A clear case of the Power of the Word is 'appeasement'. When it is and when it is not an appeasement? It's like 'hate'. When Jews hate you, it's not hate. But if you're even mildly critical of Jews, you might be a 'hater'. And what is 'extreme'? These days, a man with a big chunky pair of balls who claims to be a woman is a 'woman'. That is the New Normal. But a conservative(or a lesbian/feminist) who might disagree could be branded as 'extreme'. Once, you had to be Nazi-like to be 'extreme'. But now, the mere desire of Hungarians to preserve their national integrity is condemned as 'extreme' and 'far right'. But then, when Jews are truly zealous of their identity, heritage, and territory in Israel, we must all get behind the Tribe. If you criticize Zionism or call for a measure of justice for Palestinians, you get smeared like Jeremy Corbyn. You are either an 'Anti-Semite' or harboring it among your flock.
Back to 'appeasement'. It's a famous(and even infamous) term usually associated with the supposed wimps and weaklings who caved to Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich. Say the word 'appeasement', and Neville Chamberlain's deal with Hitler will come to mind. In the West, it's also been used to smear those who call for constructive dialogue with Iran(because, of course, whatever Jews hate is the 'new hitler'). Neocon Jews and their cuck-puppets never tire of denouncing others as akin to the craven cowards who cut a deal with Hitler. So, acknowledgement of Iran's legitimate interests is tantamount to repeating the mistakes of 1939 and paving the way for more horrors, maybe even Another Holocaust!
'Appeasement', like 'phobia', is not a neutral or objective term. It is judgmental and condemnatory. If someone is said to be 'phobic', it means his fears are utterly irrational, unfounded, and pathological. So, if someone is opposed to non-stop immigration that might forever transform the character of his homeland, he isn't a patriot with sound anxieties but a bigot with sickness in his head(and soul): A 'xenophobe'. Likewise, 'appeasement' isn't merely negotiation or compromise but a craven bargain with the devil. Of course, the accusation can come from any side. After all, German critics of Hitler could have argued Der Fuhrer appeased the British and the French in promising not to press for more German territories lost in World War I in exchange for Chamberlain's acceptance of German fait accompli in Czech Territory.
Because the term 'appeasement' is so judgmental, historians should be careful in its use. It is more a form of editorializing than understanding. The term is problematic even within its own definition. After all, if 'to appease' means: To placate or attempt to placate (a threatening nation, for example) by granting concessions, often at the expense of principle", then it is an all-too-common occurrence. Power differentials are a fact of life as most parties in any situation are not equal. Some are richer, better connected, more prestigious, more influential, and more powerful. So, it's often the case that the weaker party has to make concessions to the powerful side. But, most such interactions or transactions are not called 'appeasement'. So, even appeasement isn't 'appeasement' if it's approved by the Power/System or the established way of doing business.
What is the most powerful group in the US? It's the Jews, and so much of US politics, economics, and social policy is about non-Jews sucking up to Jews. Politicians suck up to the demands of Wall Street and the Donor Class, both heavily Jewish. Anyone who wants to work in Hollywood has to suck up to Zionists. Mutter something about BDS or criticism of Jewish Power, and you shall be blacklisted. US politicians of European backgrounds never make pilgrimages to their own ancestral homelands. Rather, they go to Israel, put on a yarmulke, and stand before the Wailing Wall. They all suck up to Jews by invoking the memory of the Shoah while ignoring most other horrors of the 20th century or any other era. US politicians shill for Israel and spew hatred against Iran. They stand in line outside AIPAC as willing lackeys for More Wars for Israel. All such behaviors certainly qualify as acts of appeasement but are never called out as such by the Big Media and Big Academia that are controlled by Jews.
Appeasing Jewish Power is so approved and 'normal' in US politics that it's never slapped with the seal of 'appeasement'. Indeed, it's become so second-nature to Americans that they're blind to their own craven cuckery. After 2020 election, you'd think American Conservatives would finally wake up to Jewish Power. Trump surely appeased the Jews a thousand times but got rammed in the arse just the same. In other words, 'With Jews, you lose'. But all we get from The Donald is more appeasement to Neocons who threaten Iran and all we get from Trumpeteers is 'China, China, China'. Never mind China too was in the business of appeasing the Jews as the go-to ruling elites of the US. The bargain was China would get a piece of the pie if it aided Jews in the demise of white identity and power.
Apparently, 'appeasement', like 'Hate', is always something done by people, regime, or nation that happens to be disapproved by the Power — when Jews hate(Russia, White Christians, Syrians, Arabs, Palestinians, Hungarians, etc.), it's never called hate. While it's been said a million times that Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler, it's hardly been mentioned that Winston Churchill(and FDR) appeased Joseph Stalin by conceding all of Eastern Europe to the Iron Curtain. After all, Churchill and FDR are still remembered as great men. Richard Nixon was much lauded for meeting with Mao Zedong. It wasn't called an appeasement of a Red Monster. But the merest sign of Trump wanting to work with Vladimir Putin was condemned as 'appeasement' of 'Putler'. But then, the GOP cucks called Obama's deal with Iran as 'appeasement', once again invoking World War II, even though Obama did it under the control of J-Street Jews who were seeking to ease Iran out of the Russia-China orbit. GOP cucks misled the public with the charge that the US under Obama funneled billions upon billions of US taxpayer money to Iran when the money was Iran's own that had been frozen in the US.
In the West, there are two kinds of appeasement. There are those who appease Jews in the most pathetic and shameless manner. John McCain was champion at this, but most GOP and Democratic politicians are top contenders. They know all the doggy tricks. This might be called 'positive appeasement'. But there is another kind that might be called 'negative appeasement'. Take Rand Paul. While he often displeases Jewish Power by refusing to back every War for Israel, he won't call out on Jewish Power. He turns every discussion or policy issue into an abstract discussion of principles and the Constitution. But current events and prevailing trends cannot be understood apart from the hypocrisy of Jewish Power that yammers about 'equity' and 'social justice', all the while pushing for policies that only make Jews even richer and make Israel even more dominant in the Middle East.
In a fair world, nothing should be called 'appeasement' or anything fitting the description should be thus labeled. So, if what Chamberlain did was appeasement, so was Churchill's deal with Stalin. And all the minor nations and powers within the US empire should also be called appeasers. What does Europe do nowadays but constantly appease the US that is controlled by Jews? Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and etc. are appeasers of the US empire. Colombia is a suck-ass appeaser of US power. And US politicians are mostly craven appeasers of Jewish Power.
But, the term is used selectively to demean ONLY THOSE who concede in a manner that is disapproved by Jewish-controlled US empire that shapes the narrative and discourse around the world via its lock on academia and media and deep state.
Appeasing Jewish Power means one must also appease whatever is favored by Jews. So, if Jews say BLM, one must appease black thuggery as the 'new sainthood'. Even though blacks are the most violent criminal class in the US, one must sing hosannas to magic blackness. And of course, the homos. Jewish Power promoted holy homos, and that means one mustn't upset homos lest he also displease Jews who must be appeased at all times. Jews are the 'Made Men' of US power, and that means the only functional 'law' of the land is Whatever Jews Want. Appease globo-homo. Sodomy is the new god, or godomy. Jews demand it, so you better obey. If a tranny says he's a woman, you better use 'proper pronouns' where he is a 'she' or even a 'they'. Surely, powerful Jews are cracking up behind closed doors at the sheer stupidity and/or cowardice of goyim.
So, we have a situation where everyone must appease the Jews in order not to be labeled an 'appeaser'. It's like one must hate whatever Jews hate in order not to be called a 'hater'. And it's not enough that most people in the West appease Jews. There are still some who say the US should be on better terms with Russia or some nation hated by Jews, and that is lambasted as 'appeasement'. Jewish Power is like a jealous god that says "Ours Only". Everyone must appease the Jews, but that is not appeasement apparently. But if you dare suggest that US negotiate or compromise with any side hated by Jews, you are a damn 'appeaser'! What a rotten state of affairs.
In the current order, your appeasement is not appeasement if it's approved by the Power. But even if you don't appease but call for negotiations or dialogue with a side hated by Jews, you are an 'appeaser'. If you smooch the Jewish Supremacist Ass, you're not an appeaser. But if you merely call for the end of the illegal US occupation of Syria, you are 'appeasing' Assad the 'butcher of Syria'.
Just like the US dollar is the world currency, Jewish Outrage of Tri-Supremacism(centered on Jews, Negroes, and Homos) has become the world moral currency. The only way to earn 'woke' currency is by appeasing the supremacism of Jews, megalomania of Negroes, and vanity of homos. Thus, every European nation has a Holocaust Museum, and homo prides are spreading around the world to showcase that "Our nation has accepted Gayspel as the new gospel'. Or even nations without blacks or black problems make a fuss with BLM to show they are with the program.
Western elites are worse than ever because the terms of elite selection favors the supremacists among the Jews but saps and flunkies among whites. A Jew who is conscientious and critical of Jewish Power hardly gets anywhere. Just ask Norman Finkelstein who couldn't even secure a gig at second-tier college DePaul. A Jew has to be supremacist to make his way to the top. But when it comes to whites, anyone exhibiting any independence of thought or anything resembling courage/integrity is struck down. He's not even admitted to elite college if, for example, he posted something on Twitter or Facebook that might displease Jews, homos, or blacks. That means the kind of whites who rise to the top are saphead cucks who go along to get along. They may still be smart and capable, but they are born appeasers and toadies than mavericks and men of independence. In other words, the likes of Mitt Romney, John McCain, Ben Sasse, Brian Kemp, Paul Ryan, and etc. are allowed to rise to the top. (It's an Asianization of the West. In the East, exams are treated as an end than a means to an end. Exams aren't so much a gauge of success as success itself. So, Asians don't think independently but merely study whatever is approved to pass the exams as proof of their success. In the quasi-Confucian Neo-West, whites must pass the PC exam of approved thought than think independently. Millennials grew up to favor approval of thought than independence of thought.) So, the result is a system run by sniveling Jewish supremacist masters and groveling white goy cuck dogs. But, we are told that white cuckery isn't appeasement because Jews control the narrative and decide what is what.
No one gets elected to a national office without, first, being fully vetted by the Jews. He, who controls the narrative, controls the world.
ReplyDelete