Alexander Macris explains why you will not be spared the repressive tolerance, no matter how beautifully you cuck or how slavishly you denounce everyone to your right:
If you’re reading this, you’re probably right-of-center. But perhaps you feel safe from repressive tolerance because your view are so, well, gosh-darn tolerable. You obviously don’t advocate right-wing violence. You’re not a racist or misogynist or homophobe or bigot. You just want America to have a healthy free market, a strong military, fair trade, low taxes, equality of opportunity, and protection of every citizen’s constitutional rights. You’re just a mainstream, moderate, right-of-center conservative!
Do not fool yourself into believing that because you are a moderate, you are safe from the doctrine of repressive tolerance. Herbert Marcuse explains that the plan is:
withdrawal of tolerance from regressive movements before they can become active; intolerance even toward thought, opinion, and word, and finally, intolerance… toward the self-styled conservatives [Tactics] would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.
Anyone who opposes any extension of public service, social security, or medical care, or who supports freedom of religion, is to be completely and utterly deplatformed. No freedom of speech, no freedom of assembly, no communication in word, print, or image.
This is the plan; this has always been the plan; all that has been lacking were the means to effectuate the plan. Those means are now at hand. If the President of the United States can be silenced, anyone can be.
And what happens if conservatives resist having their voices suppressed and repressed? Well that’s a problem that requires a solution. And as Herbert Marcuse explains:
[The solution] may require apparently undemocratic means…
I will leave it to the reader to ponder what sort of “undemocratic means” might be justified to solve the problem of conservative thought, opinion, word, action, or being.
This is why they begged for freedom of speech in the first place. To put themselves in a position where they could deny it to everyone else. They demanded the toleration of evil so that they could eventually refuse to tolerate good. The Sin of Jeroboam leads invariably to the destruction of the nation that is foolish enough to commit it.