@Jacob I don't agree with that model. That's part of why I opposed renaming IE something more American in a debate here before. What I mean is more that, for example, I'm an officer in my college republicans and couldn't have gotten there if I revealed my power level

We shouldn't get complacent and think that civic nationalism will accomplish absolutely anything. The truth is, they're maybe 20% there at best, and they're destructive at worst. We should appeal to them, pretend to be them at times, but never assume they will accomplish anything alone.

It's up to us to corral and harness that energy into something EXPLICITLY identitarian 10-15 years down the line

@TMatthews Ya I agree that we should hide our power levels at times

@Deleted User You make a valuable point. The radical / 'extreme' leaders of the past harnessed the spirit of their people *at their time*, and then slowly channeled it in directions.

We should still talk to civnats at places like CPAC and push our ideals. We can help them in mainstream politics AND grow identitarianism simultaneously

@Deleted User What do you consider being an ideologue?

@Jacob Civic nationalism, instated TOMORROW. Would result in 11+ MILLION less central americans in our country with the snap of a finger.

and then we press for more.

Right, which is why I'd still vote for Trump given the choice

I guess the big issue is the dynamic of negotiation itself. We're told to ask for more than we'll get. We ask for civ nat, get even less. If we ask for identitarianism, could we get civNat?

Friendly reminder that Trump attacked Cruz very successfully in the primaries for expanding H1b. The average Republican wants less legal immigration

The problem is, if we wait until later to press for more, these ideas will just be forgotten by that point. That's why we need to promote more *now*.

It is such a delicate balance. How to open the Window without breaking it open or shutting it

Promoting now lays a groundwork for hopefully going mainstream in the metaphorical tomorrow

When communists were marching through institutions, they still had groups pressing for communism while they were creating front groups

We should have front groups, but we should still be pressing for actual identitarianism

@Jacob

@Jacob That's another reason a decentralized "broader movement" is good. I.E. is "good cop,"

those completely unwilling to compromise (short term) are those who are completely unwilling to win.

I'm obviously willing to compromise since I'm willing to vote for Republicans and all that. I just don't support the idea of pushing for civic nationalism in place of pushing for identitarianism.

I haven't seen any uncompromising positions here. Just understandable anxiety.

I would say that being uncompromisingly compromising is a little like being an idealogue, too.

I would never say something like "don't vote for this guy he's not radical enough" or whatever

The existence of our people is non-negotiable. Perhaps that makes me an ideologue. I am willing to work with people who don't quite get it though. This is too important to throw away potential allies

Jus' sayin'.

if you think 50% + of all Americans are going to be awoken to, or inspired by some completely obscure ideology coined by some french dude in the 1970's you're insane.

There's no reason to fight over this. You don't NEED to take a hard position until you can DO something with it.

We don't need to convert 50% of Americans, though.

@Deleted User You don't have to call it "identitarianism", you just argue specific positions

If we target political and financial elites, and sway enough of them, we win.

I think a lot of this is out of our hands because the left can't control itself. Even if Soros were by some strange chance to overcome his tribal instincts and realize that the left has pushed too far, his rabid pets wouldn't stand down. The modern left is composed of the ultimate ideologues and they will only double down, thus radicalizing normies. We simply have to be ready to present an attractable alternative to them.

We need power to exploit opportunity. Growing the organization is obviously what we all should focus on

@Wood-Ape - OK/MN Mate, nobody is fighting. Rigorous debate is the path to growth so long as it doesn't get personal.

I want MORE of this manner of conversation.

I've had much more success being explicit than pretending to be a civnat. People appreciate the honesty. Liberals can see through the whole civnat shtick anyway.

If our job is to 1. grow, 2. develop our members, 3. support eachother and network, and 4. awaken as many people to white-well-being as possible. I think I.E. does that well as is. We just need more people and money, and well do those things more and better.

Yeah, compromise should be a strategy, not a philosophy.

yep

Just hit the nail that I was beating around all night