Message from @Benis
Discord ID: 501249991860551680
Anyone who listens to us for five minutes knows we're White Nationalists
Better to be who we are than scurry around looking for strange new words to euphemize it as if we're ashamed
@Singleton Mosby WV Not religious at all but that is easily something I could see myself saying in dark times
>Americans want to hear about safety, money, borders, etc. The root ideology can be identitarianism, but frankly I don't think it's what middle American average Joe types want to hear or will feel connection with.
That's probably true, but there's already a Trump movement addressing those issues. We can touch on them as well, but if we abandon our niche we'll become an ineffective version of the Proud Boys.
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.