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

Ha ha! Glad to be of service.

I like the rigorous debate. I haven't seen too much of that in here.

Rules to IE debate:
1. Argue in good faith
2. Don't get personal
3. Don't get butthurt

@Deleted User I just worry about fracturing and implosion. Every day. That's a personal fear of mine, not reflective of I.E.'s dynamic.

We need people at all levels of explicitness. What I take issue with, is I see people sometimes arguing that promoting civic nationalism is somehow *more* effective than promoting identitarianism. No, it really isn't, because it's ultimately useless, and no one is promoting the next step, people will never reach the next step. If we play this silly game of "oh, we'll just promote identitarianism *after* we've turned the whole country civnat", then by the time you're ready to promote identitarianism, their won't be any identitarians left to promote it.

This is why civic nationalism can be destructive if taken too far. It just makes people complacement. It tells them they have a solution and they can just end right there.

@Jacob Pretty much all the friends I still associate with know I'm in IE, never had an issue.

So i agree, pretending to be civnat is lame.

Is this path more difficult? Ya, I guess. But this is the only path to victory. Becoming civnats isn't victory, it's moving the goalpost.

busy day tomorrow, boys. Good chat. Don't be retards in my absence.

@Jacob moving that post toward victory.