I never drop the JQ as the first thing. I always start with something like central banking.
1: It's not set up to be an argument like say climate change or something.
2: It's tied to the JQ, but you can explain the whole thing without mentioning any of it's participants are of the nose.
3: Central banking is something the average person on both "sides" loathe, though for different reasons. But it's enough to start addressing it.
Once their mind opens up more you can drop a subtle JQ pill. Often times I find they ask the questions themselves, such as "Well why would they do that? Don't they X?" at which point you can start whipping out Talmud quotes and showing their history. People usually recoil at first and try to rationalize some reason why it can't be true, at which point I usually compare it to Islam by saying (paraphrased) "It says X in the Quran and we can point out how dangerous that makes them, don't you think that because it says X in the Talmud we should also be able to point out the dangers of that?" I have learned a lot of techniques over the years. 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 think this quite, from the same movie the redpill term is based on, actually sums it up nicely.
The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.
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, 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.
So, you need a willing partner who is actually truth seeking and willing to believe you and trust you.
Redpilled dating theory could go a long way here. The more you get a girl in love with you, the more submissive she will be and the more inclined she will be to agree with you. Even if she only pretends to agree with you so you like her, if she pretends to believe something long enough, the belief will become real.
It also will help a lot to date someone much younger. A younger girl will be, again, more submissive, and more likely to trust the wisdom you've earned with age. And people get more settled in their beliefs/programming with age, so a younger person will be more of a clean slate.
(post is archived)