Message from @ThisIsChris
Discord ID: 501252540655206401
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
Not the org not the members not the future
Right, one should be as optics friendly as possible *within* explicit White advocacy toward an ethnostate, or else what are we really doing here @ThisIsChris
Which group were you referring to?
I'm just offering ideas as to how we can expand our realm of influence which is an overall positive
"not the org"
Another important issue to keep in mind is that if we promote civic nationalism "for more", by the time we're "ready" for identitarianism, there won't be any identitarians left to help you promote it. That's why the left need radical groups to be their operations out of.
Let's go easy on the animal posting
I'm enjoying this discussion
@Ald agreed, although we do need to be careful what we want, not to nitpick but we don't want to be explicit about wanting an ethnostate because in the end that may not be what we actually aim for in the real world
Just so we're all clear, it is perfectly okay to have civil discussions about our strategy
When I say not the org I'm saying not the org itself but the current status of our situation and our approach I think we'd benefit from a bit of a rhetoric shift and I think we're doing that so I'm fairly content. A lot of your speeches have had a populist lean and I'm pretty sure every time I've said how much of a good idea I think it is
@micbwilli can you please delete and post that later?
Sorry. Didn't mean to interrupt
I never said we had no chance and I really like our slightly shifting direction
I think a lot of normie cons are getting more receptive to something more radical especially after Kavanaugh, they will respect us if we are strong and maintain our positions instead of cucking or keeping our agenda secret
I just want that made clear
@ThisIsChris What more could we want? Who else will struggle for the ideal for us?
Glad to hear it @Kingfish
Yeah my bad boss
I hope IE never stops being white only or explicitly for white well being.
But my ideas still stand, and I think @Jacob has a great point with influencing groups like CR and other heritage groups indirectly rather than flatout converting them
An effective radical vanguard should act as a center of gravity for everyone very broadly on our side, not as an ideological prostitute pulled this way and that by who we "need" to appease
@Ald what we want is the right and ability to organize white people for their collective interest. This may happen in a state where whites are a super majority, majority, plurality, or less. We hope it's more, but realistically it could be less and we don't want to be painted with the bad parts of "ethnostate" if it's not actually important to our real goals
I've considered this issue at length, and that's part of the reason we've shifted as we have. The problem, as I see it, is that the culture of our "movement" and organization is too radically racial for the average Tucker fan.
If we dilute our message enough, people will leave.
@ThisIsChris An ideal is a frame of reference that gives "important" or "unimportant" their meanings
I agree I just want to see us be able to tap that message somehow without losing o it essence
I do think there's somewhat of a happy medium, which is why the server rules as they are.
@Ald on that I really disagree, because the ideal is something that is not realistic it is a gift to those that want to slander us. Richard Spencer can't talk to a reporter without them asking him how he's going to remove nonwhites from America for his ethnostate. Ethnic removal is not really something we are thinking about or have any concrete plans to think about.