Perspective

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

Leave a Reply

29 Comments on "Should You Debate The Fam Over The Holidays?"

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Michael Babb
Guest

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.

Craicher
Guest

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.

Weimar Republican
Guest
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… Read more »
Gubbler Chechenova
Guest
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… Read more »
Normie
Guest
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… Read more »
JamesLang
Guest

Race is the most important issue.

Normie
Guest

so ignorant whites in power (like trump) is paramount? yikes.

Emma Oliveira
Guest

Jews have higher IQ because they have higher verbal IQ but they are not that good when it comes to spacial IQ. They also aren’t that good at inventing things, similarly to Asians. White people have a desire for discovery, for inventions that can’t be matched by other races.
Also, Italians seem to be smarter
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5eefbcfc65435651edc0c21b60b3f1e9

Normie
Guest

Albert Eisenstein would disagree…

Barnabas Wagner
Guest
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… Read more »
Normie
Guest
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.… Read more »
Barnabas Wagner
Guest
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… Read more »
ddswaterloo
Guest

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.

Hipster Racist
Guest
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… Read more »
EsotericGoy
Guest

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.

Blue
Guest

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.

Hipster Racist
Guest

Even if White people were the dumbest people on the planet, I’d still be pro-White because Whites are *our* people.

Peacekeeper Press
Guest
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… Read more »
AbsurdinessBrown
Guest

Spent last Christmas trying this. Waste of frigging time. Boomers have baked in stupidity and moral arrogance that is only surpassed by their vanity and consumerism.

Krafty Wurker
Guest

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.

MartinA
Guest

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.

Lexi
Guest

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?

MartinA
Guest

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.

Andrew
Guest

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

Rascal
Guest

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.

Lexi
Guest
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… Read more »
alexanderzusammenbau
Guest
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… Read more »
Gubbler+Chechenova
Guest
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… Read more »
Vincent Law
Member

Interesting links.