Giving in, inch by inch
Outpost of Freedom
October 29, 2013
n. The action or process of appeasing.
v. pacify or placate (someone) by acceding to their demands.
So, what does appeasement have to do with anything? Perhaps pacifying or placating someone would avoid potential problems. It can’t be a bad approach, can it?
Perhaps a brief history of appeasement, as applied from a political standpoint, just about seven decades ago, will give us a better understanding of the consequences of appeasement. So, let’s look at a brief history of appeasement leading up to the beginning of World War II.
Appeasement and World War II
At the close of World War I, the Treaty of Versailles set certain conditions on the losers, especially Germany. Among those was a limitation of 100,000 troops in their army. It also limited the size of their Navy in both manpower and ships.
In 1935, Germany began rearming beyond the limitations set forth in the Treaty of Versailles. After discussions between Italy, Britain, France, and Germany, nothing was done to force Germany into compliance with the Treaty of Versailles. This was appeasement.
In 1936, Germany, under Hitler, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, sent military forces into the Rhineland, which had been demilitarized by the Treaty. Though protests were made by Britain and France, nothing was done to stop this violation of the Treaty. Britain claimed to lack the forces to back up France, leaving Hitler unopposed, and establishing a powerful strategic position. This was appeasement.
In 1937, Neville Chamberlain became Prime Minister of Britain. The following year, Hitler sought the reunification of Germany and Austria, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, and sent German Wehrmacht troops into Austria to force the reunification. Chamberlain’s reaction was to state, “The hard fact is that nothing could have arrested what has actually happened [in Austria] unless this country and other countries had been prepared to use force.” This was appeasement.
In 1938, Germans, who found themselves living in the Sudetenland, a part of Czechoslovakia, because of the boundaries drawn up in the Treaty of Versailles, under instruction from Hitler, sought autonomy. Chamberlain warned Hitler that Britain might intervene if Hitler ordered an attack on Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain went to Germany to meet with Hitler and Hitler demanded the Sudetenland be absorbed into Germany. He convinced Chamberlain that refusal would result in war. Chamberlain, with agreement from France, told the Czechoslovakian president that he must hand to Germany all of the territory with a German majority population. This included over 800,000 people, substantial amounts of industry, and substantial portions of the Czechoslovakian mountain defense installations, thus providing an insecure Western Czechoslovakian border, ripe for subsequent invasion. In late September, Hitler, Chamberlain, the French Prime Minister, and Mussolini of Italy, met in Munich, Germany. They agreed that Hitler could complete his occupation of Sudetenland. This was appeasement.
On September 1, 1939, German forces invaded Poland. France and England were forced to enter war against Germany. The policy of appeasement had only encouraged Hitler, and in May 1940, Chamberlain stepped down and Winston Churchill, who had consistently opposed appeasement, became Prime Minister.
During the years of appeasement, Hitler increased his military and armament, increased his strength, increased his access to natural resources and food supplies, increased his industrial capacity, and increased the size of Germany. While other nations apologized for Hitler’s actions, he continued on a course that compounded the difficulty of dealing with the problem, when the appeasers finally recognized the error of their ways.
Had appeasement not been the practice of the day, and a firm position taken in 1934, the problem could have been dealt with and would probably have been but a minor incident in history. As each step of the appeasement progressed, the magnitude of the problem became greater. After a mere five years of appeasement, the solution to the problem resulted in deaths of many tens of millions of people and many trillions of dollars both in fighting the war that followed and rebuilding after the destruction of that war.
One of the elements of the greatness of America was an immigration policy that, until the Civil War, limited citizenship to those of European ancestry. Even after the war, immigration was based upon quotas and other educational or experience criteria, and, for the most part, was open to any that chose to come to America, assimilate into the American way of life, and contribute to its greatness.
In the past three decades, immigration standards have been reduced to an open door policy. The quotas that provided for limited immigration, resulting in assimilation, were dropped. We began becoming a relocation destination for refugees who stood on our side in the wars that we continue to start, and to lose. These newer policies have allowed entire communities to retain the heritage, culture, and lifestyle of their country of origin, and have effectively nullified the concept of assimilation.
Under the guise of multiculturalism, we have also opened our doors to just about anybody, regardless of their motivation, allowing floods of people who have no aspirations of assimilation, rather who come here for what they can get without effort, or, perhaps, with even more devious intentions. However, to pacify world opinion created by our support for multiculturalism, and, to placate those who wish to come here, we have developed a policy of appeasement on immigration.
What might be the consequences of this policy of appeasement? Perhaps we can take an American city and evaluate the consequence of this rampant immigration. So, we will look at Dearborn, Michigan. Of the estimated population of over 98,000 people, 40,000 are either Muslim or from Muslim countries (Wikipedia). At this point, it is safe to say that they constitute 40% of the voting potential, regardless of the makeup of the remaining population. Considering normal voting turnout, with a little motivation, the Muslims would have a majority in local elections. The consequence would be that rather than assimilation into the American lifestyle, we would see a conversion of Dearborn into a Middle Eastern city and could eventually expect that local laws would be changed by that majority into laws foreign to the nature of America. Putting it bluntly, they would, by utilizing the mechanism of democracy, convert Dearborn into a city ruled by Sharia Law. As those laws change so, too, will the culture of a once American city.
That was one American city. Let’s look at a county. The population of Los Angeles County is 9.9 million people (LA Times blog). The Hispanic population is 4.9 million people (Pew Research). That constitutes over 49% of the population. Based upon estimates (Los Angeles Almanac), the illegal immigrant population of Los Angeles County is over 700,000. This would raise the number of Hispanics to 53%. La Raza and other Hispanic organizations, asserting that California was stolen from the Mexicans, may soon be able to vote Los Angeles County out of the United States and into Aztlán.
Presumably, in the former, the population is a result of the lax immigration laws and open door policy. In the latter, many are “old Mexican”, whose families have been here for generations, however, the remainder, except as noted, are comprised of those who became legal immigrants as a result of the 1986 amnesty, or, anchor babies and their associated families.
As these demographics continue to change, we can expect more cities and more counties to succumb to such consequences as we see in these two examples. Appeasement, supported by court decisions, providing a spurious sense of blanket equality — even allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections (USA Today – Justices: Arizona voter registration rules go too far) — allows the growth of a problem that, as time goes on, will, as we saw in World War II, compound itself to the point that the solution becomes almost insurmountable, and will result in a hodgepodge of many pseudo-nations within the United States.
We have addressed to geopolitical aspects of appeasement and how they might affect the future of our once great nation. Now, we can look into more subtle aspects of appeasement and the effect that they are having on our society. You will note with both the above and those that follow, that one side (the appeaser) gives ground and weakens, while the other gains ground and strengthens. Is this appeasement?
Appeasement on our children
ADHD Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a relatively new disease. It has resulted in the drugging of hundreds of thousands of juveniles with psychotropic drugs. Those same drugs appear to be associated with nearly every school shooting by a student. If we look at the statistics, we will find that community referrals are 3 to 1 more likely to occur in boys than girls. In clinic referrals, we find that the ratio extends to 10 to 1 (NIH/National Center for Biotechnology Information). And in the female occurrences, it is defined as “inattentive type”, being less severe. These numbers suggest that either the male is far more susceptible to ADHD than the female, or, perhaps, it is a consequence of the male tendency to be more active, and less passive, than the female. Since our educational system has, by various means, endeavored to feminize the educational process by prohibiting physical contact sports, suggestions of guns or violence, and forced the male to participate in activities that were, just a few generations ago, considered to be in the realm of female passiveness. Is it possible that the observation and determination of ADHD is a consequence of the depression that is a result of leaving the football field and having to participate in activities that are more feminine? When you remove the “slugs and snails and puppy dog tails” and forced the masculine gender into “sugar and spice and everything nice,” can you expect the consequences to be other than what is described as ADHD? Is acceptance of the government’s explanation appeasement?
Appeasement on militarization of police
“To Protect and To Serve” has been the motto of most police departments, for at least the last half century. Recently, however, we have seen a marked movement towards that “protection” being redefined as “officer safety” (WSJ / Rise of the Warrior Cop). As a consequence, and as the equipment becomes militarized, where officers are far more protected than they were decades ago, we see an increase in the level of violence directed at citizens, quite often in the comfort of their own home. In 2005, there were 364 “arrest related deaths” (DOJ / Arrest-Related Deaths in the United States,). In that same year, only 162 officers died in the line of duty, of which only 60 were shot (National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial). The government provides semi automatic and full automatic rifles to law enforcement, they provide military style helicopters to law enforcement, they provide military style armored vehicles to law enforcement, they have assigned drones to support law enforcement, and, they continue to provide additional military level equipment and training to law enforcement. At the same time, many elements of government are attempting to restrict our right of self-defense, making us absolutely submissive to the law enforcement community. Is this appeasement?
Appeasement on Christianity
This country was founded on Judeo-Christian moral values. From courtroom to the executive office, the Bible has been the device upon which oaths were taken. Christmas time and Eastertide have been celebrated throughout our history. The United States Supreme Court building contains at least six depictions of Moses and the 10 Commandments. Recently, however, we have seen rejection of Christmas displays and Easter celebrations in our schools and other government locations, under the guise that the First Amendment prohibits them, though they had been celebrated openly on government property from the founding of our country until just a few decades ago. There can be no doubt as to the role of Christianity in our history and heritage; however, as they are pushed out, we find that we have laid a red carpet out for Islam. Many minarets, with speakers, loudly announce prayer early in the morning. Muslims are allowed to lay down their prayer rugs and pray in streets, sidewalks, airports, and other public areas. We are told that we are not to offend their practice of their religion. Is this appeasement?
Appeasement, like any other disease, if treated early, lessens the damage. Like cancer, if caught soon enough, total remission is quite possible. However, if untreated, it will continue to grow, leading ultimately to the demise of the host.
Its introduction, like the Trojan Horse, is subtle and accepted. If not recognized before introduction, where it can be denied admission, then as early as possible, as soon as it is recognized, remedial action must be taken. Absent such treatment, the objectives of the interloper, instead of the host, will be achieved.
Its introduction is usually preceded by the utilization of “Political Correctness”. Under the guise of Freedom of Speech, the host tends to drop its guard, often under the fear of ostracization, or even judicial punishment. Political correctness is foundational to creating an air of acceptability, where ones true thoughts are suppressed – under the guise of being for the “common good”.
Appeasement is nothing less than the creation of an advantage for the opposing side. Unless and until recognized, it serves none other than the host. Once recognized, remedial action is absolutely necessary, at the earliest possible moment, to avoid the consequences that will ultimately follow. Acquiescence to appeasement has only one conclusion — the social engineering of a society, contrary to its very nature.