Thursday, August 6, 2020

Clive Bibby: The Age of the Appeasers

The last decade of human existence has seen the emergence of regional leadership vacuums throughout what is left of the "Free World" that have been filled by political power blocs that owe allegiance to no one and are contemptuous of any counter force that tries to slow their momentum.

And their greatest ally in this naked grab for power is the "appeaser" who is ready to offer them the keys to what has been, at least since the end of WW 2, the only thing that has kept us safe from this type of open aggression.

This re-writing of the international landscape is the result of democratically elected governments (not just in the US) abandoning those who are defenceless against such malevolent actions.

Here at home the outlook is also grim although the "aggressor" comes from within.

You don't have to look far to see the same process taking hold, allowing local special interest groups to usurp control at central and local government level.

Out here in the rural backwater of Tairawhiti, these small but hugely influential collectives are designing the new world order that includes nothing other than their own selfish objectives. They have totally intimidated the democratically elected council who appear unfazed by or ignorant of the potential damage this "takeover" will cause to future economic and social development programmes. Instead, we now see a community awash with "feelgood" platitudes that will do nothing for those at the lowest rung on the social ladder who need jobs and security that will only come from sound economic management involving the development of the few remaining resources that are still viable after Covid 19. put earlier plans on hold.

This sort of betrayal can only happen when those who occupy the treasury benches and sit around the council tables throughout the country abdicate their responsibilities to those who elected them to keep us safe.

During times of crisis, we expect governments to lead and are prepared to grant them extraordinary powers that will enable them to act quickly in our best interests in order to challenge any threat to our survival.

It is clear that the current government of this country has abused that privilege and instead used the opportunity to allow any "half baked" selfish idea clear air and authority to operate unrestrained. Sadly, these measures will do nothing to help those who need it most simply because they were never intended to. They were designed to only numb the sanctimonious twinges of their creators.

We see this flagrant abdication happening at places like Ihumatao where the national interests are being trampled by the few who are allowed to express their sense of entitlement at the expense of the laws that govern our democracy.

It is called appeasement. It is certainly not Government of the people, for the people, by the people.

On the international scene, the situation is much worse and on the verge of being irretrievable.

In the northern hemisphere, where most of the action that will determine our future is happening, the "appeasement" policies of previous US administrations, particularly during the Obama years, are causing much more problems for world order than anything the Carona virus can throw at us.
Have we learned nothing from History. The "Cold War" was the result of Roosevelt's appeasement polices that ignored Churchill's warnings of the post war Russian threat.

Communist dictatorships have always shown that they are not constrained by an electorate that requires them to operate under policies of peaceful co-existence. And any perceived threat to regime survival from within is brutally dispatched.

The modern equivalent (China and Russia) know no other way and are currently operating true to form albeit, at least at this stage, using economic subterfuge rather than military might to expand their influence. But make no mistake, the other method at their disposal is available and will be used if required. Until now, they haven't needed to bother using or threatening to use that option while "appeasers" occupy the White House. Trump is the first President in a long time to signal that he is willing to push back in order to halt this unwelcome advance.

Consequently, we should be very concerned that the last opportunity to challenge the expansionist policies of both China, Russia and to a lesser extent, their vassal Islamic states like Iran, is in danger of collapse simply due to a lack of support (particularly from our European partners) for the current US president who is the only international leader with the "bottle" and military might capable of holding these aggressors to account.

Yet those of us in the "Free World" who should be recognising the threat these dictatorial regimes pose to our own sovereignty seem content continuing with this preferred option of appeasement which can only end in tears. We stand idly by, 'tut tuting' at the extraordinary evidence of capability and intent shown with China's brutal crushing of the 7 million Hong Kong residents' freedoms, lamely expecting that this will be the last of it. Yeah right!

The only thing these regimes recognise is an opponent's strength (most notably the military version). And the only counter to their illegal military and economic expansion is a show of force from those with the capability of threatening their existence.

Unfortunately and perhaps ironically, the only country currently capable of mounting that challenge looks as if it might be persuaded by the left wing media to elect another "appeaser" who will simply get out of the way.

Are you ready for "Sleepy Joe" facing down China with or without our support?
Believe me - it would never happen. And then, where would we be!

Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.


Ray S said...

No need to look overseas to see appeasement. we see appeasement here every day. To do anything else is to be labeled racist.

Unknown said...

Unfortunately you are just so so so right.
Lets hope the majority of American wake up in time.

Jonathan Spink said...

How did US President Franklin Roosevelt appease the Soviet Union - a wartime ally? Roosevelt died in office on 12/4/45. Victory in Europe was achieved on 8/5/45. The Cold War is considered to date from 1947.

Anonymous said...

Spot on mate.

People in the free world have no idea what can easily happen to their freedom and very quickly, just as in NZ with the "now we may go back to stage 2 lockdown".

Why, no suprise here, it's because the current government has not controlled the quarantine correctly and also lied to the public about the previous lack of PPE supplies and also about the first testing capabilities they had.

So now it's the fear campaign for the election and more control by central government.

Seems suspiciously like the Victorian government in AU which is also wrecking the economy there.

Stu Sanders Auckland

Allan said...

Great words of wisdom Clive. Thank-you.
Because Socialism has been entrenched in our children through the 'education' system for more than a generation now, perhaps your generation is the only one remaining who understand the realities of the current knife edge on which we exist politically. With a free ride considered a given right, & the necessity to work considered an inconvenience, by most, then yes, the whole free world is about to become very un-free, in the very near future.

Peter van der Stam, Napier said...

Hello Clive,
I have my theory which is: since Chine knows that a war is not really the solution to their expansionism they have tried and managed via " biological war fare" And yes! they got the whole world on their knees , economically seen.
All conspiracy theory of course. They never would go to war against the Islam states, because they are far better trained than the Chinese soldiers.
For next year they are already working to get another virus genetically modified. Because lets face it. you have read the book " in the jaws of the dragon" I hope. much good information in there.
Regards Peter

Anonymous said...

In response to Jonathan and others who have independently questioned my suggestion that Roosevelt had more than a little bit to do with the beginning of the Cold War.

At the Yalta conference towards the end of the war attended by the 3 main leaders of the Allied forces, Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, Roosevelt was at pains to befriend Stalin and allowed himself to be flattered by the Soviet leader when a more responsible approach would have been to listen to Churchill's warnings about the likely implications of such folly when the new world order was being crafted immediately after the war.

eg. Churchill recommended against allowing the Soviet forces to liberate Berlin, insisting that it was important to meet them on the eastern side of the city, preferably as close to the Polish border as possible allowing the Germans to surrender to American or other allied forces such as Patton's armies. He understood Stalin better than most.

By granting Stalin his wish, Roosevelt can not escape blame for the events that followed immediately after the war ended. We saw the carve up of post war Germany under allied administration with the only one who wasn't prepared to work together being the Soviet membership of that alliance. In quick succession we saw the need for the Berlin airlift that was to become the precursor of things to come and the earliest indications of what a Cold War (Soviet style) would mean for the German people and all the other Eastern European nations liberated from the Nazis only to be subjugated to a tyranny of even greater proportions - ask the Poles and East Germans what life as a vassal state of the Soviet Union was like.

The Cold War had its gestation in the misguided appeasement policies of FDR - no question.

And it could have so easily been avoided.

Thanks for your comments

Ewan McGregor said...

Who was responsible for the Cold War? Joseph Stalin. No question. It is true that Roosevelt’s health was failing and was an impediment to his effectiveness at Yalta, but Roosevelt and Churchill were faced with a compelling reality; that the Red Army had advanced into Central Europe by 1945. It was 2 million strong, victorious, moral was high, reasonably equipped and lead, and Stalin intended it to stand fast, behind what became known as the Iron Curtain to be under the control of Moscow. Apart from the status, taking the German capital made little difference to the 4O years of the Cold War whether that line was east or west of Berlin.
The western leaders were faced with the demands of their electorates to ‘bring the boys home’, Britain had 6 years of war and was exhausted, and America still was committed to defeating Japan, as was the U K. 50 million Europeans were dead, the cities in ruins. So, what was the alternative? To turn the guns on their wartime ally? “It [the Cold War] so easily could have been avoided”, Clive claims. Looks easy from the distance of 2020, doesn’t it?
The Republicans were to make great capital out of denigrating Roosevelt’s performance at Yalta, but then, Republicans have hardly been objective when it comes to diminishing Democrat presidents, the latest being their insistence that Obama was constitutionally disqualified from holding office because he was born in Kenya. But I prefer the assessment of independent and objective historians, which generally is that Roosevelt and Churchill got the best deal possible, given the circumstances.
‘The Age of the Appeasers’. Give me a break. Personally, I thought that Clive Bibby’s thesis was nonsense, and a dismissal of current democratic government, as flawed as it is. He seemed to be making a call to arms on behalf of the US to bring China into line. Anything else is just appeasement. There is an alternative to a Cold War, at least hopefully. It is not hot war – God forbid – but an endeavour to work towards peaceful coexistence. With the disastrous Trump in the White House such is unlikely.
Ewan McGregor

Susan Short said...

Very interesting observation, Clive. I have a question regarding what is happening here in NZ. It relates to your comment about the hugely influential collectives which have totally intimidated the democratically elected council who appear unfazed by or ignorant of the potential damage this "takeover" will cause to future economic and social development programmes.
I suspect this behaviour is happening in other councils around the country. My question is – how is this being demonstrated in your area?

Barend Vlaardingerbroek said...

I don't think Russia is expansionist. There is an illusion of expansionism arising from their creating a string of buffer states between them and the rest of Europe but that is in response to the threat they perceive from NATO.
NATO is an anachronism and should be dismantled. The threat to us all comes from further east than Moscow and we need the Russians on side to meet it.