This is about half of what I want to write to provide you with some context and nuance for my original post which you quoted. If you actually read any of it respond and we can continue this discussion and really get to the bottom of my original assertions.
Basically the point I was getting at is how limiting dialogue, especially the dialogue that challenges the narrative being offered, is a system of control. When certain stories, trends, narratives etc are given mass coverage they become a default narrative that drives debate. In our society, the education system, the media, and the entertainment world coordinate to drive certain debates that reinforce their particular narratives. Competing interests are forced into this narrative debate because by not engaging in it they allow their competitors to drive and shape the narrative. Which limits time away from challenging or advocating a different narrative and the ability to influence people's minds and understanding in new ways. Thus controlling what is promoted and talked about which influences the general publics cultural and political opinions, perceptions and sensibilities. The general population looks around and sees that every group and interest are talking about the same things, (which means they are not getting alternative viewpoints). Always on the terms and conditions of the establishment I might add, which also sets the stage for the terms and conditions of society at large.
Which leads to the other concept people talk about, which is the Overton Window, which is the range of ideas the public will accept. When so much of the culture, entertainment, education, and media have certain biases (progressivism, multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism, secularism, internationalism, political correctness, Western guilt, etc.), it's hard to compete on the field of ideas and breakthrough with meaningful alternatives to people's perceptions. As the saying goes, politics is downstream from culture. The the ability to control the way society sees itself, identifies, behaves etc. is one of the most powerful tools that exist in the world, and is primarily in the hands of groups and interests that the IDW challenges and is challenged by. If the IDW gained influence in the way society sees itself, behaves, identifies, governs itself etc, will it be a paradigm shift that transforms the established order, or a more moderate tweaking of the status quo? Is that all the system needs?
How certain facts, trends, opinions, narratives, etc are covered, reported, spun, propagandized, used for narrative and/or proof and justification of narrative and policy is another major factor. The ability to shape public perception and public policy is probably the most powerful tool of the information war. The establishment is completely invested in it. As culture and demographics go, so goes the West. If the IDW doesn't win the narrative on culture and demographics, they will either be vanquished, assimilated, or irrelevant in the long run. In which case there is no real purpose for their existence as an alternative to the mainstream narrative other than as a form of entertainment that people consume as opposed to a movement that leads to positive developments in society. Is the IDW engaging in this crucial debate? Are they shifting the Overton Window here?
I believe the IDW is, whether knowingly or unknowingly, being used as a moderating force against those who are breaking away from the mainstream narratives, who I'm calling dissidents in this post. Generally, IDW members are a more digestible strain of dissident to the establishment if they ultimately have long-term success. They are are more in line with the narrow spectrum of debate offered by the mainstream if they do become serious competitors for shaping narrative going forward. They are less interested in highlighting the civilizational altering trends that have emerged in the West/World than other emerging dissident narratives. I also believe the IDW is less likely to defend itself from being infiltrated, subverted, and co-opted in the long run by the very forces they may currently challenge and which currently causes and justifies their existence as a movement. Maybe they will have success going forward, but will they prevent the movement from becoming that which created it in the first place? We've already had most Western institutions and political and cultural movements co-opted and subverted in the past by those who established the current order, and which most IDW patrons are investigating alternatives to. If you don't draw the line on where you stand on important topics, how can you define the identity of your narrative and ensure it is maintained? If people don't know what they are specifically signing up for, how can they determine the legitimacy of the cause, whether it is authentic, or whether it is having success.
I would also say that the IDW is playing Chess when maybe they should be playing Go. Maybe territory is more important than a checkmate in this spiritual struggle for influence over the culture that will drive politics. So an IDW member BTFO some nasty extremist or an establishment shill, checkmate! Does it really shift things for more cultural and political ground? Is it going to overcome hollywood, the media, the universities, or the outlook of powerful political and economic interests? Maybe more territory in culture can be controlled with networking and organisation than with individualism? Maybe a real palpable tangible identity is important to get people to seriously buy in to and embrace a meaningful alternative. Maybe leveraging the bigger influence of a group will make more waves in the cultural current? Maybe setting your own operating procedures will enable more success than the operating procedures your opposition sets for you? Is the IDW capable of turning it's challenge of the establishment into a finite game that can be won, and win it? Is what the IDW advocate for capable of ensuring the continuation of the infinite game?
My belief is that if the IDW can't convince people to organize, get married, raise families, leverage their influence politically, economically, and culturally, they are pointless. Their opposition will still own the media, the entertainment world, education, culture. Their opposition will always get better funding. Their opposition will steal the minds of their children and drown them with immigration. That is what the establishment is set up to do. Unless IDW patrons reproduce and perpetuate themselves, they won't have any long-term influence in society and they better hope for the mercy of their opponents. Is the IDW even making an attempt to accomplish such a thing? Do you think the establishment sees the IDW as a threat to do so? Or would the establishment rather drive dissidents toward the IDW than any movement or narrative that advocates for self perpetuation?
