Somewhat ironically, there is a certain degree of open-mindedness you need to have in this sphere of white nationalist hoe-scaring politics if you want to debate things with people who may be more radically inclined than you and still come to sound conclusions.
You need to be able to receive a really counter-intuitive claim and calmly chew on it for a while instead of immediately spitting it out and shrieking at the person serving it to you, because we live in a time and place where the lies we're told are so big and ugly that it almost necessitates an equally big and ugly truth to shatter it. (You could always swallow the claim whole of course, but that makes both you and this analogy kinda gay)
For example, when I was but a young and impressionable sperg with a shitty internet connection, I came into the online political autism thunderdome with the intent of arguing with right wingers about how their racism was bad, blah blah blah, but I think it took me less than a year to have my world turned upside down and my entire (admittedly shallow) political outlook on things reversed - not because i was subtley manipulated and radicalised, but because I made the fatal error of actually entertaining the claims people made and considering them seriously, as i thought I was supposed to do as a good-faith debater.
I was ultimately convinced by the right wingers I argued with that, no, it was the liberals who were the real racists. I was rhetorically bodyslammed by the "soft bigotry of low expectations" before that phrase even became common parlance. Before long, it was undeniable that this phenomenon of libtards treating ethnic minorities like fucking toddlers was exactly what I was actually observing, because once you can actually see it you realise its fucking everywhere. Of course, I know now that this is simply a symptom of a much more complex pathology, but it still remains true.
The same thing eventually happened to me on race and IQ. On crime statistics. On some more niche topics, on holocaustarianism, on the foid question, on all sorts of things that challenged my perception of the world around me in a way that I was always told going to a university would challenge me, but in fact did the exact opposite of challenging my thinking. Instead, it tried to teach me that I need to forever rely on the consensus opinion if I ever want to reach the truth of any given topic.
Random retards on the Internet calling me a brainwashed idiot and dismantling my poorly constructed arguments taught me more about how to navigate the world than any teacher I paid exorbitant fees to, and it took me a while to get this fact through my head. It probably did help immensely that i've always felt a sort of magnetism towards weird and interesting people and opinions (even if i don't share them) and that i've never punished a friendship over a friend's odd or incongruous views. If i didnt have that attraction to the weird and wonderful, i probably would have had a harder time peeling myself out from underneath the Great and Almighty Consensus Opinion.
Now, having been through the nuclear level infohazard that was Covid-19 and coming out the other side both totally unvaxed and not permanently tarred as a crazy person by my friends and family (a rare combination in my world), i believe i possess the credentials to be able to say this:
There is a limitation on what kind of crazy shit you can say to someone even as open-minded as I try to be, before you lose them completely and you also begin to inflict collateral psychic damage on bystanders who are definitely not going to be very accommodating to such outlandish claims.
"I'm in solidarity with the radical left, muslims, and anyone else i deem appropriate" is the kind of statement i've chewed on for quite some time, and while I do understand the mathematics behind it, i can definitively say that there is no circumstance where I dont spit it straight in the fucking bin.