I really don't think there's an effective youth movement for the populist trump types. There's not a positive org for Anne Coulter and Tucker Carlson types. They all ended up in negative spaces like TPUSA. Tapping into that energy would yield us a larger membership and influence base especially if we're able to get on Tucker and what not regularly representing the youth aspect of the movement

Then we'd have to explain why we only allow Whites into the organization.

And if we opened the organization up to non-Whites, we'd lose most if not all of our current membership, and probably find ourselves with a dumber and less dedicated organization.

Never said open up to non whites

Bring conservatives to us not us to them

Use rhetoric and policies that will make non whites disinterested without being explicity white only

Or just flat out don't address it

That's ridiculous dude

I actually agree that we should tap into them

We should create front groups to do not

Well, given this organization's founding it's a bit late to try to trick people into believing we're something we aren't.

"boy I love milk, farmers markets, and craft beer" <-- this should dissuade nonwhites from coming

We should never dilute the real group

Goodnight ladies and gents.👏

Goodnight @hbutzer0511

We could do our explicit rheotric and slogans through college rep groups and other trump style groups

This sounds like 4D chess to break away from the stigma that comes from speaking sincerely about race and identity -- that's really not going to happen at this point, again, given the organization's history.

But just explicitly being an effectively revolutionary right group with an extremely obscure metapolitcial lexicon I just frankly don't see as getting incredibly far

Our purpose isn't just to network -- it's to send a message. If we're not speaking honestly about these issues, who will?

Sorry to hear you don't believe we'll succeed @Kingfish

I hope we prove you wrong.

Isn't membership growing?

If you're not explicit on race what is even the purpose of any of this

There's something to be said for avoiding fringe issues, using more American/Trumpian aesthetics, etc. -- but we're already doing that. As to the term identitarian -- I think it's good, but I'm not opposed to nationalist either.

The left long marched into our institutions and effectively took over our country while being completely disingenuous with the people. They preached love and peace and laughed all the way to the bank with a Marxist/leftist root only seen by the top echelon

You don't think there was a radical vanguard?

Whenever someone asks me where I stand politically, I always just say I'm a nationalist to avoid having to explain identitarian, its definitely good for normie conversation

How many times since the 50s have we learned the lesson that masking our true intentions does not work except to actually degrade those intentions into what we wanted to overcome in the first place (the mainstream right)

I understand toning down the message to normies so you don't get doxed, but identitarian is specific, whereas nationalist can be a bit vague.

e.g. civic vs ethnic/racial

If it's any consolation the Left has also overplayed their hand and has no idea of how to operate when we go on the offense instead of staying on defense

The disagreement here I think is as to whether or not we should be explicit, or rather how explicit we should be

@Reinhard Wolff lmao I literally never said I don't think we'll win I even said earlier I think the ideology is strong I just don't being explicitly in your face about is going to get too far I think the networking and infrastructure will be far more important. I don't really appreciate you representing me as being against the org or our cause though. I'm not saying were doomed I'm just saying the infrastructure and the network will prove more effective long term and that our rhetoric with adjusted would grant us more of that.

I joined IE because it was explicitly white, well run, professional, and obviously growing.

I'm a supporter of this approach. The way the Overton Window works is that you always get less than you bargain for. That's why we need people to be radical. Not extremist, but radical.

The left won using front groups, but still had more radical groups both to funnel people into, and to pull on the Overton Window.

@Ald we are explicit on race but not abrasive on it. Many groups have walked this line. It's harder for us because the media controllers hate us, but in the end people will still want to hear how we describe ourselves from our own mouths, and it's important not to give the media any records to present us as speaking for ourselves badly

>But just explicitly being an effectively revolutionary right group with an extremely obscure metapolitcial lexicon I just frankly don't see as getting incredibly far

"I don't see as getting incredibly far" -- this doesn't refer to us? Which other right wing group with an "extreme obscure metapolitical lexicon" (identitarian?) were you referring to?

We're talking about IE.

I'm saying in our current position how everything stands