I monitor mainstream "popular" cuckservative topics and talking points. I've noticed a recent uptick in "middle ground" type materials and stopped to consider the message (((they're))) trying to push.
The thought of the day seems to be "it's okay to disagree, we can come to a middle ground and work things out."
Not in this case. Never, in fact. Societies can only function if disagreements are limited to methods of execution, not the premise itself.
If I think strawberry is the best flavor of ice cream, but someone else thinks red velvet is the best flavor of ice cream, we can come to a middle ground because we both agree on the premise -- that ice cream is overall delicious. There can be no middle ground if I think strawberry ice cream is delicious but someone else thinks chocolate sprinkles on a cup of steaming crackhead diarrhea is delicious.
And that's what I've been seeing on all "sides." Topics like self-defense get misdirected to ignore the core concept, that you should be able to select whatever item you want to protect your family, including firearms. Same with these mass attacks -- misdirected to focus on the implement used, not the (((psychiatry medications))), single parent household, jewish background.
Middle ground is the reason why niggers and spics now have their own premium spaces, paid for by whites. It's the reason why churches are replaced with mosques and synagogues. It's the reason why we've gone from adults in drag to children on hormones.
Middle ground is nothing more than the (((enemy))) asking you to do nothing while they carry on, with the courtesy of a conversation to make you feel included. All that matters in the end is that you feel like you've been heard and they get their way.
If anything, we need less tolerance, not more. Tolerance is middle ground, and for it to mean anything, some things are and need to be intolerable.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] slwsnowman40 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
No, tolerance in this context is showing weakness. Tolerance, in this context, is using the 2a definition (Webster's Dictionary) - sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own. This is the one definition we shouldn't allow because they are actually using the 3rd definition (same source) - the allowable deviation from a standard.
Middle ground is them trying to find your individual or collective weakness. That's why 20-30 years ago they were saying "No one is coming for your guns!" while we today have Red Flag Laws that violate half of the Bill of Rights and we've been encouraging faggots to say something to authorities since 9/11. Surely you didn't think "See something, say something" was only ever going to be used just for terrorists? If so, I've got a bridge and ocean front property for sale...
Remember, they never compromise, they just talk until someone is willing to go along with them so they shut up.