> I always start with something like central banking. I've tried this one a few times and should give it a try more. I wasn't successful though but it was possibly too complicated for the conversation and wasn't a mutual topic. With work mates I more often get people either saying "I know" or they don't want to hear it because they invest money in the stock market and don't want me to be "a downer." Although, [here is another interesting one](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuYydr7615Y) that rests on a neutral front that can drum up good conversation. I have brought up: "Hey, did you hear that conspiracy that six of the seven NASA astronauts were apparently spotted after the explosion?" > But the number one thing to remember is to ease them in to it, many are not capable of handling a barrage of reality at once, they either will choose to deny all of it at which point they are lost, or they will get mind fucked. I agree that you have to hold a front rather than blasting it all in. You can't force it. But, if one rely's on being too slow they tend to never move the needle enough. So, you need a willing partner who is actually truth seeking and willing to believe you and trust you. During other events, I find I don't get intellectual fairness and just let them talk themselves into a logical paradox and point it out causing something like a cognitive short circuit. That moment in crisis is when they will accept new programming. But, as you said you have to carefully manage the front. In a way, it's like surfing a huge wave.