Submitted by: Robert Bowen
Appeasement as a Strategy
V. P. Hughes
Appeasement – 1. the political strategy of pacifying a potential enemy in the hope of avoiding conflict—often by granting concessions. 2. an attempt to stop complaints or reduce difficulties by making concessions.
Concession – 1. an act or an example of conceding, yielding, or compromising in some way, often grudgingly or unwillingly.
Compromise – (n) 1. a settlement of a dispute in which two or more sides agree to accept less than they originally wanted. 2. something that somebody accepts because what was wanted is unattainable. (v) 1. to settle a dispute by agreeing to accept less than what was originally wanted.
Ronald Reagan used to tell the story of the man trying to drain a swamp who finds himself surrounded by hungry alligators. In a panic, he starts throwing his fellow workers to the monsters to protect himself. But of course, the end result is still the same: he will be eaten—just last of all! Reagan was illustrating the futility of appeasement which gains nothing for the user but a little time.
Appeasement is often confused with the concept of compromise. This is easy if one is inherently honest. In a compromise, both sides accept what is agreed upon as the final determination of the problem. But when one party considers any agreement as a step towards a desired result rather than the solution of the problem, this “agreement” is, in reality, an act of “appeasement” by the other party. For far too long, conservatives have believed that each “compromise” we have reached with our liberal foes is the final answer to that particular problem—only to find out that in a day, or a week, or a year, the liberals are back demanding a more and greater “compromise” on an issue that conservatives had considered settled.
Now, the first time this happens, no blame obtains to those who have been blindsided by the other side’s maneuvers. They were honest while their adversaries were not. However, the second—not to mention every time thereafter–that the same thing happens, the victims lose the right to call themselves ill-used. They—or in this case, we conservatives—cannot blame “the other side” when we knew—or should have known—that the concept of “compromise” existed on our part alone while our adversaries were determined to continue to work towards total victory however incrementally.
Indeed, I am willing to state unequivocally, that the results of all of our side’s “negotiations” with liberals represent not compromise—however much we may have fooled ourselves that such was the case—but appeasement and to continue down that particular road has only one destination: our extermination. Whatever we choose to call these “arrangements,” they are concessions on our part. To again paraphrase Ronald Reagan, if it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it’s a duck—whether or not you call it a swan.
Given this situation, how should we deal with our adversaries? Is there any hope of valid compromise or are we dealing with an unrelenting, uncompromising, intractable mindset that will settle for nothing less than total victory? Sadly, the answer to the above questions is, “no,” there is no hope and “yes” we are dealing with a mindset that will accept nothing less than the total extermination of the White race, Western Civilization, Christianity and our culture, history and heritage.
Furthermore, no amount of manifest good-will or conciliatory gestures on our part will change a damned thing. The “offence” expressed by our adversaries for historical evils is itself either a matter of ignorance or intentional deceit. If we do not recognize this existing state of affairs, we are not simply woefully naïve, but stupid—even insane! Remember Einstein’s definition of that condition: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results! Furthermore, to continue down that same road guarantees our extermination.
Having accepted the matter as it stands, what then is left for us to do? First, we must not “concede” or “compromise” without understanding that such “solutions” are nothing but appeasement, the only benefit of which—at least to us—is that it creates—or more properly used to create!—a momentary lull in the struggle. Secondly, we must make much better use of whatever time remains to us to forestall total defeat even if we cannot achieve total victory at the present time. We must—I repeat must—understand that any and all“agreements” reached with our adversaries are incremental victories for them.
Most important, we must be prepared to use what little time remains to regroup and go on the offensive rather than congratulating ourselves that we have at least forestalled total defeat—for the moment. At the very least we must understand that the other side will never compromise on its stated goals! You cannot reason with evil! Therefore, we must develop strategies to use when the enemy’s assault is momentarily halted because we know from experience that they are formulating their next plan of attack—and the whole thing starts again. Remember, it is easy to “get along” with our adversaries: all we have to do is surrender—and die.
No comments:
Post a Comment