Taking Every Opportunity to Criticize Their Own Country and Their Own Culture


I walked into a room and overheard one man, Coren, saying to another man, Samuel, "...Everyone else welcomes foreigners, unlike Americans, who are so intolerant and unhelpful when someone can't speak English." These are both men I've worked with for years. We know each other well. And we are all born and raised in the U.S.

A few minutes later I said to Coren, "I've heard the French have a reputation of looking down on foreigners who don't speak French very well." He said, "That's true." But he didn't seem to understand that I was making an argument against his earlier statement. So I added, "It's pretty common for Americans to criticize America whenever they get the chance."

Samuel looked up from something he was working on and Coren looked surprised. They both looked at each other and then Coren said to me, "I wasn't criticizing America."

"But didn't you just say that Americans are less forgiving of people that don't speak their language — less forgiving than people in other countries?"

Coren said, "I think that's true." Samuel added, "I think it's true too."

I said, "Isn't that criticizing America or at least criticizing Americans or American culture? I've noticed that many Americans go out of their way, whenever they find an opportunity, to put down America."

They both started to protest, but before any sound came out of their mouths, I said, "I have a theory about why people do that." They both looked interested, so I said, "I think some Americans see that there are people in this world much worse off than we are, and they feel somewhat guilty about it. Sort of like survivor's guilt — people who have been in a plane crash or other horrible event where people die, but they survived, can sometimes feel guilty about it. They think, 'There is no reason I survived and the others died. It isn't fair.' And it makes them feel undeserving and guilty.

"We just got lucky," I said. "We were born here. We didn't do anything to make that happen. And we are no more deserving than anybody else in the world, so we're sure not going to boast about this great country. We're not going to be patriotic. In fact, we'll find opportunities to point out what's wrong with our own country or culture. Kind of like a rich person does when he's hanging out with people who aren't rich. He will mention his shortcomings. He will go out of his way to point out his own deficiencies. It makes others feel more comfortable around him, and he doesn't feel so guilty being around people less rich than he is."

They both jumped in and said, "I don't think that's it at all." Samuel said, "I love this country. I'm very patriotic. But I think we could do better."

"I agree with you," I said, "for sure. But you know, I never hear you say anything good about this country, and I hear you say negative things about it all the time."

This got his blood boiling. I could see it on his face. I don't know if it's because what I said was true or because he just hates being called "unpatriotic." He has proudly told me before that he is a "progressive liberal." But he loves America.

He spoke, about two octaves higher than before, and said, "I think there are a lot of people in this country who don't care about other cultures; who just live their lives and don't try to help others."

I said, "Did you know the United States gives financial aid to 96% of all the countries in the world?" I had just read this in Forbes the night before (see it here). I was looking up how much money the U.S. gives in financial aid to Muslim countries. Out of the top six recipients of foreign aid, five are Muslim countries, but that's a topic for a different discussion.

Samuel said, "I'm not talking about what our government does. I mean the citizens of this country."

"Well you give money to charities and try to help," I said, because we've had many conversations before, so I knew that about him. "And I do too. So what Americans are you talking about?"

"There are plenty of people," he said, "who don't care."

"Aren't there people who care and people who don't care in every country?" I asked. "Or do you think there are a higher percentage of people in America than in other countries who don't care?" I said this in a friendly way. I wasn't angry with him. I just wanted to point out this phenomenon that nobody seems to notice. And I don't think this is a uniquely American thing. I believe it happens all over the free world. In Australia, in the UK, in Canada — I read an article the other day that said it happens in Israel. Israelis, the author implied, are the biggest critics of their own country.

The reason this is important is because Islam is an ideology that aims to replace all other cultures with Islam. People who don't vigorously defend their cultures will succumb to Islamic pressure. People who defend their culture have a chance of keeping it. This characteristic of people who denigrate their own culture seems like a weakness to me, a vulnerability. It seems like a characteristic that would prevent someone from defending their own culture.

When another culture comes into contact with Islam, Islam forces the issue and creates a condition where one of the cultures must yield to the other. Islam does not live side-by-side in harmony with other cultures as equals.

So when I am talking to Americans and they jump enthusiastically on every opportunity to put down America or American culture, it bothers me. When push comes to shove, will they defend American values? Or will they yield? They are so habitually critical of their own culture, I think they will yield. But I want them to hold the line. Freedom of speech, human rights, equality of all people — these are values that need to be defended. We should never yield to an inferior set of values.

Anyway, Samuel said, "I don't know if there is a higher percentage or not."

I said, "That's what I'm talking about. Your natural and automatic point of view is that Americans aren't as good as other people in the world, when in fact, they are just like other people in the world. Some of us are good people who try to help others, and some are more selfish. So why call the bad part uniquely American?"

Samuel looked exasperated. He said, "I'm just saying that Americans don't seem to care about the rest of the world. They don't even know the rest of the world exists!"

I said, "Of course Americans know the rest of the world exists."

"But Americans don't try to learn about the rest of the world," he persisted.

"So do you think," I countered, "someone living in a remote village in India knows more and cares more about the bigger world than the average American?"

"No!" he said.

All this time, Coren had been listening to this exchange. And he suddenly piped up: "I think Americans have raped the world."

"What do you mean?" I asked.

"They exploit people all over the world," he said, like it was an obvious fact.

I said, "Do you exploit people? Are you busy raping the world? Am I? Is Samuel? Who are you talking about? Wealthy people? Corporations?"

"Yes," he said, and he was about to say something else but I interrupted him.

"Aren't there powerful people and wealthy corporations in every country who exploit others? Do you think that is not being done in Nigeria? China? Russia? Japan? Europe? Aren't you describing a human thing? Not an American thing?"

He said, "Yes, but Americans set the standard!"

I couldn't let this pass. "There have been powerful and wealthy people throughout history," I said, "long before the U.S. even existed, who exploited and dominated others. You can't call that an American invention!"

Then I remembered that Coren had read the book, The Righteous Mind (when I'd recommended it to him), and one of the studies in the book is a survey of the moral standards of wealthy, educated people and poorer, less educated people in two different cities in Brazil and in an American city. So I said, "Remember how they found that the wealthy, educated people in the three different cities were much more similar morally to each other than they were to the poorer people in their own country?"

He nodded. "Yeah," he said, looking like he was remembering.

"So isn't what you're talking about just human? Not American, but human?"

Then he said, "America was founded on raping the world. It is the foundation of this country."

"What do you mean?" I asked. I thought I knew, but I wanted to make sure.

He looked at me like, "I shouldn't have to tell you this because it's so obvious," and he said, "We massacred the Native Americans."

"First of all," I said, "we weren't there, so we didn't do anything (as I pointed to him and then to me). I don't even know if our ancestors were here yet, and besides, the Native Americans did some massacring of their own. There were alliances between Europeans and Native Americans against other alliances of Europeans and Native Americans, and 95% of the Native Americans died of diseases, not massacres." I brought this up because of another book both of us have read, entitled 1491, which is about what the Americas were like before Columbus arrived. New evidence shows that the number of Native Americans who died of disease was much greater than originally thought because when Europeans touched down on the coast, the diseases went inland and caused mass plagues. By the time Europeans actually traveled to the interior of the country, what they saw was the decimated ruin of what had been a much larger population, but they didn't realize the extent of the decimation at the time.

"And besides," I said, "can you name any people on earth who have not been invaded, dominated, pushed into other areas, attacked, overrun, or conquered? Isn't that the history of people on earth? Is this somehow uniquely American? Hell, even the Native Americans did it. Tribes conquered other tribes, killing them off and invading their lands. You and I are also descendants of people who were conquered and whose culture was lost."

What struck me about what he said was how closely it followed the story laid out in Dinesh D'Souza's movie, America. D'Souza says for the last 30 years or so a new story has been told to our children in school, and the story imparts a whole lot of guilt to young Americans because "we" massacred Native Americans, enslaved Africans, plundered everyone and everything, etc. Coren's point of view was almost verbatim what D'Souza had said. Coren is 33 years old.

As we were talking, other people had come to sit nearby to listen to this conversation.

"All I'm saying," I concluded, "is that what you're describing is simply human; not uniquely American. And that there's a reason you two have such a strong desire to put down your own country: You feel guilty. You know about the inequality in the world, but you don't want to just give away all your possessions and money to people who are in need. You want to keep it and enjoy your good fortune, so you assuage your guilt by 'dissing' America."

I didn't convince them, but I definitely disturbed them. I don't know what will eventually happen in their minds, but for sure they will become more aware of their compulsion to trash their own culture, their own people, their own country, and hopefully they'll think about why they seem so intent on doing it. Hopefully it will eventually lead to two more people in the free world who will be willing to appreciate their own culture and value it enough to defend it against an aggressive ideology hell-bent on annihilating it.
Read more:
The Achilles' Heel of the West
The Key to Your Listener's Inability to Confront the Disturbing Truth About Islam

Citizen Warrior is the author of the book, Getting Through: How to Talk to Non-Muslims About the Disturbing Nature of Islam and also writes for Inquiry Into Islam, History is Fascinating, and Foundation for Coexistence.


Islamophobia Thought Experiment


According to Christian Science doctrine, sickness is an illusion that can be corrected by prayer alone. So some parents have chosen not take their child to a doctor, and many times that has resulted in the child's death.

Okay, the above is a simple statement of fact. I could say that on the front page of the New York Times and nobody will accuse me of racism or hatred or ChristianSciencephobia.
But if I said, "According to Islamic doctrine, an apostate should be killed," which is also a simple statement of fact, I would be accused of racism, hatred, Islamophobia, and more.

Why? Is Islam a protected religion? Is Islam in a special category? Is it a smaller minority than Christian Scientists? What makes Islam uncriticizable?

I'll tell you what it is: Orthodox Muslims are working behind the scenes to twist every criticism of Islam into bigotry, and they're doing such a good job, many non-Muslims have bought it.

What do I mean by "working behind the scenes?" I mean setting up organizations that whitewash Islamic history in school textbooks. I mean teams of lawyers ready to sue someone who criticizes Islam, and PR people to use the media to get the criticizer fired or ruined. I mean organizations that produce a continual stream of disinformation and propaganda aimed at vilifying anyone willing to speak honestly about the problem of Islam. I mean organizations that put pressure on politicians to keep their mouths shut because they can be ruined by allegations of "racism" or "Islamophobia." I mean pressuring Hollywood to eliminate negative depictions of Islam. The list goes on and on.

They can do what they want. People are finding out anyway. Those of us who have awakened to the disturbing nature of Islam are committed to awakening our fellow non-Muslims, and no matter what Muslims do, we will find a way.

Citizen Warrior is the author of the book, Getting Through: How to Talk to Non-Muslims About the Disturbing Nature of Islam and also writes for Inquiry Into Islam, History is Fascinating, and Foundation for Coexistence.


Possible Ways to Talk About Islam to Your Friends and Family


Below are transcripts of conversations I've had that went well, written down shortly after the conversation. Most of these are one-on-one conversations. Those are the best. The more people involved in the conversation, the higher your chances that the conversation will be unproductive.

We're publishing this list so those who are new to the counterislamization movement have some ideas about how to approach these sometimes difficult conversations. Even if you've been involved for a while and want to get some different ideas about how a conversation might go, these articles are worth reading:

Modern Revelations About Islamic Revelations

Preemptive Ideological Strike

Embedding a Fact Within Another Story

How Do You Know You've Gotten Through?

A Good Analogy to Use in Conversation: The Remote Island

Possible Approach: I Just Read the Koran…

Ask This Simple Question

Talk To Your Friends About Mohammad

Inch by Inch, Our Fellow Countrymen are Getting Educated

One Way to Approach a Conversation: Talk About the Movie, "The Kingdom"

A Discussion of Various Methods For Talking to People About Islam

Join in an ongoing conversation among us non-Muslims about the challenges of talking to other non-Muslims about Islam. Click here to read what others have written or to post a message yourself.


Relationships Strained Over Your Disagreement About Islam?


A reader asked us for some advice. He said, "Someone close to me is emphatically stubborn in their belief that Islam is a good religion and that only the 'crazy' Muslims kill people. How would you approach this person? I haven't talked to them about Islam for five years. I want to make a good impact before I lose this opportunity to talk to them."

That's a great question. Here's the advice we wish someone had given us twenty years ago:

I would re-establish my relationship first. I would improve my communication with them, bond closely, share good times, etc. And like you have done, I would stop mentioning Islam for awhile.

You can only be as "controversial" as you are close. A strong relationship can handle controversy. A weak relationship will simply break apart with controversy. A semi-strong relationship can withstand a little controversy. So build a strong bond first.

I would also try to think of the person's "stubbornness" in some other way. I would reframe it.

I read a good story of reframing: A father and his daughter had always had arguments and the father thought of his daughter as stubborn. But the meaning and judgment of a behavior at least partly has to do with the context. In the context of disobedience to him, the father thinks of the daughter's behavior as stubborn. But a friend gave him a different view: "Imagine what will happen when the girl is a young teen and a boy is trying to convince her to do something sexual. She will not be easily persuaded. Why? Because she's stubborn."

The different context casts the exact same behavior in a new light. Instead of a negative thing, the stubborn behavior could be seen more positively. Under those circumstances, the father himself might call it something very different: "standing up for herself" or "having integrity" or "hard to manipulate" or "strength of character." He might be proud of his daughter for her behavior.

Do the same thing with the person close to you. Try to think of the behavior you've been calling "stubborn" in a different light, from a different context, and use different words. If you were going to call that behavior something positive, what would it be? This is a way to break down a barrier between the two of you. It is a way of forgiving your friend for resisting you.

And finally, I wouldn't try to convince your friend in one conversation. I would think in terms of small bits and long campaigns. Read more about that here.

Citizen Warrior is the author of the book, Getting Through: How to Talk to Non-Muslims About the Disturbing Nature of Islam and also writes for Inquiry Into Islam, History is Fascinating, and Foundation for Coexistence.


The Value of Reading the Koran


Someone left a comment the other day on A Message To Peaceful Muslims. It is clear and succinct and says it all. Here it is:

"I am currently reading the Koran, and am a non-Muslim. I am looking to find positive and enlightening aspects of this book and can find none. It is all commands to get rid of infidels; it is a book based on fear and death. I was looking to find something of a great read in it, but sadly I can find nothing of value."

If you haven't yet read the Koran, take the pledge and read it. Everything you say about Islam thereafter will ring with authority.


Islam's Ideology Exploits Human Weaknesses


As I was reading F.W. Burleigh's book, It's All About Muhammad, it became crystal clear that the same human failings that are now allowing and even aiding the rise and expansion of Islamic forces in the world were also at work during Muhammad's time. Muhammad could have been easily stopped when he had only a few followers in Mecca, but the Meccans were afraid of Muhammad's uncle and didn't think Muhammad was much of a threat anyway.

Muhammad could have been stopped in Medina before he grew very powerful. Muslims were greatly outnumbered for a long time. But the residents of Medina had business to attend to and were content to let somebody else stick their neck out to deal with it, and besides, what was Muhammad and his weak little band going to do? Take over the whole town? As a matter of fact, they eventually did.

The more Muhammad asserted his willingness to murder, the more scared the Medinans were to speak up — which caused their poets (their equivalent of our modern day political cartoonists and Op-Ed writers) to silence themselves out of fear, which hindered the Medinans from expressing their mutual feelings of rising discomfort, which might have joined them together into a united resistance against their common enemy. So the Muslims were able to defeat and eliminate one tribe at a time until they ruled the town and imposed Islam on anyone left alive.

This is a deadly ideology, and it is "clever" in the same way that viruses are "clever." Deadly viruses are efficient and functional in a way that makes them hard to defeat.

We're going to have to be smart. We're going to have to muster our courage to act, and to prevent ourselves from giving up in despair. And we're going to have to unite as many of us in this cause as we can. The stakes can't get any higher.


You Are the Cure


On our Facebook page, someone wrote (I'm paraphrasing), "I'm not able to say how disgusted and angry orthodox Muslims make me feel. No words can convey it. I'm just hoping mankind can find a cure for this deadly social cancer."

That last sentence is a very common comment by people who have discovered the intolerance and hostility and calls to violence embedded in core Islamic doctrines. My answer to the commenter is a message I want to give to everyone:

YOU are the cure. When someone is running a scam on people, what's "the cure?" Can you track them all down and stop them? Not a chance. Can you eradicate scams once and for all? No, you can't. Can you "ban" scams? It wouldn't do any good. But you don't need to even try any of these things. You only need to blow the lid off the game.

Here's how we deal with scams: We share information when we find out about a scam, and then other people are wise to the scam and don't fall for it. That's all we need.

Orthodox Muslims are making inroads in the free world only because too many of us don't know the scam. Too many of us don't understand the true nature of Islamic doctrine. That's where YOU come in. We can't rely on the media. We sure as hell can't rely on politicians. That leaves personal relationships.

Reach people. If you are having trouble doing that, here is a handbook on the subject: Getting Through.


What's the Difference Between a Habit and a Headscarf?


Why are some people vehemently against a Muslim headscarf but have no objection to a nun's habit? What's the difference?

The main difference is the ideology represented by the clothing. Islam's ideology is 51 percent political and only 49 percent religious. That is, 51 percent of the Koran is about what Muslims should do with non-Muslims.

A Muslim is obligated to strive to establish the law of Allah in all nations, imposing it against the will of non-Muslims if necessary. Islamic law is very detailed and specific, and includes the death penalty for apostates and gays, women are legally only worth a half a man, etc. The Muslim headscarf is one of the few visible signs of a commitment to the fundamental principles of Islam. That's why people are bothered by it.

But aren't Christians obliged to "establish the rule of Christ in all nations?" Isn't a nun's habit a visible sign of commitment to the fundamental principles of Christianity?

That's seems like a legitimate counter-argument, but are there "Christian countries?" That is, a country where the "laws of Christianity" are imposed on everyone in that country?

So far, there are 58 Muslim countries, and orthodox Muslims are dedicated to expanding that. These countries have joined together to form the largest global organization outside the UN, and they form the largest voting bloc in the UN. They have been pushing to legally impose Islamic blasphemy laws on the entire world, which means legally nobody would be able to have this conversation, even in "free nations." It would be illegal to criticize Islamic doctrine. It is already illegal in many countries.

Islam is having a huge and growing influence on world affairs. Everyone should learn more about this ideology. It isn't like other religions. The closest religion to it is Scientology, and it's not even close.

The assumptions people make about Islam are mostly wrong. But those assumptions are guiding our legal policies, and that is dangerous.

But wait a minute. Doesn't all this only apply to the most extreme and fundamentalist followers of Islam? Wouldn't the views of extreme and fundamentalist Christians be just as disturbing? It isn't fair to paint all Muslims with this same brush, is it? We could say all Scientologists are bad people, but that isn't the case either.

First of all, we're not talking about Muslims. We're talking about Islam, which is a set of written documents. It is a written ideology. When we say "orthodox Muslim," we mean someone who follows the principles written in Islamic doctrine. Yes, of course, there are many Muslims who do not follow the doctrine, just as there are Christians who don't follow the written doctrine in the Bible.

But what this argument obscures is that the orthodox Muslims are not misguided. They are doing what it says they must do in their written holy book. It says in the Koran 91 times that a Muslim should follow the example of Muhammad in every aspect. And Muhammad (according to biographies of Muhammad written by Muslims for Muslims) raided caravans, led battles, tortured people, ordered assassinations, and personally oversaw the beheading of 800 Jews. He captured and held slaves. He raped women. He started having sex with his favorite wife when she was nine years old. This is not slanderous rumor aimed to discredit Muhammad. This is taught with a straight face in Islamic universities, without any hint of embarrassment. This was the messenger of Allah and he could do no wrong.

A fundamentalist is one who follows the teachings closely. So the actual teachings make a big difference. And all we're saying is that the teachings of Islam are dangerous to non-Muslims. In Islamic doctrine, Muslims are the best of people and non-Muslims are the worst of creatures. This is not a conspiracy theory. This stuff is very easy to find out. You don't have to trust anyone's opinion. Just read the Koran. The Muslims who are true believers (orthodox) are counting on people not wanting to know.

In a conversation about this the other day, someone brought up a good example: the Amish. They have special dress and customs but they don't seek to impose it on anyone else. That's the difference. And it's a big difference.

Look up the Holy Land Foundation trial. The FBI raided the house of a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in America and found a document laying out their plan for our country. So far they have 73 legal organizations in America bent on replacing our laws with Islamic law. One organization has been altering the way Islam is portrayed in school textbooks. One organization puts pressure on Hollywood to make sure Islam is portrayed positively in movies. One organization sues people who try to educate others about what Islam is, or gets them fired from their jobs.

Scientologists aren't bad people, by the way. Most people who read the statements above would think I was slandering Scientologists. But I was talking about Scientology, the ideology. Specifically, I was referring to the "fair game" policy of Scientology. Again, it is a written document, and followed by the true believers. It says that if someone leaves Scientology (becomes an apostate), they are fair game. They can be tricked, lied to, sued, harassed.

But that's not as bad as Islamic doctrine. Islam says the penalty for apostasy is death.

Think about something for a minute. If someone says they're a member of a group that has a written ideology, would you assume they believe in at least some of the tenets of that ideology? Of course. Otherwise, why claim your membership? It's not always the case, of course. Oskar Schindler was a member of the Nazi party, after all.

But if you could choose who would be your next door neighbor or who would date your daughter, would you voluntarily choose someone who claims membership in a dangerous ideology? They might not be "true believers." But on the other hand, many Muslims who were perfectly nice people and not true believers were reached by the more orthodox who educated them on their obligations as a Muslim. They said, "You say you're a Muslim, but have you read the Koran? Do you know what you should be doing?" And they are "radicalized" which is a politically correct way of saying they began following the written doctrine and the example of the founder of Islam.

By the way, I'm not a Christian. I'm not any religion. And I'm not out to slander any particular religion. All I did was read Islamic doctrine and biographies of Muhammad. I wasn't trying to find out that Islam is evil. I just wanted to know what was really true because we've got some people saying it's a religion of peace and some people saying it's a religion of violence. I wanted to know for myself rather than listen to the opinions of others.

I went on a decade-long program of reading, including lots of pro-Islam books and the Koran, which I read twice from beginning to end. It's a fascinating subject to study. Especially the life story of Muhammad. It is completely mind blowing that someone like that founded a religion. And that the religion (the doctrine, not the people) reflects his personality. I would never have believed it, and over time, it has become obvious to me that many people don't believe it and don't want to believe it. But if they want to be well-rounded, if they want to be an educated member of the modern world, it seems to me that one of the things they should really know about is Islam as it is, and not how they wish it was or how others want them to think about it. They should find out for themselves.

Back to the headscarf. The reason people don't like it is that the headscarf says, "I believe in the tenets of Islam" and any non-Muslim who knows what those tenets are will not like them. Also, researchers have discovered that when the women in an area with a high Muslim population begin wearing headscarves, it is a signal that the Muslims in the area are becoming more devout (more "extreme," more fundamentalist). It is a visible sign of increasing devotion to the fundamental principles of Islamic doctrine, which includes an intolerance for non-Muslims and non-Islamic laws, and usually foreshadows violence to non-Muslims and those Muslims who are "insufficiently Islamic." That's why people make such a big deal about Islamic head and face coverings. That's why France and other countries have banned them and many are considering it. 

I personally think it's foolish. If you have a visible sign of growing fundamentalism, why would you ban it? To blind yourself? On the other hand, maybe it would help weaken the fundamentalism. And it would certainly help women be free of the obligation to do it in those countries.

What about the nun's habit? The answer is that being a nun is voluntary. But if a woman is born a Muslim, she is considered a Muslim and the penalty for her leaving Islam is death.

Catholic men are not likely to beat nuns if they don't wear their habits, but orthodox Muslims have been known to beat Muslim and non-Muslim women who don't cover up, and I have yet to read a report of a Catholic man throwing acid into the face of a woman because she was not wearing her habit. Orthodox Muslim men have been doing that to Muslim women in many places in the world.

People who are relatively ignorant of Islam are puzzled by the push toward banning headscarves, and would like to write it off as just ignorant bigotry. But if they looked a little deeper, they might find sensible reasons for it.


Bill Warner Interviewed by an Ex-Muslim


This is a 20 minute interview. It was interesting to hear how Bill Warner came to his current career (he educates non-Muslims about Islam and translates Islamic texts into plain English). Watch the interview on Warner's site here: Introduction to Political Islam with Al Fadi, a former Muslim.


Why Not Learn About Islam?


If a cornerstone of someone's worldview is that white people or America or Western Civilization or wealthy oligarchs are the cause of the world's problems, he or she will try to avoid learning about Islam.

Why? Because it would be too disruptive to his or her understanding of the world to discover that Islam — a "brown people's religion" in that worldview — is a dangerous ideology and the cause of much of the misery in the world today (and throughout history).

So don't be surprised at the intensity of the resistance you get when you're talking about simple facts about Islam, Muhammad, Islamic history, etc. The resistance is so intense because this is not a simple process of updating facts about something relatively unimportant, like honeydew melon. "Oh, they're high in carotene? I thought cantaloupe was the only melon that was high in carotene."

People update their information easily and with very little resistance — unless it challenges something important they believe. And if it challenges a cornerstone of their worldview, the resistance you get is surprisingly forceful. It has the feeling of desperate ferocity. They will argue with you about Islam, sometimes quite passionately, even if they know little about it. They might not know why, but they do NOT want what you're saying to be true. So they'll come up with every argument they can think of, and if that doesn't work, they'll try to write you off as a ________ (fill in the blank: bigot, racist, hater, Islamophobe, etc., something that allows them to disregard your information).

But it doesn't work. Say it anyway. It DOES sink in eventually. It just takes awhile sometimes because it alters something very fundamental about their worldview, and that takes some internal adjustment. Don't worry about it. Inform them — gently if you can, and make it as interesting as possible — but don't stop trying to get through to people. It's the first thing we need to accomplish. Here's why.



All writing on CitizenWarrior.com is copyright © CitizenWarrior.com 2001-2099, all rights reserved.

Article Spotlight

One of the most unusual articles on CitizenWarrior.com is Pleasantville and Islamic Supremacism.

It illustrates the Islamic Supremacist vision by showing the similarity between what happened in the movie, Pleasantville, and what devout fundamentalist Muslims are trying to create in Islamic states like Syria, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia (and ultimately everywhere in the world).

Click here to read the article.

Citizen Warrior Heroes

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Visit the blog: Citizen Warrior Heroes.

No More Concessions to Islam

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Visit the blog: Concessions to Islam.

  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP