French Exhibit on Genghis Khan Pressured by China

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Sina delenda est.

[Punished UMN]

Sina delenda est.

Unrelated, but I clicked the link and your sig and I wanted to point something out just as a clarification because it's a very common misconception. Historical revisionism is not illegitimate. All historical interpretation is ideologically driven, and historical revisionism is just any change in ideological viewpoint in viewing history that is not the original ideological viewpoint of society. What most people think of when they hear historical revisionism is actually historical negationism, which is when there is a particular agenda being advanced.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Sina delenda est.

Unrelated, but I clicked the link and your sig and I wanted to point something out just as a clarification because it's a very common misconception. Historical revisionism is not illegitimate. All historical interpretation is ideologically driven, and historical revisionism is just any change in ideological viewpoint in viewing history that is not the original ideological viewpoint of society. What most people think of when they hear historical revisionism is actually historical negationism, which is when there is a particular agenda being advanced.

Shit fam, thanks. I'll revise that bit.

[Punished UMN]

Unrelated, but I clicked the link and your sig and I wanted to point something out just as a clarification because it's a very common misconception. Historical revisionism is not illegitimate. All historical interpretation is ideologically driven, and historical revisionism is just any change in ideological viewpoint in viewing history that is not the original ideological viewpoint of society. What most people think of when they hear historical revisionism is actually historical negationism, which is when there is a particular agenda being advanced.

Shit fam, thanks. I'll revise that bit.

Np, just glad I can finally get some use out of my historiography classes.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

Its funny because China uses the borders of their conquerers as the basis of their imperialist territorial claims. If the mongols or manchu took it in the past china wants it now. They will kick and scream bloody murder till they get it too.

So the CCP is run by toddlers in adult bodies?

[Kandorith]

Its funny because China uses the borders of their conquerers as the basis of their imperialist territorial claims. If the mongols or manchu took it in the past china wants it now. They will kick and scream bloody murder till they get it too.

So the CCP is run by toddlers in adult bodies?

Basically, yes.

[Punished UMN]

Its funny because China uses the borders of their conquerers as the basis of their imperialist territorial claims. If the mongols or manchu took it in the past china wants it now. They will kick and scream bloody murder till they get it too.

So the CCP is run by toddlers in adult bodies?

That must be why they're more competent than Western governments.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

Also, I have to say being so willing to support a murderous anti-communist dictator instead of a Marxist leader is genuinely worrying. In that case, was it okay that Augusto Pinochet (with the support of the US), launched a military coup against the democratically elected Marxist leader Salvador Allende in Chile?

Rolling in a Pinochet is a reactionary measure, not a pre-emptive one. You do not ever need to try and allow one into power unless it is already too late. No one WANTS to have to have Pinochet in power, and no action should be taken pre-emptively to get one in. However, there are times when absolutely nothing can stop the cancer of Marxism and, when it takes root, you can only shoot your way out of it.

Majority votes alone do not make for a legitimate and just government. Democracy is not an end-all and is a terrible system. The only reason we have it, and the only reason I support it, is because democratic governments have the best track record of securing the fundamental liberties that belong to all men. Notice I said secure. All Marxism is inherently violent, as seizing the Means of Production is done by force.

No nation should be allowed to go Marxist due to the irresponsibility of its people.

Democracy has failed if a Marxist has taken power and there is nothing, NOTHING that should be withheld to rip it out root and branch.

You sure talk a lot about Pinochet and rape by his military, but where were you when Nicaragua one-upped him and sent out death squads? May I add, there are no death squads in Chile today, but Nicaragua uses them TO THIS DAY. Everything Pinochet is accused of was matched, and outdone, by nations like Nicaragua. We failed to rescue the Nicaraguan people from their yoke, and we still pay that price every time an invading force is organized to attack and breach the Mexican border and ours.

[Allende was a] popular leader who did wonders to help the poor, improved the living standard, helped small businesses and labor unions, as well as countless other achievements?

No, that is straight up proapganda. Allende was a thief whose kleptocracy robbed tens of thousands of people of their land, drove out the foreign investors paying countless Chile citizens, and was prepared to submit to the USSR post-haste. He was going to run Chile into the ground- and was in the process of doing so -and the Supreme Court of Chile had already called him out on his wanton abuse of power.

The bottom line is this. When does a Pinochet need to come in? Only when the government becomes a straight up kleptocracy.

Stealing your land and robbing you of your investements is an act of war, and must be dealt with accordingly. Pinochet overtook Chile with our backing because Chile committed an act of war, and atrocities, against both their own people's private property and, more importantly, America's investors.

Violence of the magnitude Allende had already started, which was being consistently rebuked by the Chilean Supreme Court, was only going to intensify. Allende was Chile's Hugo Chavez and his actions were going to send Chile into a pit of perpetual suffering. Nicaragua never recovered and Venezuela isn't out of its chains yet.

Not only did the USA do nothing wrong, they saved Chile and the countless other nations that Marxism was thrown out of.

No, Pinochet was not a good man, or a just ruler, or the ideal person to give Chile over to. That's because we should never want that kind of government in power. However, Chile is one of the richest nations in South America, if not the richest, and, despite the economic pain during the transition, Pinochet set the stage for that to happen when he resigned.

Yes. Pinochet resigned. He surrendered power freely and of his own well and his junta permitted an election in 1990, in which he an d everyone with him were swept out of power by (IIRC) nine to one. Chile has been stable since.

Stealing land in peacetime is different from conquest, but both are acts of war.

Therefore, I triple-down on my previous statements. Behind only LITERALLY HITLER, Marxism is the worst possible philosophy and governance on the earth. No ideology has claimed more lives, failed more peoples, erased more beauty, and shut down more monarchies than Marxism. Even when not done intentionally (Mao's famine was an accident), the bodies that pile up outdid the Holocaust on its largest scale.

Fascism is never a preferable alternative. It is an insidious ideology, and poses a danger to all people of the world.

Fascism is not preferable, but compared to Marxism? One hundred percent preferable. National Socialism is not facism, and hey, it's a good thing I am not a fascist. I'm a States' Rights Democrat and registered Republican, not a fascist.

The Tenth Amendment is my principle political North Star, and there are no rights, spare freedom of religion, due process, and the Second Amendment that are more important.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

Historical revisionism is not illegitimate. All historical interpretation is ideologically driven, and historical revisionism is just any change in ideological viewpoint in viewing history that is not the original ideological viewpoint of society. What most people think of when they hear historical revisionism is actually historical negationism, which is when there is a particular agenda being advanced.

Fascinating. I don't understand, though, how historical revisionism isn't equal to historical negation when the goal is to reverse the story and demonize the figures of old based on today's zeitgeist. I liken this iconoclasm and lynching of long dead men to the Cadaver Synod. No amount of virtue or forward-thinking in their time can make them redeemable compared to today's ever-shifting norms.

[Punished UMN]

Historical revisionism is not illegitimate. All historical interpretation is ideologically driven, and historical revisionism is just any change in ideological viewpoint in viewing history that is not the original ideological viewpoint of society. What most people think of when they hear historical revisionism is actually historical negationism, which is when there is a particular agenda being advanced.

Fascinating. I don't understand, though, how historical revisionism isn't equal to historical negation when the goal is to reverse the story and demonize the figures of old based on today's zeitgeist. I liken this iconoclasm and lynching of long dead men to the Cadaver Synod. No amount of virtue or forward-thinking in their time can make them redeemable compared to today's ever-shifting norms.

That's not what historical revisionism is. Historical revisionism is any reading of history that differs from traditional narratives of something.

[Senkaku]

and, more importantly, America's investors.

wherein Turtleshroom equates Allende "stealing" from American investors to the worst atrocities of Nazi Germany and implies it's okay to throw people out of helicopters or have them raped by dogs if your shares in a copper mine thousands of miles away get even a little bit nationalized

Chile has been stable since.

so stable that they're now setting churches on fire because they're so desperate to get rid of the constitution he saddled them with on his way out lmao

these Pinochet hagiographies from people who know jack shit abt Chile and willfully delude themselves about what he did would be funny if they weren't so incredibly incredibly dark and horrifying

[Senkaku]

Here's one of the many articles about this.
So, we all know about China. The greatest "communist" nation since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Chinese Communist Party is notorious for cracking down on anything critical of China. Apparently, though Genghis was not alive anywhere near the rise of Communist China, nor the time of Karl Marx, he has offended the CCP by existing. The Paris-based exhibit received a message from the Chinese government, asking that they remove several words such as "empire" and even Genghis' name, and replace it all with an obviously false retelling of history, with the Mongols replaced with Han Chinese, and a bias towards China. Thankfully, the director of the project refused to bend to China, yet he still closed the exhibit. And even worse, many experts fear that the movie and gaming industries will rewrite history to change, or even remove, Genghis to gain access to the Chinese market.

So, NSG, what is your take on this? Is China in the right to simply erase history? In my opinion, no matter how humiliating or terrible the event was, history should never be erased, especially not the history of one of the most important conquerors in world history.

This is... extremely bizarre and terrible. The Communist Party would have such an easier time if they stopped painting themselves into stupid fucking corners like trying to obliterate and erase the cultures of millions of people or clinging on to islands that they don't need etc etc... like boxing yourself in with red lines that you can't cross or the whole project will come down eventually just means that you're going to bring it crashing down on yourself when you inevitably have to relax on something and cross one

Sina delenda est.

do you know what happened the last time we fought a war w the Chinese? I agree totalitarian China is bad and has to go but so many Americans say shit like this without thinking through the actual truly appalling consequences of direct military confrontation

[Kowani]

No, that is straight up proapganda. Allende was a thief whose kleptocracy robbed tens of thousands of people of their land, drove out the foreign investors paying countless Chile citizens

I wonder if fleeing US investors might have been part of Nixon's "make the economy scream" strategy, where he pretty much cut Chile off from the whole world. Odd coincidence, that.

and was prepared to submit to the USSR post-haste.

Could it be that people need allies in the face of US aggression?

He was going to run Chile into the ground- and was in the process of doing so -and the Supreme Court of Chile had already called him out on his wanton abuse of power.

Members of the political class attacking a threat to their power? Who could've seen that coming?

The bottom line is this. When does a Pinochet need to come in? Only when the government becomes a straight up kleptocracy.

The real answer is never by the way

Stealing your land and robbing you of your investements is an act of war, and must be dealt with accordingly. Pinochet overtook Chile with our backing because Chile committed an act of war, and atrocities, against both their own people's private property and, more importantly, America's investors.

American investors are more important than the Chilean people, you heard it here first.

Violence of the magnitude Allende had already started, which was being consistently rebuked by the Chilean Supreme Court, was only going to intensify. Allende was Chile's Hugo Chavez and his actions were going to send Chile into a pit of perpetual suffering. Nicaragua never recovered and Venezuela isn't out of its chains yet.
Not only did the USA do nothing wrong, they saved Chile and the countless other nations that Marxism was thrown out of.

Things you should consider looking into: Reality.

No, Pinochet was not a good man, or a just ruler, or the ideal person to give Chile over to. That's because we should never want that kind of government in power. However, Chile is one of the richest nations in South America, if not the richest, and, despite the economic pain during the transition, Pinochet set the stage for that to happen when he resigned.

...No. Chile's median per capita income gets beat by a multitude of countries.

Yes. Pinochet resigned. He surrendered power freely and of his own well and his junta permitted an election in 1990, in which he an d everyone with him were swept out of power by (IIRC) nine to one. Chile has been stable since.

This is so far from true as to be meaningless.

Stealing land in peacetime is different from conquest, but both are acts of war.

Therefore, I triple-down on my previous statements. Behind only LITERALLY HITLER, Marxism is the worst possible philosophy and governance on the earth. No ideology has claimed more lives, failed more peoples, erased more beauty, and shut down more monarchies than Marxism. Even when not done intentionally (Mao's famine was an accident), the bodies that pile up outdid the Holocaust on its largest scale.

I wonder what would happen if we piled up every death statistic under a monarchy. Things wouldn't look too good, now would they?

[New Visayan Islands]

Also, I have to say being so willing to support a murderous anti-communist dictator instead of a Marxist leader is genuinely worrying. In that case, was it okay that Augusto Pinochet (with the support of the US), launched a military coup against the democratically elected Marxist leader Salvador Allende in Chile?

Rolling in a Pinochet is a reactionary measure, not a pre-emptive one. You do not ever need to try and allow one into power unless it is already too late. No one WANTS to have to have Pinochet in power, and no action should be taken pre-emptively to get one in. However, there are times when absolutely nothing can stop the cancer of Marxism and, when it takes root, you can only shoot your way out of it.

Majority votes alone do not make for a legitimate and just government. Democracy is not an end-all and is a terrible system. The only reason we have it, and the only reason I support it, is because democratic governments have the best track record of securing the fundamental liberties that belong to all men. Notice I said secure. All Marxism is inherently violent, as seizing the Means of Production is done by force.

No nation should be allowed to go Marxist due to the irresponsibility of its people.

Democracy has failed if a Marxist has taken power and there is nothing, NOTHING that should be withheld to rip it out root and branch.

You sure talk a lot about Pinochet and rape by his military, but where were you when Nicaragua one-upped him and sent out death squads? May I add, there are no death squads in Chile today, but Nicaragua uses them TO THIS DAY. Everything Pinochet is accused of was matched, and outdone, by nations like Nicaragua. We failed to rescue the Nicaraguan people from their yoke, and we still pay that price every time an invading force is organized to attack and breach the Mexican border and ours.

[Allende was a] popular leader who did wonders to help the poor, improved the living standard, helped small businesses and labor unions, as well as countless other achievements?

No, that is straight up proapganda. Allende was a thief whose kleptocracy robbed tens of thousands of people of their land, drove out the foreign investors paying countless Chile citizens, and was prepared to submit to the USSR post-haste. He was going to run Chile into the ground- and was in the process of doing so -and the Supreme Court of Chile had already called him out on his wanton abuse of power.

The bottom line is this. When does a Pinochet need to come in? Only when the government becomes a straight up kleptocracy.

Stealing your land and robbing you of your investements is an act of war, and must be dealt with accordingly. Pinochet overtook Chile with our backing because Chile committed an act of war, and atrocities, against both their own people's private property and, more importantly, America's investors.

Violence of the magnitude Allende had already started, which was being consistently rebuked by the Chilean Supreme Court, was only going to intensify. Allende was Chile's Hugo Chavez and his actions were going to send Chile into a pit of perpetual suffering. Nicaragua never recovered and Venezuela isn't out of its chains yet.

Not only did the USA do nothing wrong, they saved Chile and the countless other nations that Marxism was thrown out of.

No, Pinochet was not a good man, or a just ruler, or the ideal person to give Chile over to. That's because we should never want that kind of government in power. However, Chile is one of the richest nations in South America, if not the richest, and, despite the economic pain during the transition, Pinochet set the stage for that to happen when he resigned.

Yes. Pinochet resigned. He surrendered power freely and of his own well and his junta permitted an election in 1990, in which he an d everyone with him were swept out of power by (IIRC) nine to one. Chile has been stable since.

Stealing land in peacetime is different from conquest, but both are acts of war.

Therefore, I triple-down on my previous statements. Behind only LITERALLY HITLER, Marxism is the worst possible philosophy and governance on the earth. No ideology has claimed more lives, failed more peoples, erased more beauty, and shut down more monarchies than Marxism. Even when not done intentionally (Mao's famine was an accident), the bodies that pile up outdid the Holocaust on its largest scale.

Fascism is never a preferable alternative. It is an insidious ideology, and poses a danger to all people of the world.

Fascism is not preferable, but compared to Marxism? One hundred percent preferable. National Socialism is not facism, and hey, it's a good thing I am not a fascist. I'm a States' Rights Democrat and registered Republican, not a fascist.

The Tenth Amendment is my principle political North Star, and there are no rights, spare freedom of religion, due process, and the Second Amendment that are more important.

I would respond, but Kowani and Senkaku already did for me, so all I really have to say is

Okay Colonizer

P.S. "State's rights" Hmmm, where have I heard that before?

[FutureAmerica]

The French exhibit should go ahead as planned. The Chinese Communists write fake history for their people. They want to rewrite Western accounts of their history.