Compromise and consensus

   People think that a strong, cohesive group is made through dialogue and compromise.
It is not.
   When 'A' wont compromise and 'B' will then 'A' is the ruler.
   'A' controls the terms.
   'A' directs the narrative.
   'B' just has to go along with it, regardless of any feeble objections.
   'B' can fuck off by themselves if they want but if they are the type to compromise they will be unlikely to do that for long especially if 'A' gets results.
   Most people are 'B'.
   If you try to debate your way to consensus you will get a 'manifesto' in 403 pages with a series of foot notes longer than the original document that means precisely nothing and only serves to piss everyone off.
   We don't need to dot every 'i', we just need to get the basic principles understood by most. If they want to learn more then great but it is not required.
   If you are considering compromise it can never be on anything meaningful and it must ALWAYS be reciprocated.
   If we compromise in order to get people to listen to us (i.e broaden the appeal) we are lying to ourselves and them. Speak honestly and fully, without compromise and trust them to understand, if your message is correct and they can see its truth in their own lives they will.
   This doesn't deal with the outright lies of the enemy and de-platforming, but if we don't proceed from the above basis we are doing their work for them.

Never compromise.