Stoicism - not what you think

 Stoicism is a practical way of life, and probably not what you think:

Sunday verse

 

Wait, apparently Twitter is...right-leaning???

According to a report, Twitter is unfairly amplifying voices from the right. Most people on the right see Twitter as a progressive cesspool. But nope, not true (*sarcasm*):

Last week, Twitter released a 27-page, in-depth analysis that relied significantly on AllSides Media Bias Ratings™ to explore whether Twitter’s recommendation algorithms amplify political content.

The report found media outlets AllSides rates as being on the right are amplified slightly more — 4% more — than outlets AllSides rates as on the left.

Among other things, the analysis sought to examine whether Twitter’s algorithm amplifies certain types of political groups more than others, and whether some news outlets are amplified more than others. Twitter also looked at whether news media algorithmic amplification favors one side of the political spectrum more than the other.

 All Sides concludes that it is pleased to see "Twitter exploring potential bias in its algorithm using AllSides Media Bias Ratings™, and hope to see more research of this type in the future."  But frankly, this smacks of Twitter using a system to justify it's treatment of conservatives.

It doesn't take into account shadow-banning of conservatives, outright banning of well known conservatives  and the potential methodology involved.  That all aside, Twitter is openly an echo chamber of the left and a lot of us on the right have had to abandon it for Parler or Gettr.  We see it for ourselves.  I work with statistics as part of my job.  I understand that anecdotal evidence is not the way to interpret the world.  But I also understand that statistics can be manipulated.  Computer models that rely on statistics are only as good as the inputs and rules they have been instructed to use.  Statistics in short, can be manipulated, and in fact it is not easy to remove bias from statistics.  They are valuable, but only when used properly, not designed to serve a narrative.

L.O.L.

It's ridiculous and it works in our favor, but remember when Trump was president we had issues getting people on the same page too - Obamacare still exists, the border is not secure, we had to wait for Brandon to get out troops of Afghanistan.

But it is still funny (and good) when it happens to the other side.  Nancy Pelosi: not wanted in her own caucus meetings...

This is false. The Speaker dropped by the CPC to listen but had to leave for an event honoring former Rep. Nita Lowey at the Library of Congress. She was in the room for approx 12 minutes. https://t.co/jDatNUqPtq

— Drew Hammill (@Drew_Hammill) October 28, 2021

Notice the spin from her chief of staff? It's also funny to see leftists fighting leftists. L.O.L.

Tales from the front line of cancel culture (comedians)

Comedians  are on the front line of cancel culture. The good news is they are not afraid.  At least not these guys:

No safe spaces (from transgender students)

The world has lost any sense of reason.  But thankfully not the whole world, only the woke world.  It's heartening to hear that parents are pushing back.  Let's hope the AG does not also try to classify them as terrorists for doing so.

Let's Go Brandon dominates on iTunes

 As it should.  But this iTunes domination is great to see:

I should also point out that I have refused to mention the leader of the current administration by name this year.  The meme has provided me an alternative to referring to him as "that guy" or "C'mon man!".  So thanks for that memeologists.

This guy could have been on the Supreme Court

 Thank God, he didn't get there.  Kudos to Tom Cotton for not relenting in his questioning.

How many ways is this wrong? Please comment.

I have an unfortunate relationship with Google and YouTube, as in one that exists.  Millions of people do.  So when their brain trust come up with stuff like this, you can't do much to prevent it, even though you are using their applications.

Why is this wrong?  I have plenty of my own thoughts, but please add your thoughts in the comments. It would be great to play with their algorithm on a video like this.  That's about the best form of protest I can come up with.

Dictator Watch: China's hidden propaganda market

This is real, as exposed by a foreigner who used to live in China. It's horrible what the Chinese Communist Party is willing to do in order to deceive their own people into a sense of moral superiority and superiority in general.

How to use the left's media against itself

Political jiu-jitsu: Tim Pool talks about this leftist Reddit site mocking COVID vaccine resistors who got fired. But there happen to be a lot of frontline workers among those fired for refusing the vaccine. The trick to get the left to use it's media against themselves? Allow them the opportunity to mock you for doing good things.  They'll blow it up among themselves, and some of them might come to a realization that they are being complete...jerks, by denigrating people who have good intentions.  I mean not a lot of them, but anyone with any human decency would think twice about this sort of behavior.  They are potential future allies.

But even more importantly, would you have had any idea of the level of resistance to vaccine mandates if you had not seen this Reddit? 

How Central Banks plan to co-opt digital currency

Central Banks are not just standing by waiting for Bitcoin to take over their roles.  Would you expect anything different from them?

Sunday verse

 

Examples to follow: Fired ESPN reporter hired by Daily Wire

Kudos to Daily Wire for hiring talented people who are putting personal ethics and beliefs ahead of dictatorial vaccination mandates.  Kudos to Allison Williams for sticking to her guns.  ESPN and Disney are either caving to government mandates or are explicitly complicit in the mandate agenda.  Whichever the case is, we know that individual liberty must trump political agenda.

While my Rules for Patriots does not explicitly call for keeping an eye out for fellow defenders of liberty (Patriots), it's a logic extension of Rule #3 (Don't Do It Alone).  Beyond that it's just a good moral position to take.

Tim Pool's multiple home runs in one video

 Tim Pool, nailing it multiple times:

COVID as opportunity. Pay attention conservatives.

Jeff Deist discusses why COVID is an opportunity for the Right. In my 10th Rule for Patriots (Be Prepared), I mentioned the Democratic mantra 'never let a crisis go to waste'.  COVID is not a crisis, but it is messed up situation.  That's the closest to a crisis it actually gets.  Jeff Deist is right, this is an opportunity, not just a threat. He argues it's an opportunity for new ideas to be presented.  He's right, but I think it's bigger than that.

[2023 UPDATE:  The above video was removed, here's a related video instead]

What I see as the real opportunity is to further push things like working from home. That facilitates decentralization. Decentralization of any kind, including work environments, enables decentralization of living locations which in turn enables a more rural populace, which is conducive to common sense, and conservatism. To me that's the real opportunity. The other Democratic mantra, demographics is destiny is not wrong, but they have overplayed the racial aspect of that. There are so many attributes that are part of demographics and you can overwhelm the 'systemic racism' messaging with demographics. Rural vs. urban is a lever that serves conservatism. Let people flee California. Encourage work from home, encourage the opportunity for small town values to flourish.

Wait, this isn't real, right?

 This is way too specific, not to mention creepy.

Joe Manchin's In/Out 2-step

Joe Manchin, U.S. senator from West Virginia, reportedly is leaving the Democratic party.  Except apparently he's not.  If he did, it could shift the balance of power in the senate.  But at this point the speculation seems a little bit premature, as does the denial.

There's still hope

China is not going to win global domination.  Here's a rationale as to why from Bill Whittle.  Keep in mind this is not a license to ignore China's ambitions or developments.  It's a message of hope for those who have lost it.

China's nefarious (and real) bio-warfare ambitions

 This is truly frightening, and evil:

Why anyone would do business with country, even for large amounts of profit, is unfathomable.

Sunday verse

 

Rules for Patriots - Rule #10 Be Prepared

This is a continuation of my Rules for Patriots series, designed as a patriot's guide to success in fighting the creeping progressivism infecting America. It's a conservative response to Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. This series is a lengthy read, but it is very important to understand.  This one happens to be a video, so it's more digestible. Being able to use this approach, as a team, will simplify, streamline and expedite achieving our patriotic objectives.

Links to previous rules: Rule #9, Rule #8, Rule #7, Rule #6, Rule #5, Rule #4Rule #3, Rule #2 and Rule #1.

Be Prepared

If there is one thing that ensures failure more than all other things, it is being unprepared. Sun Tzu's Art of War stresses many things, but above all, preparedness.  Being prepared means being prepared at many different levels. You must be prepared strategically, tactically, rhetorically, and ready for unexpected events.  The Democratic mantra of "never let a crisis go to waste" is a valuable mantra.  Contrast it with the Republican mantra of "oh no, what do we do now?" and you know who is going to have a significant advantage when the time comes.  Where the Democratic advantage has a weakness is that they do not necessarily anticipate the crises to come, they are merely reacting quickly.  That can be beaten with preparedness.

Strategic Preparedness

Strategically, there are certain goals that need to be identified.  Tactics, crisis management and even debates will all flow from strategic preparedness.  What you say, how you act and react all must flow from what it is you wish to achieve.  As an example, Democrats and the mainstream media seem to always parrot each other, using the same talking points.  Dismissively, we often regard this as Groupthink. And usually it lacks any independent thought from the speaker repeating it, but it comes from a place of discipline; staying on message. While the message most often does not stand up under the scrutiny of critical thinking, the reality is that most people do not use critical thinking in response to everything they hear or read.  Thus the message can slip through that filter and the repetition, very often the lie, becomes the 'fact' that people believe. It becomes the conduit to confirmation bias.

The components to a quality strategic plan have the following:

• A clear, definable and achievable objective AND a realistic, reasonable timeline to accompany it
• The right tools available or attainable to use in pursuit of the objective
• The right people in place (or attainable) to use those tools
• A robust inventory of not just those internal inputs but also external ones (e.g. what are Democrats doing, what else can impact us) 
• Synergy (or at a minimum, no conflicts) with other strategic objectives

Once these are established you can develop a roadmap - a "how do we get there from here?" plan.  It's often easier to reverse engineer that - start at where you want to be and work backwards to where you are now.  The plan must include milestones and metrics to measure progress and success ( a factual feedback loop).  It is important to have a mechanism for a communication plan that explains internally what is happening and what is next.    The plan must also have a plan for external communication - what we want the public to know (the talking points) as well as when to communicate to the public and how to do so effectively, in an uncooperative/unfriendly communication climate.

Once the strategy is place the tactical pieces can begin.  Regular evaluation of the real world situation relative to the plan must occur frequently.  However, do not allow over-analysis to prevent progress. 

Tactical Preparedness

Breaking down a strategic plan into component milestones and execution teams is key.  The idea is to develop ways to prioritize resources to where they can deliver the best advancement towards strategic objectives.  It requires more granular thinking than the strategic preparedness because it's focus is on sub-goals or sub-components of the strategy.  It requires more flexibility than strategic planning because of the typically shorter timelines, the situational specificity and the fluidity of conditions on the ground.  Tactical preparedness requires an understanding of what the other side is thinking and planning.

It's been rumored that in 1972 when chess master Bobby Fischer defeated reigning champion Boris Spassky in the Match of the Century, he had pre-played games as both sides prior to playing his actual opponent. In fact, he had gone so far as to avoid his usual tactics to throw off his opponent's game plan in many of the games.  The unexpected change in tactics helped him defeat Spassky. His tactics were something the Soviet chess brain trust had not prepared to face.  But being unexpected was not enough, Fischer had a game plan to follow these unexpected tactical deviations.  He was more fluid in his planning than his opponent and he won.  If the enemy is prepared for your tactics, they have a much better chance to defeat you.

This is less true when they have overwhelming superiority (in numbers or tools), but even then, you must take every advantage you can find.  If you can't defeat them, you can at least exact a heavy toll in time and resources and perhaps strengthen a tactical or strategic advantage elsewhere.  

Specific tactics will vary from situation to situation and from strategic goal to strategic goal.  However good tactics will share certain commonalities; they must drive towards strategic objectives or defend strategic positions, should be efficient in use of time and resources,  they require accountability from people for their specific tasks, they must work in conjunction with other tasks, they should not be anticipated by political rivals or if they are, they should be flexible/adaptable to the response or situation at hand.  Defensive tactics should dovetail towards a counteroffensive tactic - they should only be strictly defensive where defense is crucial or no offensive opportunities exist.   

Crisis Management

How do you prepare for a crisis? To start with, consider what defines a crisis.  It is an unexpected threat with a short period of time in which to react.  In order to prepare for a crisis, you have to expect the unexpected, or more accurately, know that the unexpected can happen.  Then you need to have a plan to deal with the potential situation. You cannot possibly be prepared for every crisis because so many of them are crises because they could not be anticipated.  But you can mitigate the number of crisis events by categorizing them as best you can, and having broad outlines of how to deal with them. That will prepare you with a roadmap but leave you flexibility when something happens that was outside of the ability to plan.  The roadmap is what matters.  It is possible that crises can be categorized:

1. Economic (e.g. market crash, insolvency with respect to national debt)
2. Malevolent human activity or misdeeds/malfeasance (e.g. war, government deception, decreasing liberty)
3. Technological (e.g. Facebook shutting out conservatives, a national electrical grid failure)
4. Environmental (e.g. an oil spill, 
5. Moral decay (e.g. abortion, increasing violence, an opioid epidemic)  

Notice human suffering is not a crisis.  It is the result of a crisis.  That human suffering exists is a result of ignored or improperly managed crises throughout history, to this day.  Effective crisis management can help to alleviate, mitigate or eradicate a crisis.

In order to effectively manage a crisis you must first anticipate the types of crises you might face so that you can prepare for it. Then create a roadmap of how to deal with it that prescribes steps to counter the crisis but leaves flexibility to deal with unanticipated components.

1. Identify the crisis - know that a crisis exists or is developing.  If you know the situation exists before it is fully formed, you give yourself more window to react. In a crisis situation, time matters.
2. Identify the premeditated plan to address the particular crisis as well as any gaps that may not have been considered.  Remember that the plan should be driving towards the desired outcome.
3. Agree on the plan as a team. Agree on roles and responsibilities.  Think of it as a division of labor and a division of deliverables.  Clearly define those deliverables so that there are no component compatibility issues as pieces are delivered. 
4. Ensure frequent communication to both the internal team, and external message communication to the general public.  The perception of the team by the public is critical.  The perception and understanding and alignment within the team is critical to continued motivation of the team.
5. Identify waypoints on the plan towards success of the plan.  In project planning these are called milestones but in a broader context it can also include subsets of outcomes as a result of inaction or of external events.

If you prepare in advance, fewer things require crisis management because they have been anticipated.  You can react more calmly and effectively when you are dealing with contingencies than with crises.

Rhetorical Preparedness

Rhetorical preparedness requires both offensive and defensive preparedness.  Even though you may not be involved in an actual debate you need to prepare as though that was what was going to happen.  There are many aspects to preparedness, including knowing your subject matter.  This will allow you to point out errors or omissions in your opponent's facts and/or logic.  You must be able to do this in the most simple and understandable way.  Unlike your opponent you may not be intellectually dishonest in your arguments because unlike your opponents, you will be rigorously fact checked and your motivation impugned.  You must possess the intellectual honesty that your opponent will not be held to account because the media is on their side.

You are at a disadvantage, make no mistake.  Your opponent will be allowed to get away with many, many things that you cannot; impugning your motivation, name-calling, side-stepping answering direct questions, stating why you are wrong without explaining where in your argument you are wrong, stereotyping you or your argument, creating a straw man for themselves to defeat instead of your argument, inflating or boasting about their own expertise relative to yours, sloganeering, claiming 'we have to do something' before properly identifying the root problem, invalid analogies, playing on fears or hopes, claiming right to a privacy (especially after making a claim about themselves), scapegoating, redefining words, using invalid credentials of themselves or a so-called expert, using quotes out of context, claiming group membership with the target audience (for sympathy or for a purported position of expertise),  cherry picking, invalid accusations, rejecting facts as opinions, theatrics (rolling eyes) as argument, innuendo and insinuation, peer approval of a subjective opinion, hearsay, finding minor errors in your argument and presenting them as major ones, the fallacy of sunk costs, shouting you down, using anecdotal evidence and the list goes on.

 

While you cannot resort to these rhetorical tactics, you can be prepared to identify them in order to call them out for what they are. "Ridicule sir, is not an argument." 

Conversely there are good rhetorical strategies to understand.  These are all about not only creating acceptance, but creating buy-in.

• Know your message and know how to tie it to your audience in a way they understand.  This requires a simple message and really knowing the motivations and aspirations of your audience. Your points need to be relatable with your audience.  It also requires that you be able to tie the message and the audience motivations together effectively in a way that is not easily countered, if at all.  Craft your message, test it and practice delivering it repeatedly.  When you have it working, deliver it repeatedly, tie other arguments to it and it to other arguments so that you afforded more opportunities to deliver your message.
• Keep each of your talking points short and simple.  Ideally 30 seconds or less.
• Make a debating game plan, and stick to it while trying to knock your opponent off their game plan.
• Ensure all communication is done with positivity in terms of message, tone and body language.  Each must be aligned together towards making things better.
• Contrast your ideas with the holes in your opponent's ideas.  We typically know what Democrats are going to say so it is simpler for us to find glaring holes in their claims.  These must be emphasized. 
• Beyond debates, we must understand how to get the message out while having to work around a media (both mainstream media and social media) that is unwilling to share our side of the debate except in a way where they can characterize it to suit their message (which includes the notion that we are either dumb, or evil, or both).

The diagram above is very instructional.  Any argument has 3 components, logic, empathy and credibility.  Any argument that moves too close towards one point of the triangle is by definition, moving away from the other two corners. Democrats rely too much on empathy, but they often do so successfully.  Ben Shapiro conversely often argues that "facts don't care about your feelings".  He's arguing logic, and it's typically infallible.  The problem is that he's often lost half his audience (not us, but those who need to be persuaded to rethink their positions) by lacking empathy.  Where he gathers credibility with patriots by doing so, he also loses it with those who are driven by emotional arguments.

Don't get me wrong, the man is brilliant and he's right.  But to persuade people you require that balance with empathy.  Ben Shapiro is merely an example of how conservatives argue their points; we need to include more empathy in our arguments. By doing so we gain some credibility. We desperately need to know that part of our audience.  In fact, when dealing with the mainstream media, we can dull the edge of their hostility towards us by pointing out that we agree that poverty is a problem no American should have to face, where we disagree is merely on the solution to the problem.  That gains both pathos  and ethos for our arguments.  It allows us to flow into logic where we are most typically far better prepared than our opponents.  

Breaking: Pfizer Senior Director of Worldwide Research runs from questions

 Like a frightened rabbit...

Breaking: Steven Crowder suspended from YouTube

 YouTube has suspended Crowder for a week over reporting on a story.

Dave Chappelle vs. the mob was inevitable

It makes sense that comedians are at the forefront of anti-wokeness.  It's part of the job description to make social commentary to some degree. When wokeness has become out of control ridiculous, it is inevitable that this would happen - at least among the funny comedians like Bill Burr, Ricky Gervais or Dave Chappelle.

It makes sense that comedians are at the forefront of anti-wokeness.  It's part of the job description to make social commentary to some degree. When wokeness has become out of control ridiculous, it is inevitable that this would happen - at least among the funny comedians like Bill Burr, Ricky Gervais or Dave Chappelle.

The gaslight explodes

 As I mentioned previously, "Let's Go Brandon" is the meme.  And the meme is the explosion.

Falsified History

 Thomas Sowell TV, on falsified history.

Now it's "Let's Go Brandon"

 The meme, explained.  This is a good meme for me because I refuse to refer to that guy by name.  That said, I do kinda feel bad for the NASCAR driver Brandon.  But not too bad - he won the race after all.

So who runs it all

Is it the deep state, as Glenn Greenwald reasonably suggests here, or is it the unelected elite that Tulsi Gabbard suggests (it's notable that both are on the left of center)?  Either way, it's no longer the American people. If that doesn't upset you, you live in the wrong country.

Warnings from Joe Rogan and Tulsi Gabbard

Topping up on the cashless society argument as it relates to control. Joe Rogan and Tulsi Gabbard both toss out warnings to Americans about the loss of their unique society.

An argument against a cashless society

Set aside the convenience of electronic payments. Does physical cash serve another purpose?  This video says yes. 

Sunday verse

 

American uniqueness: Limited Government

Pitbull goes off on America haters.  But this video is about more than that. Although I suspect Pitbull gets that.

More ASU reaction

I'm tired of hearing about race in America, and I'm about to contribute to it.  But when someone has a common sense lens on things, they deserve to be recognized for thoughtful consideration of issues.  Simply Jai reacts to the ASU video.  She's grounded even though this clearly upset her.

Not vaccinated, so I might get fired.

I live and work in Canada, in a federally regulated industry (banking). Back in August the government of Canada mandated that as well as all federal employees, all employees of federally regulated industries are governed by a mandatory vaccination policy.  As such, we have been required to attest to our vaccination status on or before October 22nd.

I am not vaccinated. I don't believe that the vaccines have been through rigorous enough testing to be taken. To be clear, I have all of my normal vaccinations (measles etc.) and I have most often gotten flu shots. I am not an anti-vaxxer, I just believe these vaccines have not really been tested for long term side effects.  That is effectively now being tested in the vaccinated population.  Time will provide evidence. 

I doubt that in Canada, I or anyone else will be able to successfully challenge this vaccine mandate in court.  We don't enjoy the same levels of rights as you do in the United States. 

With my status in mind, I have attested online today as to my status as non-vaccinated with my employer.  It will be interesting to see what happens. I am technically a work from home employ and reading the policy, it does not appear to apply to me unless I have to go into the office.  In the past I did go into the office but did so rarely, even before COVID.  I am nervous about my situation but I feel like my concerns about the vaccine, and the potential impact on my health, trump work concerns. I may be allowed to continue work since my work-from-home designation may be enough.  We'll see.  

The Big Lie

As one popular comment on YouTube for this video noted, it's unfortunate that those who need to see this video probably won't and those who do see this already know it:

New York Times is coming for Old Glory

 The flag redesign is next.

The New York Times is void of any valuable ideas.

Wisdom from the past

 This actually is not from 1931, see note below the picture.

Often attributed to Dr. Rogers with an incorrect date of 1931. The quotation is part of a longer 1984 sermon in a larger series titled "God’s Way to Health, Wealth and Wisdom" (CDA107); it also appears in Dr. Rogers' 1996 work "Ten Secrets for a Successful Family" stating that "by and large our young people do not know either the importance or the value of honest labor". Rogers did not originate the quote and did not claim to have originated it. Instead, he was citing almost verbatim a bit of anti-Soviet propaganda that had circulated in many magazines in the early 1960's. The quote appeared before that in the Congressional Record of 1958, where they were appended to the record by congressman Bruce Alger. Alger had borrowed the words from Gerald L. K. Smith, who had written them first in his magazine, The Cross and the Flag. Since the quote was attributed to Rogers in 2009, it has been regularly attributed to him; however, Rogers was essentially quoting Smith at the time.

French media calls out America's 'woke dictatorship'

Via Fox News:

A good discussion on racism

Looking from outside in, America spends way too much time focused on race. But once in a while, a good discussion is a good thing.

Trump talking 2024

 President Trump speculates on how 2024 might look:

Sunday verse

 

This is funny. And scary.

 I get this is a meme but seriously, WTF?

Will Matrix Resurrections be a woke nightmare?

This is just a hunch, but I think Matrix Resurrections is going to be a woke film. Lana Wachowski (formerly Larry Wachowski of the Wachowski brothers who brought us the original Matrix trilogy) is bringing Matrix Resurrections to theaters this December (and HBO Max at the same time, due to astoundingly inept Warner Brothers business decisioning).

The Wachowski brothers brought us the whole notion of Red Pilling someone. But clearly, they'd like to change what the Red Pill means.  They are going to want it to mean a traditional progressive liberal woke, not awakened to the truth about a society that is pushing that very wokeness hard, in an almost machinelike way.  

I see hints of veiled wokeness in the trailer. From the opening scene looking like it's San Francisco to the word "triggered" and a few other potential indicators, I'm worried about the film.

As much of a fan of two-thirds of the original trilogy as I am, I really am not looking forward to a re-imagining of what it means to be red-pilled. While there are also signs that the red pill still means what we've been using it to mean, those are secondary.  I hope I'm wrong but I don't think I am.

How to Red Pill someone; a step by step guide

The one thing even leftists tend to support is democracy.  Of course their twisted definition of democracy equates to mob rule.  I don't know if they still teach that the Constitution was established in the way that it was to prevent majority tyranny.  The separation of powers between Executive, Legislative and Judicial was designed to prevent a concentration of power. The extremely high hurdle required to create Constitutional amendments was designed to prevent mob rule.  The structure of the Congress and Senate was designed to slow legislation.  The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) was designed to limit government power.  All of these things were designed to ensure liberty and individual freedom.

But freedom is not what leftists want.  They want a democracy, and specifically a democracy in which everyone thinks the same way they do - no diversity of thought allowed. So freedom is actually anathema to their twisted version of democracy.

Set aside their twisted perceptions.  Set aside to that the United States is technically a representative republic and no a democracy per se, in fact no country is truly a pure democracy. If you even disregard those things, there are some undeniable deductive reasoning results that may be able to persuade leftists to reconsider their positions.

Here's an approach to having a red pill conversation with a progressive socialist.  It begins with a series of questions and answers.  These are designed to draw out the thought processes of a person from within, rather than lecturing to them.  Self-realized thoughts are going to resonate far better than a lecture.

1.  Do you think freedom is important? The typical answer to this is yes, or yes - within reason.  Those are acceptable answers.  If someone says no to this, that's a different, and probably impossible conversation.  Nevertheless, it is still important to ask why because perhaps that view can still be altered.  That's a conversation for another time, for now let's assume they agree that at least some level of freedom is important.

2.  How is freedom achieved? Typically democracy is part of the answer because it means you get to have a say in how society works. Some might reply with answers like revolution but then you must probe further and ask how it is maintained. This makes the conversation easier to steer towards democracy. No one would reasonably argue that dictatorships or monarchies or similarly structured governments can provide freedom because they are structured to centralize power.  If you do that you strip away individual choice. Removal of choice is removal of freedom.

3. If they do mention democracy, then ask if democracy is granted by government or by corporations, as if they were monarchs, or whether governments are only put in place (via democracy) to establish and maintain a societal structure that protects freedom. If they argue that governments grant democracy, ask (i) why governments and not corporations and  (ii) if they are granting it to you is it not a privilege rather than a right? (iii) if it is granted cannot it not also be taken away (iv) if it can be taken away, are you truly free?

4. If you have gotten this far you have effectively established that the person you are talking with values freedom, which requires some level of democracy, and that democracy is not granted by a government.  Next comes the red pill portion. Ask this: If a government creates a law that restricts your rights, does that reduce your freedom?  This is a tough one, because some laws make sense - do not murder, do not steal for example.  If they answer yes, move on, but if they hesitate or hedge, grant that laws such as those that disallow murder or theft are necessary. You do not want to delve to far into a side conversation about reasonable restrictions, or 'your rights end where mine begin'.  That is tangential. Instead provide an example; if the government or corporation restricts your ability to state your opinion openly, have they reduced your rights and therefore freedom?  There is no way to argue out of that. Ultimately most reasonable people will agree.  And remember, many people who support socialists and big government are reasonable people, they are simply misinformed.  These people are the low hanging fruit of red pilling. These are the people who are less difficult to red pill, and when you need numbers desperately, that's who you need to go after.

5. Therefore if a government is too empowered to do whatever it wants on a whim, are your freedoms at greater risk? Put another way, if government, even in a democracy can reduce your freedom, and corporations can do so too, how do you ensure that a democracy does not, over time, decay into a totalitarian dictatorship?   Is it reasonable to put restrictions on government the way we do on business?  This may devolve into a side conversation. You may need to point out that government can be corrupted just like businesses can be, because ultimately they consist of people, and people can become greedy for money or power. That is not to say most will, but it is possible.  They only way to ensure it does not happen is to put in safeguards to protect us from government, so that government will continue to protect us from rule breakers fairly and impartially.

6. If you want to put limits on how the government can limit you then you need to demand adherence to the original intent of the Constitution, which was designed to put limits on government power and to enable and empower individuals.  It was not meant to empower groups, just individuals.  Why? Because groups are just another way that individual liberty can be reduced. That's not to say groups are bad, just as corporations or governments are not inherently bad, as long as they do not have too much power.

That's it, if someone comes away from a conversation agreeing with the above points, you have red-pilled them. But that is the fundamental minimum threshold for a red pill awakening. It's just the beginning.  But you want to go further though, don't you?  If so, try this as an add-on to the conversation:

7. What does freedom give us? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness means something.  What?  It means you can pursue your own goals.  It means you have opportunities open to you.  The key word is opportunities.  Freedom means opportunities. Without freedom, opportunity cannot exist.

8.  Opportunity unleashes creativity that can lead to invention and innovation.  Invention and innovation benefit all of society because invention is driven by societal needs. But this can only happen if there is incentive to do so. That incentive can be personal fulfilment or it can be economic in nature (personal wealth).  Wealth is a primary incentive for a large portion of the population, therefore to maximize wealth, shouldn't we make it possible for people to benefit from their invention and innovation?  The only route to doing so is capitalism. But fair capitalism, not one where the most powerful (big business and government) manipulate the rules so that only they can benefit and prevent others from having the same opportunity.

Try it on someone you know who you think you might be able to awaken.  Let me know in the comments if you have any success.