How to Redpill borderline "Social Equality" friends

Sup Forums I come with a question that I haven't been able to solve for quite some time.

I have this friend, who openly admits that she would not marry a colored person or even have any sexual interest with one. She's the type believes religion can be taken for life lessons without being 'into it' yet calls herself a catholic whilst accepting no heaven/hell.

When I pushed her on migrants and how they are not integrating, she was apologizing to me on their behalf. #NotAllMigrants and that if they came over here without support from the government to integrate they'd fall back on their own culture. Effectively blaming the government for not integrating them properly.

As you can see its a mindfield, you can see she doesn't want to get off with coloured, but doesn't mind migrants coming in.

I've tried to explain to her that they don't want to integrate, at least the 'Muslim' population but was replied with filipino's are worse for integration but they made the effort so can muslims, which we all know isn't the case as result of Religion --> Culture. "Why can't they have their religion and culture if it's not directly affecting you" is a common argument she uses.

So how do I safely end her love affair with allowing migrants in without setting off her alarm bells for "HE'S BEING A RACIST!!!11" when all I'm saying is that I don't want their culture here?

I have the same question as this

Lots of my friends are like this

Nothing?

I'll reply, but it'll be a few minutes while I type my thoughts. I'll bump this thread to make sure it doesn't die in the meanwhile.

My current girlfriend was like that (even feminist)
I gave her time (she was on her first year at college) and, steady and slow, I linked her news of ""multiculturalism"", ""true feminism" and such. She hated how our culture was dissapearing (she hated Podemos before hand).

After a year she ended redpilled by herself. College was an awful place and she even got aware about (((them))).
'Gordofobia', 'transfobia', 'necesitas ser gay para no ser un fascista'.

She is the perfect partner I could dream.

Buena suerte, compatriota. Estoy seguro de que lo conseguirás.

>Buena suerte, compatriota. Estoy seguro de que lo conseguirás.
Espero que todos lo conseguimos.

First, know that it is difficult to change people's minds about something. Especially something important. People don't want to be wrong, and the first step to changing your mind is admitting that you are wrong. So keep that in mind with conversations with your friends, and have patience. Don't expect to try and change them all at once with some eureka moment, but rather imagine them as a bolder in a field that you must gradually push, with arguments, to the correct side.

Second, be honest. Nothing is more persuasive than the truth and the truth is on your side. The basic truth is that you want your culture and society to more closely resemble European ideals, and less closely resemble the countries of the Middle East and North Africa where your new friends are from.

Point out that people make a country what it is, not the location of that country. If you switched all the people of Japan and Spain, the new Spainards would look and act exactly like Japanese and vice versa. Once you realize this, you see the futility in changing the location of large number of migrants and expecting them to do anything other than recreate the conditions of your home country. Does your friend want Spain to more closely resemble the Middle East or North Africa?

Third, be conversant with the relevant data that backs up your argument. Read Charles Murray's The Bell Curve - it's real science and not just a thing that gets bandied about on pol. If you don't have the time or inclination to read it, at least read the wikipedia article, and read or listen to some breakdowns of it. The central gist, which is well supported by evidence is that IQ matters at the population level and that people from the Middle East and North Africa have a lower IQ.

When your friend is ready for it, you really need to hammer in the low IQ problem, because it is fundamental and explanatory. She may have some basic objections to this. I'll cover them in the next comment.

Thank you for taking the time user, I'm glad someone like you took the time to give a plan of attack. I've been just aimlessly debating with her over her views expecting to instantly convert there and then with sheer might of reason alone, but I know see I was naive to think she would drop her ideals so quickly.

It is a long term persuit, to which I do accept that now.

Looking forward to the next comment.

Possible objections to the importance of IQ.

>IQ isn't that important and doesn't predict anything.
IQ is correlated with career success and better life outcomes and there is a raft of scientific literature documenting this. Granted though, IQ doesn't mean everything, for an individual. IQ is only correlated to success in life but it doesn't define success in life.

Where IQ becomes more important is when thinking about populations of people. That's when predictive statistical measures of people start to come into play. Think about it this way, in the US, an astonishing 15% of 7 feet tall men are in the NBA. Now, suppose you were 7 feet tall - does that mean you're automatically in the NBA or a great basketball player? No it doesn't, you might be slow and uncoordinated, or lazy, or just terrible at basketball. However, if you have a group of 1,000 random people, and I have a group of 1,000 7 feet tall people, which one of us will have more NBA players in the group?

Populations and IQ are like that. It doesn't mean everything for an individual, but for populations it starts to matter. If one society has a 20-40 point IQ bonus than another society, that will start to make a real difference over years and generations and tens of millions of people.

>The IQ test is culturally racist or biased towards Western society.
Murray and friends thought of this. They realized that IQ is highly correlated with reaction times, so in addition to giving culturally unbiased tests, they also tested reaction times and found that Africans have predictably worse reaction times. Are reaction times culturally biased too?

I'll continue in the next one.

You can't cut any contact with her.

U don't put plain arguments or explanations since u'r be conceived as a brainwashing intrusive friend.

Prepare the environment softly for the debate, raise questions about those problematics concerning you, hear their opinions and let them discuss, finally put your point of view on the table in an objective calmed way and let them meditate about it.
You just can't force the truth on them with a spoon. Also you can't permit yourself to look like a crazy paranoid. You must know what ur talking about, and how you talk it about.
Hazme caso hermano, las cosas funcionan así.

Is that a question, or a statement?

Think about what it means that you think a test of intelligence, i.e. a test of logic and reasoning skills, is culturally biased towards Western modes of thought, and against African ones. If the test were biased, and Mokimbo thought more of stalking prey, or surviving the wilds of Africa, or whatever it is his culture does, how is that any different than what we are saying? Africans have lower IQ meaning they think less logically, less rigorously, they think about the future less, and so on. Perhaps that is a cultural bias - but so what? If the end result is that they have less reasoning powers, and diminished reasoning powers means that, as a population, they will commit more crime, produce less economically, invent less, create less of cultural value, be more likely to consume resources from welfare, and so on - then really, by saying that IQ tests are culturally biased you are affirming the essence of the argument against admitting immigrants.

>Colonialism is to blame for the poor state of Africa and the Middle East.
Ashkenazi Jews, in living memory had an attempted genocide perpetrated against them. Are the Ashkenazi Jews doing better, or worse, than Africans around the world? If you looked at African descended people in the US, versus Ashkenazi Jews, which group would have more millionaires, be more represented in the Senate, have written more novels, won more nobel prizes, etc. Why is the answer obvious?

If colonialism held Africans back, then why would the holocaust, which was worse, not hold back the Jews? And why, coincidentally do Jews have higher IQs than Africans?

Think about Indians in the US too. Indians have black skin, so they are visually distinct, they come from a country that also suffered under colonialism. Why is that first or second generation Indians, so recently arrived from an impoverished country, visibly set apart from the majority of the US, why is it that these Indians do extremely well in the United States?

Easy.
In the oppression olympics, migrants come first.
When a quota needs to be met, foreign women get hired. Not your girl.
It's foreigners that get more services than her.
If she votes for bigger gouvernment, she's helping them replace her.
She won't have children, she won't have a job, because as a (presumably Spanish) white woman she has more privilege than moors, which makes her criminal.

If at that point she starts conflicting, tell her that she's got to be honest and integral.
Either she supports migrants in every way, or she accepts that if she doesn't want to deal with them, they shouldn't be in the country.
Make it obvious that the latter option is much safer.

Step 1: Take her to Muslim migrant part of your area

Step 2: Let her get raped

You're welcome, user.

For personal experience you can't do anything because this kind of people know perfectly the reality of the things, they are not stupid just accomplices.

That extra comment amount about Colonialism is nice to have a solid defense against, it's funny that you bring it up, as she has done so before [without me telling you she has.]

I do see the logical train of thought you have with the IQ. It matters for the population, not the individual, and by attacking the use of IQ as a western instrument of intelligence, you confirm the almost backwards nature of the immigrants to be in direct juxtaposition to our culture.

I feel a MM flashback from that user, thanks.

I've been in this situation before, user.

Feels like you're walking through a minefield. Right? You believe that if you were to say and do the right things, you can change her to your view.

This isn't a weeaboo dating sim, son. This is reality.

Unless she sees something that completely destroys her views, in and out, she's not going to change.

The only way you can get along with someone like that is to be accepting of their beliefs. What I mean by that is you tolerating the garbage she'll bring; it won't manner if it's right or wrong.

The best thing to do, user; for you and for her, is to simply tell her the truth, give her the red pill wholly as it is. You can bring evidence if you think that'll help, but if her happiness relies on what she believes in, she's not going to change.

Don't dodge those mines, user. Set every single one of them off. If she's willing to set them there to begin with, then she should be willing to take the carnage along with them.

The idea that colonialism was a harmful thing, that set Africa back to where it is, is absurd if you think about it. Other colonies around the world prospered and were made much better off. The US, New Zealand, Canada, and Australia are all shining examples. Your friend might realize that in these instances the anglo people replaced the natives, and thrived - hmm, interesting, isn't it? As if the populations living there mattered... But even setting those examples aside - think about Hong Kong and Macau and how much better off those former colonies are than mainland China. Why is that Chinese former colonies thrive and African former colonies languish? And which culture, would you guess has a higher IQ?

The point is: IQ does matter, a lot and IQ is different between the races and cultures. We know there are differences in intelligence between races, we know that on a personal level based on our own experiences, we can infer it from the wildly different civilizations different peoples have constructed, and we can tell that by consistent, rigorous, scientific measurements in the form of IQ tests.

Ask your friend why she would hesitate to marry a black person? Is she shallow that a mere shade of skin would disqualify a potential partner? Or does she know, or is she familiar with the data that shows, that blacks are more likely to commit crimes and go to prison, to commit rape, to abuse their partner and children, to have STDs, to cheat on their partners, or to simply abandon their partner altogether? If this kind of person and this kind of behavior isn't what she wants for herself, and her family, why would she argue in favor of afflicting her whole society, in which her children will grow, with this kind of behavior from these kinds of people.

>That extra comment amount about Colonialism is nice to have a solid defense against, it's funny that you bring it up, as she has done so before [without me telling you she has.]
If she goes down that track history is replete with examples to use. Germany, for example was leveled by war, a sizable portion of their population was killed, their cities ruined, etc. East Germany was then held under decades of oppressive, brutal rule by the Soviets. Which country in Africa is doing better than East Germany? Japan too was leveled by war, defeated, and occupied. Which African country would you rather live in than Japan?

Yes, I will definitely bring the conversion to that point sometime about her "life partner" choices. It really shows the selfish nature of her outlook "It doesn't affect me, so why should I care about the rest of society." I think she likes the idea of saving refuges, but doesn't want to engage with them. One huge virtue signalling isn't it not?


Maybe I'm naive, but I feel like I should be helping people to at least see this side of the argument. But I'm slowly coming to realize "why should I bother". If you don't hit them hard enough, they'll still get up after all the hits you give them before.

Thank you user, really. The whole "Jewish pop thrived even after genocide" and German and Japanese Destruction bounce back is serious point to use. Again, thank you for going to the effort, it does mean a lot.

Conjugation practice

Gypsies have been here forever never fully integrated,we bring muslims that are even worse.
It's more about you than about her desu if you believe in something and it turns out to be right she will believe in it since she wants to be right as well.

Same with me. I think it's pretty common.

It's consigamos desu

sorry, I don't want to derail the thread by explaining why my grammar in both languages is terrible, but you got the point.

>I think she likes the idea of saving refuges, but doesn't want to engage with them.
Okay, one final thing before I go. If she likes the idea of saving refugees, ask her to consider why refugees aren't being resettled to neighboring countries like Jordan (which is a relatively safe and nice country). Resettling to nearby countries would be cheaper, because of the lower cost of living there and how much closer the nearby countries are. Western countries, rather than housing refugees, should instead help pay countries around Syria to shelter those refugees. This is better for us (no refugees) and it's better for the refugees - they live in a similar country to the one they left, with a similar population, similar languages, similar religion, similar jobs and economy, similar culture. Plus, if refugees are going to be future doctors and lawyers and such, don't the Middle Eastern and North African countries need doctors and lawyers more than we do?

If it's better for the refugees and better for us, why aren't we resettling? In part, some people want to feel good, rather than do good, and resettling here makes them feel better. This is selfish, inefficient, and hurts the refugees. The bigger part though is the 1% who want to resettle low skilled undereducated immigrants in our societies to give them political and economic advantages. A class of people who will always vote for bigger government because they are poor and need help. A class of people who will perform menial jobs for low pay, depressing the wages of the whole economy.

If you want to help the refugees, support sending money to nearby countries on the condition that the resettle their fleeing neighbors. If you want to corrode your society in order to help a tiny rich elite get even more social and economic power by ruthlessly exploiting your countrymen and the refugees, then you should be in favor immigration.

Very good point, why didn't Saudi/Jordan etc take them?

Again thank you for your outlook and answering my original concerns.

Nah don't worry I didnt even mention you i simply don't want out burger friend to learn bad grammar from a spanish thread.
Like I said,mention gypsies and how they will never integrate because they are never a minority and this have no need for integration.
How even when a minority they self exclude to turn into a majority in their house blocs,then the quartequarters, then ghetto areas,then cities,how it has happened all over the west to the pont they are no longer conscious of being a minority,how they stop learning the native language since their everyday interaction is with their own country man,how they only hire their own people while we hire them preferentially.

this kind of people will only wake up when they are being raped by 30 blacks, every FACT you tell them and show them, their mind will find some shit to not believe it. Let them get fucked in their loved black cock and muslim machetes.

...

Yes I see youre point, they feel like they are part of the county and not just guests anymore.

I read irish bro that gypises in your county got offically declared as a ethnic group, so fits in really well to this effect.

Have more?
This board is not very diverse and inclusive.

Maybe/Maybe not related, but you can still get some keks from it

I got red pilled by working in an area where shitskin interaction was common,3 months in and you go from faggot to full 1488
And that's in spain where we are already used to natives acting like shitskins and breaking the rules and laws,i can't understand how germans can bear with it.

You don't want their culture here because their culture is antithetical to Western liberal values. Even though you're conservative, compared to them you're full blown SJW because you probably don't believe in stoning people for apostasy. They might integrate eventually, two generations down the line, but by then they will have dragged the culture towards theirs slightly, and that's the wrong way for society to go.
Really though you'll almost never change someone's mind through argument. You can probably convince her you're not a frothing-at-the-mouth racist though.

Be careful about IQ, tho.
Yes, there are studies that aprove that, but it sounds pretty racist.

Mi novia se puso bastante a la defensiva cuando dije algo similar, y me dijo que no podía generalizar.

Estoy ocupado y tardo menos hablando en español.
Menciona a los gitanos, como ejemplo de no integración. Menciona que no desean integrarse y que no lo han hecho en Francia en varias generaciones.

Pero no trates de comparar al hombre blanco con el negro como superior. Ahí te la cargas.
Yo pisé esa mina y la de negar el holocuento demasiado pronto.

Menciona las desigualdades y como no es igualitaria la discriminación positiva, por ejemplo.

Hazle preguntas y que responda ella sin parecer pedante. Eso también ayuda.
Y recuerda, muy poco a poco OP.

>Second, be honest
This, definitely. If you've told someone 99 truths and 1 falsehood about a difficult topic, one that they don't want to change their mind about, they will expand that one falsehood as much as they can, and use it as an excuse to ignore the 99 truths. I will attempt to ALWAYS put something like
>I'm PRETTY SURE that ....
>If I remember right, ...
>Don't quote me on this, but ...
in front of information that is useful to say, but I'm not entirely sure on at the moment, but is probably true. You won't be able to remember everything entirely, and you don't want to accidentally tell something wrong.

I can feel what you are saying, I have to walk past a row of shops with migrants just standing outside their shop just waiting to interact with you. I'd hate to be a girl in that situation for sure.

Yes we have debates on other things so she has a idea im not too hardline for her that she cant bring me back to the parents for example

No problem for english if too busy... Yes, little by little!

I established a base for anti-islamification by getting her to agree that religion of these people --> created culture --> and they brought culture with them; but I won't be dropping redpill of holo and probably IQ until I know she can handle it.

Yes, i have started to do this as well when we started debating over the validity of our arguments itselves. Some say it weakens the argument, but why leave yourself open to exposure if you are blindsided by something you are not prepared for or not able to defend at that particular moment.

Women are quintessential normies. They only follow the herd. If we want to impact their opinions on a large scale, we have to win le culture war

Agreed, hopefully we can win the culture war. The Left may be winning mainstream, but what is up must come done. A reverse weinstein, Left Terrorism become something that's actually concerning for the mainstream.

Bilingual people of Sup Forums, is it the case that you can use another language to get around peoples' Pavlovian reactions? The word nigger, for example, will cause some people to flinch upon hearing it, but if you say the same thing in Spanish I doubt that it will cause the same reaction. If you Spaniards were to pose this same anti-migrant argument in English, would it get around propaganda they hear in Spanish? Conversely, would talking about it in Spanish lend more credibility to a nationalist argument?
These are things I don't have much experience with, unfortunately, but seem like they could play some part.

i do see where you are coming from user, almost like wearing shirts that have japanese writing on them when you live in say a english or spanish speaking country.

might be something we should look into as bilingual user's?

You can circumvent the cultural associated shit,but that's like in England where saying black has no negative attachment or neger in germany till sjw kicked in,I'm sure you can call negros in eeuu kaffir and they wouldn't mind while in south Africa it would be seen as racist..
Unfortunately the propaganda of leftist and globalists is...for the most part global,literal translated pastas of arguments used by SJW in the USA can be seen here as well same as after the terror attacks people would just post translated shit i had seen in german,french and bong media before.
It would help with non bilinguals,with most bilingual people it would actually be more useful for it to be in english since they are hipster intelectuals for the most part that disregard spanish as brutish and think of international as cool if they were shown how people fucking laugh at their country for being absolute fags it kind of shocks them since they have been promised the absolute opposite by their media and teachers.
Some swede bro told me one of his biggest red pills was realising every other cou try laughed at them as if they were retards instead of admiring their vain sacrifice.
Experiences might differ.

Being bilingual is for fags,poyiglotism is the best.
Imagine being able to read the full history history of other country without some kiked up leftist humanities translator instilling his twisted ideas into it,even if unconsciously.
Being able to open your mind to the whole knowledge and cultural evolution of another civilization for centuries.
You know how you read a book,then watch the movie and feel like shit,that nigger changed EVERYTHING the spirit of the author was even changed,the same shit happens with translations.
t.studies languages as hobby

I see your point, like an extra source to check something from

German paper says "Nazi's hit refugees because their refugees"

English newspaper on the story says that "Shop owner hits refugees because they didn't leave their shop"

Spanish Newspapers says on the same story "Shop owner defends shop by beating migrants who are stealing from his shop".

Only one version of the story is told to one language

That was lost a long time ago,I'm a bit of an old fag but the last time I was blessed with that was when I was working in ireland and the prestige tanker in galicia sunk,i remember irish media and spanish media would be completely different.
Nowadays all media is owned by a few big corporations so the story is simply translated and there are a few different narratives.
But it's all shit.
I was thinking about how if you read the Wikipedia article about the battle of trafalgar or the armada invencible in Spanish and then in english it kind of changes...same as reading ww2 in jap and in english.
Yet since you don't speak jap you could never tell and every piece of information from japan you get is usually translated by liberal japs living in commiefornia who tend to skew things towards murrican values since they speak the language but lack the values for the most part.
If it weren't because ww2 is a big no no in germany i assure you the german memories of war would be vastly different in english and in german

yeah you make a very good point, future-proof yourself from incorrect translations to keep your ability to stay up to date in international politics.