Should You Debate The Fam Over The Holidays?

Submitted by Alexander Zusammenbau

Thanksgiving has passed, but the family gatherings are nowhere near over. And at every Christmas table around the country, there is the eternal smug left-wing boomer, smirking at you wine in hand as he makes a joke about Trump and then chastises you for “getting too political.”

“Did you see those ‘It’s ok to be white’ fliers? Its as if they don’t know what the current year is!”

The lowest form of activism, though a crucial one, is talking to your family and friends. But I think it is high time we discuss how to properly persuade and avoid your relatives just seeing you as the crazy family member who always rants about the jews at every family gathering.

If you look into the statistics and science of things like race, you quickly discover issues which make most people find utterly unpalatable. So while you, someone who has dedicated much of their time to uncovering this eye-opening information, would naturally regard IQ and Racial Crime Statistics as interesting, to everyone else this is like jumping into cold water. People need to have reason to want to go into the water on their own, and even then to enter slowly. If we look to current popular political ideas, we see everything presented in clear black and white morality; our side is the good guys who stand for everything decent, and your side is evil.

If you wish to argue with logic, you can immediately be brought to an argumentative standstill when the opposing party recalls a study which disagrees with you. While they may be misremembering or likely didn’t read anything beyond the headline, without either of you having the research in your hand, it becomes your word against theirs; and the silent majority on the fence is going to side with the more palatable opinion.

What I am getting at here is that if you are asked, “Why do you even have a problem with Mexicans immigrating?” Your answer should briefly mention the issues of crime and poverty, but be focused on the ethos of your culture and people being destroyed. A prolific and successful writer of radical newspapers made the following appeal to emotion, and I believe it exemplifies how an ideology not only gets its adherents motivated but also brings people off the fence and onto their side.

I am aware, that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hand of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; — but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest — I will not equivocate — I will not excuse — I will not retreat a single inch — AND I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead.
— To the Public

Hell yeah! Now, who wrote this masterpiece? Thomas Jefferson?  Rockwell? Jared Taylor? Maybe even our very own Vincent Law? That piece was written and published by William Lloyd Garrison in his abolitionist newspaper, The Liberator.

Wait what?

This is the point that I am making, Garrison in this address cited the Declaration of Independence’s preamble “all men are created equal” as the reason for his cause being just. To the majority, it does not matter if the cause is built on a sandy foundation and that the nuances don’t make sense, what matters is that they have moral superiority, a purpose, a Crusade which they are on or a Jihad against which they are defending. In Garrison’s own words, just 30 years before the Civil War, the north itself was in a similar paralleled state that we find ourselves in today.

During my recent tour for the purpose of exciting the minds of the people by a series of discourses on the subject of slavery, every place that I visited gave fresh evidence of the fact, that a greater revolution in public sentiment was to be effected in the free states — and particularly in New-England — than at the south. I found contempt more bitter, opposition more active, detraction more relentless, prejudice more stubborn, and apathy more frozen, than among slave owners themselves.
— William Lloyd Garrison, To the Public

This desire to be morally justified rather than correct is a depressing thought, and I as much as the next guy would like to just allow the evident correctness and superiority of our ideology to make these impassioned calls to action for us, but the people are not concerned with the truth. When they wish to view our thinking through the objective lens of scholarly inquiry, they will consider the statistics and historical philosophical precedent which backs us up. But this is not the political dialect of the layman; people grasp onto sentence long soundbites which they can repeat at the water cooler at work or the Starbucks with their upper-middle class SWPL friends. These people while perhaps not stupid, are ignorant of many of these nuances, they want a simple answer when there is not one, but the left wing offers them this simple explanation. They say to the politically uneducated, the college female or soyboy who has never had a struggle in their life, “Fear not, we are the good guys, and we are here to protect the little people’s rights against the big evil bad guys.” Of course, when you bring up logically sound arguments to them they bounce off their thick skulls; it is not relevant, all that matters is that they are morally justified, you and your statistics must just be racist. If the abolitionists argued their point through constitutional law, they would have never been heard; no one wants to listen to a person they disagree with drone on about the technicalities of their ideology, they want you to pound on your chest and explain to them the horrors of a world where your pleas go unanswered.

What I’m advocating is not that you become illiterate in our doctrine, but rather that you need to handle most people with kid gloves. Without a deep understanding of the literature surrounding this movement, you can’t make a truly persuasive argument anyway. I know not everyone is an orator, so just stick to the NAP when it comes to bringing up politics with people you disagree with, and agree to disagree.

Unless you’ve got some powerful, id-rending arguments and quips on tap, don’t try it.

The reams of statistical evidence you think you can bring up to support your point won’t save you. Only tapping into the dark emotional side of argumentation will. You have to be willing to do so…

Enjoy the holiday season!

Guest Writer
the authorGuest Writer


  • I recognized Anglin as a legitimate voice for this movement when he urged his followers not to alienate their families.
    You need your people, fam. Know when to keep quiet.

  • Interesting take is that years ago at family gatherings in Sweden political topics would come up. Many had differing veiws. One uncle was a dyed in the wool communist. Thing is feminism and multicultiralism was nowhere on the radar. It was about things White men can debate; how to have a successful economy for all, environmental issues, family issue of stability. The communist uncle would be considered a racist, fascist mysoginist today. My, my how things have changed.

  • Make a habit of never discussing politics with people, especially women and family. Nothing fruitful comes from it. That is why we have the Internet. Unleash all of your angst there rather than alienating your IRL kinship.

    White families are disintegrating faster than any nigger’s did during the crack epidemic. So many jokes about incestuous whites are made even though most whites see their cousins and siblings maybe once a year for Christmas. Most whites have become estranged from at least some of their relatives, while Negroes and Hispanics are constantly around their ‘aunties’ and cousins (Hmmm no wonder they always speak of incest).

    Whites are atomized, while nonwhites are not. We have to apologize as a preface to discuss how awful a certain race is, even amongst exclusively white people because only white people have this suicidal, vicarious empathy for other groups.

    No other race does this. No other race have political disagreements because they all vote Democrat. They go to barber shops and speak freely about how awful the white man is. The only thing that may alienate their people is constant negativity from said person. It is quite a phenomenon that whites do not have the luxury of experiencing.

    I would not call that Darwinian fitness in the way that white male unemployment can be positively shamed because Negro unemployment is championed as long as they sling dope and become gangsters…which our society worships if they can throw a ball or a stuttered lyric.

  • If nation-states are bad, let Israel open its borders and allow Arabs and Muslims to Merkelize it.

    And US shouldn’t send another dime to Israel unless it dispenses with nation-statism and welcomes Merkelization.

    The real reason why nation-states are under attack are threefold:

    1. Jews see gentile nation-state-ism as barrier to their penetration, takeover, and elite dominance. This is why nation-statism is good for Israel but ‘bad’ for other nations, at least according to Jews. But when Jews say ‘nation state’ is bad, they mean it’s bad for THEIR OWN agenda. Of course, Jews know it would be selfish to say as much, so they pretend it’s bad for the gentile natives. So, it must be a terrible for Poland to want to remain Poland. It’s in the interest of Poles to improve their nation with massive invasion by Africans and Muslims.
    For some reason, it’s supposed to be GREAT for natives to allow invasion and then be replaced and erased by masses of New _____. So, New Irish are supposed to replace the Old Irish. There was a time when New World and Old World were separate entities. Now, all Old Nations must be made anew by masses of invaders. All natives must be Indianized. And these New People are to be non-whites who serve as the mercenary army for Jewish globalists. It’s like how ‘America’ has become a metaphor for a global phenom. EU has become ‘America’ for the wretched.

    2. Non-whites want to access and leech off white nations. They want from whites what they can’t create for themselves. They are a bunch of losers who want something from whites, but they are too embarrassed to admit it. They prefer to live with whites and under whites than with or under their own kind. They find white world(esp northern european ones or northern european-made ones) better in every way. Since it’s be shameful to admit how they loathe their own kind and prefer to live with whites than people just like themselves, they’ve wrapped their BS leechery with ‘humanitarian’ talk and crap about ‘economic benefits’…. or redress for ‘past injustice’.
    If they are such benefit to economy, why don’t they fix their own economies. This closet-white-supremacism can be found in the poorest African nation to richest Asian nations. There’s been much talk about the great expansion of India and China, but more than half their populations will come to Canada or US if given the chance. UN represents the material greed of the Third World but uses moral language. It’s utterly corrupt, the notion that the poorer masses can invade and take over any nation that is richer and nicer.

    3. White cucks, through madness of their own or brainwashing by PC or both, have self-righteousness as their main identity. They are addicted to feeling oh so holy. They’re like junkies, or justice junkies. Some of them are cuckish for material reasons. I don’t think Bill Clinton or Joe Biden has any personal principle. They just latch onto any nonsense that happens to be the official truth of the Current Year. Biden welcomes white erasure just to keep his own privilege in a globo-elite world. I think same goes for Merkel the bitch. But there are true believers as well. It’s either cultural roots or genetics, but some
    of these Northern European types have an earnest need to go puritanical over something. And ‘social justice’ is like pure cocaine for them. It makes them feel so high. Calling another white person a ‘racist’ or ‘nazi’ or calling for erasure of evil whiteness is like smoking crack for them. And there is the element of pop culture. Many white people have pop culture as their main culture. So, the combo of PC nuttery and Pop amnesia creates morons like Justin Trudeau.


    It must begin by stop calling these invaders ‘immigrants’.

    They are colonizers. When just a few arrive, they add spice and color. But they are coming in huge numbers to take over and replace the natives.

    They are replacists and erasists, and there is nothing lower than whites who surrender to this.

    Also, if the West promotes this as the New Normal, then it will serve as a template for all nations(except Israel of course), and then, we will live in the Age of Empire all over again. But this isn’t just military conquest of other lands and nations. It is demographic invasion of other places, which will lead to permanent destruction of people and culture.

    These ‘immigrants’ must be called by their true name: Hordes and Swarms. Hordes of invaders and swarms of globo-lucusts or globocusts.

  • not understanding one of the main tenants of your argument on this site: high iq and crime stats are paramount. don’t jews have the highest iq and the lowest levels of violent crime?
    if blacks and hispanics are “ruining our society because of their low iq and high crime rate” why wouldn’t we want jews in positions of power and white trash high school drop outs retaining unearned power just based off of their skin color?
    i for one am all for a meritocracy if were doing it by experience and iq. i doubt the writers on this site would like the results if they want to actually look at the facts on iq and crime.

    • Jews act as a virus towards any host culture they inhabit. They suck the wealth of a nation through their usurious banking schemes. They promote extreme individualism within business at the expense of the nation and her people’s interests, ending in destructive monopolies. They push distasteful degeneracy upon the nation through their domination of Hollywood and the music industry. They are the leading voices behind mass importation of third world era into our lands.

      For these very reasons ( which can be researched and verified) they deserve to be viewed with the utmost contempt and the desire the be rid of them is wholly justifiable.

      Their high iq and unwillingness to engage in physically aggressive and forthright crimes ( due to cowardice alone) is irrelevant.

      • wrong.
        we can go back and forth bringing up a straw man for every ill of the world.
        this site rightly is fighting against the pc culture of blaming white males for everything… then, the turn around and ironically blame everything on the Jews…
        if whites aren’t to blame for the violence perpetrated on weaker tribes of people throughout history, why would Jews be blamed for a few of their tribe being excellent at monetary schemes.
        the INDIVIDUALS who brutally murdered people throughout history deserve scorn, as the INDIVIDUAL Jews who are high up in the banking systems deserve scorn.
        you can’t use straw man arguments, and then hate people for using straw man arguments against your culture.
        it’s wrong. i get that a lot of people want to “blame” someone… white people, blacks, Jews… that’s a cancer. learn to judge people on their individual merits.
        instead of electing people that are puppets on both sides lets elect people who want to break up the monetary system. trump was a liar and a phony and EVERYONE KNEW IT. he was just your liar… at some point normal people have to stand up. people who don’t want to cast blame and punish.
        spewing hate for a minority group will come back to bite you every time.
        soon whites will be a minority. i’ll be right there telling hater brown people to judge the individual as well.

        • Theirs a fine line to be drawn between recognizing individual merits and simultaneously ignoring all collectivist observations.

          If an honest thinker rightly observes the ills perpetrated by a certain group that does not mean he surrenders his or another’s individual angency.

          You would do well to add a little nuance to your thought process.
          As to your statement on whites who call out the JQ being hypocrites. That is a testament to your inability to think objectively and follow ideas to their logical conclusion. As is the case with your naive need to cling to democracy, fancifully believing voting will overthrow the monetary system.

          I would some up your comment as non thinking babble and a waste my time.

  • Huh??? What did this say???

    Use talking points a la Horus the AVenger. Look it up.

    They work. Don’t quote stats when anti-Whites don;t care about except to rationalize their position.

  • The fam ranges from totally non-political (the women) to moderately to fanatically pro-Trump (the men.) Sure some are of the “liberals are the real racists” variety. Correctly, I’m the most liberal, and the most racist.

    This desire to be morally justified rather than correct

    Absolutely, which is why the late Bob Whitaker, even from his cryogenically frozen state, is still the best pro-White thinker today. Being anti-White is *immoral* and *evil* – being pro-White is good and just. Since “anti-racist” is just a code word for anti-White, those who are against “racism” are really just against White people, and are immoral, evil sick fanatics.

  • I find the best way to go about this is to use real life examples that show the foolishness of multiculturalism etc. If your family members are at the least basic bitch conservatives, there’s probably several areas of agreement, like Kate’s Wall. If they commit to ideas like that, you can slowly push them a bit further, but it has to be slow and gradual. Reciting Culture of Critique at the dinner table won’t work.

  • I never bring up group differences in intelligence with my family, because it creates the confusion that I value people based on their intelligence, which I don’t.

  • The main thing is to be comfortable in your own ideas. To not have a chip on the shoulder.

    Sometimes a true opponent will try to rile you up. Don’t get riled. Turn the tables on them. “OK. We disagree,” say softly. Then change the subject. “Mind passing me some pumpkin pie?”

    Let them get riled up that they can’t rile you up.

    In my experience, some people may actually agree with me but speak against me to test my loyalty to my own ideas. They are not true opponents. They are searching for answers.

    So, don’t fall into the trap of thinking that everyone who disagrees with you is also opposed to you. Evaluate every case on its own merits. Someone may secretly be a fan, but just not ready to show it in a social setting.

  • The best way to get along at any family gathering is to bring a case of beer (one that you would drink), a box of candy or a pie, and if you are flush, a food item like a smoked ham. It’s Christmas spend a few bucks on good will. Works every time.

  • I say: “I just feel more comfortable and safe among whites”. And since everyone else does too they will all secretely be greatful that I said it.
    Or I say: “I just care more about the history of my people than I do about others, I feel kinship with those that came before”

    You cant argue against feelings. They stand on their own. And if others share my feelings and I merely voice what they feel, its a win.

    • Truth. You cannot argue against feelings, especially now that the hegemonic Left has said so. If everyone’s preferences are equal to everyone else’s, why am I not entitled to my preference for survival over extinction for my people?

      • Well, they can say “you have no bases to feel what you feel”. Which is a logical argument. But logical arguments always lose to emotion, just as you cant use emotion against physical violence. Its the three levels of conflict, mental, emotional and physica.
        Anyway, if someone says “you have no basis for your feeling” I just say “I still feel that way”. And if others in the room feel what i feel, which they do if they have any experience of non whites, i still win because they sympathize and wish they could say what i say.

  • Man I love these articles about using emotional identitarian arguements which never give you one concrete example. Talk about begging the question

    • Do you have kids? Ask grandma why she wants her Grand daughter to live in Mexico, having to ride in “Green cars” because if she doesn’t, she is almost guaranteed to get raped or kidnapped by some cartel.

      • I disagree with this article, because I think you are right that our views can often be summed up quite cogently in a well-placed one-liner, or better yet, a rhetorical question.

        “Why should Whites support DACA knowing that recipients will be entitled to affirmative action preference over our own kids?

        If there is an answer to this, I haven’t heard it. Also, technically you’re just arguing for equal rights, but you are also speaking as a White person who doesn’t hate himself. That is taboo-shattering all on its own, in a relatively non-threatening kind of way.

        They might say, “affirmative action mainly benefits White women.” The best response is this: “Well then, you would support abolishing it, right.” This will shut them up right quick, as it exposes their lie.

    • Sorry if you didn’t like the article, I am not yet some big prolific writer so these aren’t hollow words. I thought the inclusion of Garrison’s first quote would have solved your issue, as it could verbatim be applied to our issues as well. The problem is the emotional appeals usually need to be specific to the situation, as I am not the best writer I wanted to avoid giving you some edgy quotes which came off as fedora tipping “heh, nothing personnel kid” tier one-liners. If you can stick to the sentiment of Garrison’s response, that you are merely attempting to practice your culture and see your family grow up in a country where people accept them, you should be fine. I’ll give some examples, sure: If someone tells you about how white people were America’s first illegal immigrants, “Well founding a new nation and building all your own infrastructure and settlements from scratch isn’t what I would consider immigration, but even if they were; the entire culture of the Natives was destroyed including their language and way of life, is that what we want happening to ourselves?” Or just generally placing yourself as a man in desperate resistance, you don’t need to name (((them))) or anything, because once you do your opinion is disgarded as racist, speak of love not hate, speak to your love for your race and your family, how witnessing the destruction of your culture and history and the legacy of the country your fore bearers dedicated the sweat off their back every day of their life to build makes you want to cry and curl up into a ball; but you know that you cannot, you must fight, because give up is to betray your children and ensure the rape of everything you hold dear.

      Hey Lexi, if I had to think of a left-wing response to your first question, it would be “Because they are human beings and shouldn’t just be shipped to a country they never lived in just because I don’t want to have to pay for them to live. Also, most DACA kids are college educated and don’t need to go on welfare.” They have taken it to emotions and categorized you, in their mind, as someone of inferior moral standing. You could try to argue the statistics of the DACA recipients with them but in their mind, it is already over, and it comes down to you both trying to remember a study you read without having it in front of you. A lot of people think the “Red Pill” is having people accept every truth of our ideology, but I am not so sure. I believe the redpill is when they start to believe that whites deserve to exist and that there are many people frothing at the mouth trying to destroy them. From there they will come to our side on their own terms.

  • Finally watched WORLD ACCORDING TO GARP. I avoided this like a plague all these years, and for good reason it turns out.

    The seeds of everything that went crazy with Liberalism can be glimpsed here. It took time for the cancer to spread, but once New England Puritanism lost God, it had to find other causes and needs in an idyllic world of privilege. The nuthouse in the movie is like so many elite colleges in the East Coast.
    Victimhood as fetish for demented brats. These are people who do everything to escape from reality but pretend to save the world.
    The movie’s view of feminism is ambiguous, but soulless eccentricity, esp of the mother, is supposed to be admirable, even redemptive.

    We are living in the Age of Garp and Gump.

    Liberals turned into Garps, freakdom as new normal, and Conservatives turned into Gumps, dumb dogs easily manipulated by the Power.

    Praise be Kek in America is that divided between Garpia and Gumpia. Indeed, we live in Garpngumpia.

    Women raising sons alone in a fatherless world as an ideal. World is getting sick.

Leave a Reply