Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Appeasing the barbarians

A little over a week ago, Episcopalians and Anglicans were all agog at a piece of grovelling liberal agit-prop enacted in St. John's Cathedral, Los Angeles. Gary L'Hommedieu wrote an interesting piece on the wider implications of the modern liberal urge to pre-emptively abase oneself to placate hostile outsiders. He calls it "appeasement", but gives more thought to the idea than the usual quickie Neville Chamberlain "I have here a piece of paper" capsule definition people usually settle for. Appeasement is not ONLY cowardice, as it is often thought to be. There is a lot more going on psychologically in a person who resorts to appeasing.
Christians in the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles have demonstrated a new gospel: in a word, Appeasement. This word has far more meaning than the Neville Chamberlain-like denial of an impending military threat -- though it incorporates that as well. Appeasement is the psychology of those who wish to retain a privileged or "safe" position in a waning status quo. They would like time to stand still, and they desperately hope it will, while they crucify their gods, sell out their children's futures, and otherwise minimize their losses.
That's the first aspect of appeasement that's often overlooked - its tendency to sacrifice OTHER people in order to save oneself. Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler didn't consist of handing him pieces of British territory. He tried to buy safety by diverting the threat onto other people - the Czechs, the Slovaks, the Poles. The same thing is happening with our "Human Rights Commissions" and their never-ending quest to end hatred in Canada. The "threats" to human rights that are being so ostentatiously hunted down and vanquished are not the most dangerous or even the most obvious ones. As Sir Ezra the Brave points out, they wage "their battles against powerless kooks and eccentrics who don't actually pose a threat to anyone."
I was writing about a Vancouver imam who didn't just lace his weekly sermons with "hate speech"; he went further, calling for violent action -- the killing of infidels. At least one of his congregants seems to have taken his message to heart:
Like Keegstra, Kathrada called Jews names -- "we are dealing with a people ... the brothers of the monkeys and the swine ... whose treachery is well known." Calling Jews brothers of monkeys and swine sounds like a schoolyard taunt more than high argument, but his point was clear. And just in case it wasn't, Kathrada made it clearer still: His sermons repeatedly called for the killing of Jews.

Poor old Keegstra. All he ever did was call the Jews power-hungry money-grubbers, and he was convicted of a crime. Kathrada whips up his congregants into a Jew-baiting frenzy -- and tells them to go and actually kill someone -- and he remains free.
L'Hommedieu has an interesting explanation of this two-sided approach to threatening behaviour:
Appeasement means pleasing the right people, those who represent some threat, and deliberately offending others who pose no threat and can be counted on not to retaliate. It is self-protection, pure and simple, and it is anything but courageous. In an activist mode Appeasement is passive-aggressive, manipulative, and deceptive. It sets up symbolic confrontations in such a way that my group appears vindicated in comparison with some other group, usually my neighbors or former associates or fellow church members on the other side of the aisle. None of these are an actual threat to me, but the vandals at the gates of my consciousness might be persuaded that they are. If I can bait these unsavory outsiders with my charged rhetoric, they might attack those other people and leave me alone.

Appeasers believe they can assuage the vandals by contemptuously tossing them trinkets.
Surely that is what is happening in Canada, where "hate speech" from Muslim fanatics is sedulously ignored, while that of hapless, isolated misfits is ostentatiously persecuted. The "enlightened" persecutors are engaged in a double pretense: they are posing as brave warriors for truth and decency, even though their little staged showtrials put them at no risk whatsoever. And they are also glancing toward the gang of big ugly brutes who are getting close enough to really worry them, to see if they can be bought off with the prospect of devouring a scrawny tethered goat. Meanwhile, the fat, declawed cats of the Left will slink back to their cozy cushions and well-filled food bowls, happy to be left in possession of their luxuries.
The "vandals" are those our consciences tell us we have wronged, who would have every reason to be angry and who now upset our consciences. Maybe we have wronged them. If so we need to repent. But appeasers do not repent. That would mean giving up what has accrued to them through the very systemic injustices they so loudly decry -- money, power, position, historical pre-eminence. Instead they "apologize" and say nice things, usually in a condescending tone which they themselves never notice. They point the finger at anyone two inches to the right of themselves on the political spectrum and imagine that others will take the bait -- will assume that those on the right are really the ones to blame and are somehow different from those on the left, even though both share the same disproportionately large piece of pie. Appeasers don't believe the "little people" are smart enough to know pure symbolism when they see it, and they believe they can be bought.
I've always noticed that the human rights whores who are so determined to right the wrongs of the downtrodden, never envision having to change anything in their own lives to do so. It's essential to their survival that they can claim to be without sin, because their whole life is driven by this maxim: Someone has to pay, and it's not gonna be me! So when the Muslims, or the homosexuals, or the Native Indians, or (your disgruntled minority here) come around complaining and expecting action, it's not Kinsella or Warman who is going to have to stop wearing nice suits, or go on welfare, or collect food at the Food Bank. No way. That's what the HRC racket is all about - trawling the land for disposable misfits to hand over to the disgruntled, so that they can satisfy their need for ritual humiliation and vengeance on someone else. There's no other option for the fat, smooth eunuchs of the Left, because it's no longer possible in this country to say to an aggrieved minority, "Wipe yer nose, bub."

2 Comments:

Blogger Blazing Cat Fur said...

Yikes that was a good piece!

3:49 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In light of Rowan's latest bit of idiocy, you could just 'bump' this piece to the top.

3:25 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home