed, hatred, and delusion.
‘The nature of post-modern freedom, although equally applicable to all, does not necessarily mean that it is immediately perceivable to all those who exist within its condition. Its condition is the product, generally speaking, of advanced economic development, although on occasion such philosophies as Buddhism have been interpreted as being of a ‘post-modern’ nature. Obviously ancient India was not in the advanced economic state that western Europe is in today, but the Buddha’s philosophy marks a stark break with the traditions of his time, and represents a clear manifestation of one particular aspect of the post-modern condition, namely that of dismissing the long narratives of history that had previously dominated Indian philosophical and spiritual thought. West Europe, the United States of America and to a lesser extent the emerging central and eastern European states, are the product of hundred of years of economic development that has created nothing less than a revolution in the material structure of outward society that has seen the remarkable establishment of science and medicine over that of the theology of monotheistic religion. This state of industrialisation and technological development, regardless of its inherent inequalities has nevertheless created an extensive collective wealth that has raised the level of physical and psychological existence.’
‘From the assessment of (the Pali) and Sanskrit terms ‘sraddha’, ‘prasada’, and ‘adhimukti’, as used within Buddhist philosophy, (both early and late), together with a cross-referencing of the translation terms used to render these notions into written Chinese, it is clear that these terms can not be interpreted through the lens of a Christian concept of ‘faith’. Buddhist philosophy is an example of the product of pristine ‘logical’ thought that is dependent upon personal experience and spiritual experimentation. The Buddha’s system is simple in essence – over-come greed, hatred and delusion, and suffering will stop – but extraordinarily extensive in presentation. Each expressed idea and concept fits neatly into every other idea and concept. It is precise, exact and constant in its original form, and a simple idea, (the product of a profound enlightenment), requires literally hundreds of sutras to express its totality. Whereas St Augustinedescribes Christian faith as coming before knowledge, the Buddha’s message is exactly the opposite – it is the presence of exact and profound knowledge – that generates a confidence and a therefore a ‘qualified’ belief in it. Although it is true that ‘faith’ In a deity is a Hindu belief, and that the Buddhist terms are also used within Hinduism, nevertheless, the Buddhist usage is of a specific type that alters considerably, the original Hindu meanings, which are dependent upon a belief in a deity, (or divine concept) for salvation.’