The Quick Sands of Compromise

Compromise is thought of as a civilized concept so what can possibly go wrong when warring parties view it a fair way to settle disputes through a mutual process of give and take, right.


That’s not the way this works compromise often demands more than people are willing to sacrifice making it more of a one-sided affair and all-round bad idea.

Apart from having to trust the good intentions of the other party a difficulty not unlike navigating a minefield.

Both history and religious faith warn of the dangers of incremental compromise as it fades to capitulation with dire consequences.

The C-word is a loaded one, ripe with innuendo and cheap tricks, with the bottom line if someone sings like a canary and balks at using intelligible language or throws words around in a vacuum it’s all suspect.

If there is one word that sums up compromise in the modern context its accommodation, yes, it’s all about changing minds in a bow of wholesale appeasement to the times.

People must adjust their ideas/philosophy/beliefs to bring them in line with contemporary thinking, maybe even throw their understanding overboard if the situation demands.

Like the Star trek eulogy says; you will be assimilated, like it or not.

Militants know all too well how getting others to compromise at little to no cost to themselves advances their cause without the need to fire a shot.

Most of all compromise is not possible without its sell-outs and there is a glut of them both in high places and among ordinary folk.

Beware the D Word

D is for dialogue, the deliberate jaw-jaw that relentlessly chases down compromise in broad daylight through long dark alleys at night, requiring just one more concession to seal the deal.

Radicals don’t have a cut-off line for progress it continually evolves that’s the point.

Dialogue is not about seeking to understand another’s perspective, chances are good those pursuing it already know the arguments and what they up against, it’s change they after making them obtrusive and thoroughly creepy.

Normal people understand there will always be differing opinions it’s the standard and only a problem when misfit subversives refuse to acknowledge such.

The influence industry is big business in all likelihood it’s the world’s largest employer with change agents always in demand.

Even the hoi polloi on social media get in on the act with the rallying cry just listen to us in desperate attempts to borrow an ear for their compelled speech while not open to a contrary opinion or the word no.

Their reasons are irrelevant but people will always have them even when reason knows nothing about it.

With so much invested in convincing people to change their minds ask your-self what happens when persuasion fails, next stop intimidation, and after then?

What’s to be done

Look, if people want to flagellate themselves over the misdeeds of their ancestors, while a stupid idea, no one is stopping them just don’t force others to join the ride.

The same goes for all the critical theories for everything, we reserve the right not to buy what’s being sold, remember the equal buyer equal seller principle.

Discernment is called for more than ever before and being slack about it is not an option we can afford.

We should realize those not for us are against us, and those not against us, are for us, and keep it in mind on the way forward.

I like my narratives uncontrolled, my news media independent and my research teams anonymous