On European Appeasement and Tolerance

It is often heard from all corners that bitter lessons of European past should never be forgotten, especially those of 20th century, with fingers pointed at various totalitarian regimes. Certainly, some fingers are directed specifically at their rise, citing everything from hatred and past wars to inherent destructive potential of those ideologies. All kinds of antifascist movements and efforts, educating people about the holocaust, frequent reminders of Nazi and Soviet terror... in the end it all culminates into a zero-tolerance policy towards supporting these atrocities - predominantly on the left side of political spectrum, which is far less sensitive to such restrictions of freedom.

Trying not to repeat one's own history this way is in itself a worthwhile cause... but are those accusing fingers really pointed in the right direction?

Personally, I have to distance myself from this approach, stating once and for all that I strongly disagree with it. Since the purpose of this post is not to discuss curbing of liberty and its implications - which could also serve as an indicator of flawed logic and consequentially failure of current approach - I will instead address something I deem to be crucial in understanding the real problem, using but a simple metaphor.

You see, what is being done at present time about preventing the grim past events from ever reoccurring is analogous to pointing at the upper side of the coin, a coin that quite obviously has two sides. It is only this side of the coin that receives wide attention, carrying the burden of responsibility and guilt in the eyes of those who keep a close eye on it while the equally important lower side remains hidden, unrecognized, even forgotten.

If the coin were to disappear altogether, being successfully pushed out of sight, and then reappear at a later point in time, the dangers brought along with it would only be recognized and acted upon if its previously visible upper side has remained in top position - but since it is as likely that previously unseen side will now be the one on top (due to an innocent flip somewhere along the way), the tainted coin will just as likely sneak past without raising suspicion or being recognized for what it really is, putting into motion the same atrocious sequence of events that more than once before plagued our planet after being so naively inserted into the societal slot machine.
However, unlike in the past, the chance of saving ourselves this time might be far more bleak...

The sides of the coin that I am mentioning are of course dangers of "-isms" (particularly the famous 20th century totalitarian ideologies) on one hand and the danger of appeasement on the other. The former is widely recognized and fought against, the latter neglected and buried in a quiet remote corner of Cemetery of Reality, right next to other disturbing parts of ourselves we would rather not talk about.

For example, the aggressive advancement of Nazi regime in Europe was just one side of the story... European appeasement and caving in to its threats was the other - it's important to point out that what is now perceived as threats were once entirely acceptable and legitimate demands. Looking straight in the eyes of this sad history of European appeasement is avoided at all costs, most likely due to the conviction that doing just that would either serve no purpose or is seen as a hog on resources that are already being funneled into a variety of (for example) antifascist efforts.


Even though the saying about good men and triumph of evil sums up these efforts quite nicely, giving them a solid moral backing, it is still very saddening to know of their certain failure in the long term.

While this one-sided prevention is getting more and more extreme in its measures, the one thing we should never ever let occur again is actually appeasement itself.


It is most discomforting to observe how inflexible and outdated the watchers of the upper coin side really are: only tracking the historic "-isms" and from this perspective failing to properly address any destructive system that isn't a product of European origin, even lacking interest in doing so or being undecided. But the worst of all is the inevitable unnoticeable slide towards appeasement of whoever managed not to qualify for the totalitarian/fascist label.

This applies to everything from modern genocides to harsh authoritarian rule. There is, however, one important additional application - it is actually the main reason why I started writing this post... the above examples are almost all of external nature, from beyond the sea, meaning a greater ease of distancing oneself from them (due to a seemingly far less direct influence), so what is required now in order to complete the picture are internal examples. As Pat Condell would undoubtedly agree, the best example of that would be European appeasement of numerous Islamic groups with political agendas, forcing them into mainstream society, all at the expense of constantly eroding freedom of our own. What is even more disturbing is the similar meaning between appeasement and submission...

Giving such an ideology more and more room to accommodate itself in the midst of unsuspecting future victims is not at all an innocent doing, the most suitable adjective would be suicidal. It's particularly alarming that not only we seem to be on the verge of appeasement's reign but also that the old fascism detector is malfunctioning because of it, which is most clearly visible in the rise of unsanctioned, tolerated anti-semitism.

And since I've already mentioned such an interesting, paradoxical expression, let me add a much-needed word or two on tolerance as well. Tolerance in my opinion paves the road to appeasement and serves only as an excuse to justify it.
In itself, tolerance does not mean acceptance and understanding, it does not represent symbiosis or even compromise, tolerance is nothing but the process of enduring someone's pressure, even infliction of pain while trying to compensate for it with appeasement towards that same person.

Tolerance does not contain the rational component that would cover a sympathetic attitude toward someone you seem to be in disagreement or conflict with - it is at best a temporary solution for avoiding conflict without having any intention to at least attempt to gain sufficient knowledge for understanding the tolerated individual. Even the notion of tolerance presupposing patience as its core element is false since patience is actually a calculative approach, based on rational filtering of specific relevant information.

On the whole, tolerance is a completely inappropriate word to use for elaborating conflictual interpersonal relations - but it does go along well with appeasement.


In conclusion, I would once more like to state my concern over the gap between the ones who fail to see appeasement for what it is, perhaps even giving lectures of tolerance along the way, and those few who recognize its innate destructive potential, waiting to catch us off guard once again.
Learning from own mistakes in this case does not mean only preventing the past ideologies from ever regaining power by restricting them, it is equally (if not more) important that emerging ones (yet unknown to us) are being anticipated, recognized and dealt with accordingly while the resources for that are still at our disposal... in other words, before it's too late.


I suspect that this very issue will heavily influence a related debate of negative vs. positive freedom, but that's a topic for another blog post...