I do think presenting ourselves as part of the broader right-wing coalition is a good thing, but I would hesitate to take stances on issues that don't pertain directly to demographics or identity

Well, I can't sing. Sorry

@TMatthews Minimal consensus ftw

Doing that would be nice, but even when Laura Ingrham talks about demographics she is immediately berated as a White Nationalist soo

@Virgil While that is true, Reconquista America is questionable optics, imo

And then the left is hated more and more as agitators and their words of derision lose Merit.

This goes back to the whole "they are gonna call you a Nazi anyways". Now that does not mean break out the armbands. But just let their accusation fall flat.

Yeah we can combine the unapologetic attitude with a more America first directed rhetoric

refuse to accept the framing, be offensive not defensive

Because frankly we're trying to normalize a concept more radical than simply America first, when America first hasn't even been Normalized

Implicitly pushing stuff works best when there's something to be pushed towards. Setting up front groups could be a good idea. Literal communists do it all the time, and they're doing great in the culture war.

Our name and logo are not gone in the slightest, in my opinion

Smaller front groups would be great, thought of that earlier

@Jacob When we have tons of Jewish money to waste on expendable people let me know

The key for me is to simply focus on saying "the left is anti-white" and "nonwhites will always practice identity politics"
Once the normie accepts those, you can make the case for why white identity politics is inevitable and necessary

@Jacob this is what I mean. We make far more progress entering already established groups or groups with different ideas and shifting them to us. We need to direct already established infrastructure and influence not try to start with nothing I agree with you 100% this is why every member should be in every political group or cultural group they can be in.

<:chad:359013583469805568> Chad dad Allsup firin' another shot across Lil' Ben's bow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXfnAMMpW_o?vq=hd1080

@Sam Anderson Ever heard of thing thing called a "bizness" - I think that's how you spell it, pretty new concept.

@Deleted User Late to the party perhaps, but I endorse a rebranding for all of the reasons you listed. But also, as we've both been in here for quite some time, I think we can agree that this isn't the same org that it was at the beginning. The political environment is different from then and the level of professionalism that we show is much greater. We have jettisoned everything else that didn't\stopped working, I feel as if we should move into the future with an identity that matches the times and where we want to be.

Let me check what my major is again hol up

I've been a college republican for 4 weeks and have already rubbed elbows with notable people who agree with us to a degree as well as individuals who could be convinced with the right rhetoric.

@Sam Anderson You don't need a billion dollars to subvert a College Republicans chapter

^

It's way easier than I expected tbh

Don't think of it as subverting. We are a growing faction within the Republican Party. We belong there, and our ideas are slowly getting more and more mainstream

Changing the Republican party from the inside is our best bet of getting White identity politics into the WH

@Goldstein Riots Tom is right. Too many people in here want to be ideologues, rather than win. We need to be pragmatic, realistic and forward looking - obviously we can't abandon our core values, ever, either - but appealing to powerful factions is the way forward.

Ideologues never win.

@TMatthews our ideas are mainstream, but most white people know they will get fired and ostracized for them.

It will be way easier to become a respected and powerful faction of the party using America first rhetoric than obscure meta political concepts

@Kingfish Are you saying reading Neitszche obsessively is not gonna win?

The GOP didn't really oppose affirmative action until after Duke nearly won the Louisiana senate seat and they co-opted that idea. Not a fan of his really, but the party can be made to change to suit its base

@Sam Anderson will to power bro!

IN A SENSE EHE

Civnats for instance, they get alot of hate but they are halfway there and LITERALLY WANT TO CONSTRUCT A 30 FOOT WALL ON THE MEXICAN BORDER AND PHYSICALLY ROUND UP AND DEPORT 12 MILLION MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN.

Like come on, that's a pretty good starting point.

Why should we NOT court these people

They also have funding, infrastructure, and influence

I don't necessarily mind a rebrand, just please don't turn this into a civnat group. If we're going to rebrand, it should be to get away from Charlottesville and Eli and maybe make the name more intuitive, but not to make us look like civnats.

I support taking over other groups and having people like James appeal to civic nationalism, but we absolutely need to have explicit groups.

We're gonna leave these resources by the wayside for ideological purity?

Some of these boomers will get really FEDposty if given the chance. It channels their Bush era war mongering motives.

We should court civnats, but we can't become them. That means convincing them that race matters

Doing explicitly Nationalist action yields implicit Identitarian results.