Improve Your Persuasion Powers By Speaking Their Language

Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to pay attention today to the words people use to describe their experience. Find out what "representational system" they use the most. Once you learn how to do this, you can start talking to people in a way that will reach them, because you'll be using the representational system they favor. But for now, your mission is to simply identify the primary representational system of everyone you talk to today.

Now that I've given you the mission, I'm going to explain it. A "representational system" is one of three things: Visual, auditory, or kinesthetic. When you think or remember, you are representing reality in your mind. For example, you can remember what happened yesterday by seeing mental pictures. That would be using your visual representational system. Or you could remember by recalling what someone told you yesterday or the sounds you heard yesterday. That would be using your auditory representational system. Or you could remember how you felt yesterday. That's using your kinesthetic representational system.

This all sounds terribly complicated, but it's not. We have three primary ways to store and recall reality: Visual, auditory, and kinesthetic. Many of our memories or imaginings include all three representational systems, of course. In other words, you remember what you saw, what you heard, and what you felt.

But all of us tend to "favor" one representational system over the others, in the same way that you are right-handed or left-handed. You tend to use one representational system more than others. You tend to store your most important information in that representational system. You tend to respect and respond to information presented in that representational system more than you would if it was presented using a different representational system.

In other words, if you are a visually-oriented person, and I speak to you using visual terms, what I say will have more impact, will be more persuasive, will be more memorable to you than if I spoke to you using auditory terms.

Speaking in visual terms would be saying things like, "When you read the Quran, you will see things in a whole new light. You'll get the big picture." Speaking in auditory terms would be saying things like, "When you read the Quran, you are hearing the words of Mohammad the way Muslims around the world hear them. It may sound like what I'm saying does not make sense, but once you read the Quran, it will click for you." Speaking in kinesthetic terms would be saying things like, "When you read the Quran you'll grasp the overall negative, hostile feeling of Mohammad and Allah toward non-Muslims." Click here to find more examples of the kinds of words that indicate the three different representational systems.

But before attempting to speak someone's language, you must first know what it is. How can you know? By listening to the way people describe things when they talk. That's your assignment today. And ideally, you would keep it up every day until you can easily know what representational system people favor. Once you can do that, speaking someone's language is easy.

This exercise will increase your observational powers. And it will increase your ability to connect to people and influence them.

You can practice all day long. Anytime you are speaking with someone, pay attention to which words they use. Which sensory system are they talking about?

This is not as hard as you would think. If I told you to determine whether someone was right or left handed, you would be able to tell just by watching, don't you think? If you observed the person's behavior for awhile, you'd easily identify which hand they favor. You may have known the person for awhile and didn't know if they were right or left handed, but once you pay attention, once you're looking for it, you can find out just by paying attention.

You can do the same to discover the representational system they favor. It is only a matter of paying attention.

We need to reach people. We need to help them understand what we understand about the third jihad. We need to get past their barriers to listening. So we need to get really good at gaining rapport with people. One excellent way to improve our rapport and help people to listen to (and respect) what we say is to speak their language — to use the representational system they favor most when we speak.

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. Subscribe to Citizen Warrior updates here. You can send an email to CW here.

Read more...

Rapport Comes Before Influence

It's not just what you say, but the way you say it. You know that. But when you want to say it a different way, what should you change? In the following quote from the book, Persuasion Engineering, the authors give you a very different idea for how to gain rapport with those you're trying to influence:

People understand words at the same rate that they speak them.

Have you ever thought of that? So one of the things you can do when you're in a conversation with someone about Islam is pay attention to the speed at which they talk, and make sure you talk at the same speed. This is their speed, and you will have the greatest chance of reaching them if you speak at their speed.

To go to a little more sophisticated level of gaining rapport, check this out, paraphrased from the same book:

One of the most important "rapport skills" you can learn is to listen to their intonation patterns and listen to the predicates they use. Do they use a lot of picture words or a lot of feeling words or a lot of hearing words? The whole sentence counts.

For example, "Well, it looks like a good opportunity but I feel I'm not ready for it."

This sentence tells you something about the sequence of how information is processed by this person. First they look (visual) and then they check their feelings (kinesthetic). There is no right or wrong in this. There is no good or bad. People process information in many different ways. Listen to the intonation. Listen to the sequence of their predicates. They will indicate how you should talk to them to have the best chance of getting through. Read more about that here.

Sometimes people use nothing but visual words. They'll say "I'm looking for a new stereo. I could see how it would help us have great evenings together." With this kind of person, it almost doesn't matter what the stereo sounds like. If you want to sell him a stereo, you're going to have to show him.

If someone is visually oriented, you will more successfully reach them if you speak in a way that is visually oriented too. Or sound-oriented, or feeling-oriented. Whatever they are.

Speak at the rate they speak. Speak with the same kinds of intonations. And speak to their primary sensory system. Do these things and your ability to get your message to penetrate will greatly improve.

Learn more about speaking to their sensory system.

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. Subscribe to Citizen Warrior updates here. You can send an email to CW here.

Read more...

The Key to Your Listener’s Inability to Confront the Disturbing Nature of Islamic Doctrine

Someone left the comment below on The Islamization of the West and it reminds me of many similar comments I've gotten over the years, and similar feelings I've had:

"I am at a complete loss as to why CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, MPAC or this NMLA is even allowed to exist in America?? Are some Americans so dumbed down that they don't see the enemy right in front of them? Is this or any political party in government so stupid that they just turn a blind eye to what's happening?"

Can you feel the commenter's exasperation? Have you had this feeling before? We are in a strange situation: We try to simply share new information we've learned, and we find ourselves unable to share it — not because we are incapable of articulating it, but because our listeners do backflips trying to invalidate the information. They contort themselves into impossible cognitive pretzels in order to reject simple, factual information. It has been baffling to many of us. I know. I have heard from hundreds of our fellow counterjihadists about this.

And I know how it feels. I sometimes want to write off my fellow non-Muslims as idiots, but I know many of them are not stupid, so what is going on? What could be the cause of their seemingly stubborn stupidity on this subject?

Last night, I was reading Victor Davis Hanson's book, The Father of Us All, and he said something I've never thought about before. Namely, that people in the West are acutely aware of the inequalities of the world — we in the West enjoy a material quality of life far better than billions of other people — and for a lot of Westerners, this presents a serious ethical problem.

They feel guilty about it. They need to assuage their guilt in some way. But here is the key insight I've never thought about before: They need to assuage their guilt in some way other than giving up the goodies, because even though they don't like the inequality, they don't want to give up the high quality of life.

In other words, many people need to have a way to keep enjoying the material riches, but still rectify or expiate the guilt they feel about others being so poor.

The solution many have chosen is to go out of their way to see what's wrong with their own culture, and to give other cultures an undeserved reverence.


A FAMILIAR SOLUTION

This solution is something we are familiar with in our personal relationships. If you are more successful than a friend of yours, for example, one way you can help him feel better and prevent him from resenting you is to point out your own faults. Those who are exceptionally successful often habitually display humility, making it a point to underline their own personal imperfections.

The successful person can do this with integrity because everyone has faults, even very competent people, and because every success is partly a result of pure luck — the luck of being born in a free country, the luck of being born with ambition, a high energy, basic intelligence, good health, etc. Many people use this stratagem, knowingly or unknowingly, because it helps. The self-deprecation helps a successful person continue to enjoy the material goodies without feeling too guilty about it around other people, and without making other people feel bad about themselves or resentful of the successful person.

It shows no class to put down the "less fortunate" as lazy, stupid, ignorant, etc. It is the height of vulgarity to criticize or humiliate or ridicule or rebuke or denounce the less fortunate.

And I think the people who will not listen to you, or who argue in defense of Islam even when they know nothing about Islam, are doing the same thing on a cultural scale. In other words, when you, a fellow member of the fortunate class (a Westerner) start bad-mouthing another culture — when you start criticizing Islamic doctrine — you have violated an important code of etiquette. And for them to listen to you and accept what you say is for them to violate it too.

What we're dealing with is a "cultural humility" about Western culture and achievements. People are going out of their way to point out what is wrong with their own Western culture or their country in particular. They're not casual about this — there is an underlying intensity. They seem hell-bent on criticizing their own country or culture.

Now it makes sense that it seems so deeply felt, that your listeners seem so committed to stopping you from criticizing Islam and committed to criticizing their own culture. Many people rely on this criticism to allow them to enjoy their abundant technology and relative luxury without too much guilt.

They feel less guilty because they express a sufficient degree of contempt for their own highly successful culture, and they feel (or at least profess) sufficient admiration for all other cultures.

The simple, factual information about Islam you want to share threatens to undermine this whole unformulated creed, which endangers the linchpin of their emotional harmony and ethical congruence. They can't let it in.

To let it in would require them to rearrange an important feature of their worldview and their self-image. This is not a minor matter. This is not a small, inconsequential barrier we can easily sweep aside. It is a major psychological problem that stands in the way of our goal of educating people about Islam. Understanding what it is and what we're up against is the first step.


SURVIVOR GUILT

We are talking about a psychological problem similar to survivor guilt. People who have survived plane crashes or concentration camps or some other event where others have died sometimes suffer a painful, unrelenting guilt because they survived while others perished. It wasn't fair, and they have a problem dealing with the unfairness.

Westerners are in a similar position on a global scale. Think about it. We've seen close-up, full-color pictures of our fellow human beings starving in Africa, imprisoned in China, tortured in Iran, executed in Saudi Arabia, while we drive to and from our pleasant activities in clean, comfortable cars, go to grocery stores overflowing with food, come home to a comfortable shelter with cable television, microwave ovens, high-speed internet, and enjoy an immense degree of personal freedom. It isn't fair. Yes, we may have worked to earn the money, but had we been born in Iran or China, our lives would be tragically different, regardless of how hard we worked.

We got lucky and it definitely isn't fair. At some level, I think most of us feel some kind of guilt about this. I think we should have a name for it. Born in a Western Country Guilt? I don't know what to call it, but clearly some of us handle the guilt better than others.

How do you live with the inequality of the world? Some people think those of us in Western countries have created a superior culture, so we deserve our wealth. Some think the European or "white" race is genetically superior. Some good evidence indicates the inequalities are a result of geography. And some just consider themselves lucky and try to help others when they can.

We've all found a way to live with it, but the people we're having a hard time communicating with about Islam have found a less-than-optimal way of dealing with it. It's better than the path self-righteous racists use, but it is not ideal (or even adequate) — it's preventing them from confronting and accepting important facts about the real world.

Multiculturalism is one way this guilt manifests itself. Multiculturalism says all cultures are equal. None is better than others. Moral equivalence is another. Moral equivalence says, "Yes, that other culture does terrible things, but look, we've done terrible things too," so again, we are not better than others. White Guilt is another. Each of these different manifestations all stem from the same fundamental need to relieve guilt while still enjoying the safety and wealth and comfort of their Western society.

We have a need, wrote Hanson, for "cultural neutrality" — for seeing ourselves as no better than anybody else. This doesn't sound so bad, but the need for cultural neutrality can be so well-ingrained that it causes a kind of willful blindness that overrides common sense and the basic instinct of self-preservation. It has gone off the deep end. Hanson wrote: "...so strong is the tug of cultural neutrality that it trumps even the revulsion of Western progressives at the ... jihadist agenda, with its homophobia, sexism, religious intolerance, and racism."

It is important to clearly understand this perplexing, confusing, exasperating phenomenon we are all running into: The compulsive, undiscriminating reflex to defend Islam and criticize Western countries. The source of the resistance we're coming up against is this: People feel guilty for having so much more than others, and this prevents them from accepting your legitimate criticisms of Islamic doctrine.

With this understanding, we can begin to find more effective ways of educating our fellow non-Muslims on the basic facts 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.

Read more...

Use Your Body to Help You Reach People

You want to educate your fellow non-Muslims about Islam. Excellent. Bravo. And sometimes you have a difficult time getting the message across. They seem to turn against you. They want to reject your message. You lose rapport. It can sometimes be upsetting.

People who also need to gain rapport so that they can influence others (therapists) have discovered many intelligent ways to gain rapport and prevent losing it. One of those ways is by using your body.

I want you to try an experiment today and tomorrow. You'll be talking with many people in the next two days. Try this: Every time you're talking to someone, notice how they're positioning their body, and make your body's position similar to theirs.

You don't have to match it perfectly, although they probably wouldn't notice if you did. But if the person's head is tilted slightly, tilt yours slightly. If the person has all his weight on one leg and the other one slightly bent, do the same.

Notice how he has positioned his arms and hands. Make yours somewhat similar. Notice his posture. Make yours similar.

This is one of many ways to gain and keep rapport with someone. We'll be covering other ways in the next few weeks. But for now, just concentrate on your body, and see what happens.

What will happen is that people will respond to you better. They will feel closer to you without knowing why. And oddly enough, you will feel closer to them. Over the next couple of days, concentrate on this. If you keep it up, it will begin to come naturally. At that point, you will have increased your ability to influence people.

If we want to reach people, if we want them to listen to us, if we want our message to penetrate, gaining rapport is a skill worth learning. And using your body is a good place to start.

When you can influence people using methods such as the one above or the one in our last article, it's like playing three dimensional chess with someone who is only playing two dimensional chess. They have no idea what you're doing and they have no idea why you are so persuasive. Read more about that here: Influencing People Who Live in a 2D World With 3D Techniques.

Read more...

Rapport, Connection and Thanksgiving

In the United States, (and for some in the UK) almost everyone is anticipating a Thanksgiving feast later this week. Most people will spend the day with their family. For many of us, our families have been the most difficult people to educate about Islam, and it is a painful fact that in many ways some of our own family members are "aiding and abetting" the enemy (without knowing it, of course).

Family get-togethers on Thanksgiving (or any holiday) may seem like a good opportunity to make your case, but I caution you against it. First of all, talking politics in those circumstances can easily ruin the event for everyone. And an argument certainly will. Second, persuading someone in a group situation is much more difficult than one-on-one (unless most of the people there are on your side of the argument). And third, many of your fellow infidels may be drinking alcohol, and that doesn't help with good listening or clear thinking.

The family gathering can, however, help our cause. You can use the occasion to observe and gain rapport. I suggest you focus this Thanksgiving on one person. Who is the most likely to be open to understanding Islam who will be attending the feast? Who is the most undecided? Pick one person.

During your family occasion, try to discover which representational system the person favors (click here if you don't know what that means).

And second, use your body to gain and maintain rapport throughout the day with everyone there, especially the person you picked (click here to find out how to do that). I suggest you do this at family gatherings of any kind.

These things will set you up beautifully for future one-on-one conversations with the person — conversations where you'll have a good chance of bringing them to a new understanding of Islam. In many ways, your task is half done when you are in strong rapport. Sometimes taking your focus off convincing and persuading can make you more convincing and persuasive. Sometimes not approaching something directly improves your ability.

I have seen a demonstration that perfectly illustrates this principle. In fact, I've done the demonstration myself several times after seeing it in a seminar. Here's how it goes: I toss something to someone, and they miss it. And they say something like, "I'm terrible at catching." So I tell them I'm going to test something. "I'm going to toss you this ball," I say, "but this time don't try to catch it. Instead, I want you to tell me which way the ball is spinning." Then I toss the ball, and to their great surprise, they catch it easily.

How does this work? They take their attention off trying to catch the ball, and instead pay close attention to the ball itself, and their body responds naturally and easily and catches it.

In the same way, if you take your attention off making people believe you, and instead pay close attention to their favored representational system and pay close attention to their body posture and match it, you have a good chance of making them believe you — easily and naturally — without even trying.

These two tasks are not time-consuming, difficult, upsetting, or conflict-creating. You can do them both and still fully enjoy the day too. Have a happy Thanksgiving.

Read more...

Inch by Inch, Our Fellow Countrymen are Getting Educated

The day after Osama bin Laden was killed, I was talking to a friend of mine at work. He is a dedicated multiculturalist who hopes what I've been saying about the Koran and Islam isn't true. We were talking about the news, and I quoted Osama bin Laden: "We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the big difference between us."

My friend looked baffled as to why bin Laden — or any human being — would say such a strange and horrible thing. And this just confirmed for him that bin Laden was an animal, a cruel murderer who would have been a murderer no matter what religion he was.

But then I said something that I could tell really caught him. I said, "Well, it's a sentiment Muhammad expressed. He said unbelievers love the life of this world better than the hereafter, and because of that, they are rejected by Allah. A lot of Muslim leaders have said the same thing in pretty much the same words as bin Laden — Nidal M. Hasan, the Ayatola Khomeni, hell, it's even the Hamas motto!"

My friend looked like I just jolted him with a Taser for a second. He knows I've read the Koran twice, so he took what I said as a shocking fact.

I don't like to make people squirm, and I wanted to give that indigestible tidbit a little time to integrate into his worldview, so I went on about my business as if nothing happened. It was just a casual remark, a simple matter of fact, and my demeanor revealed no more than that. But I have the feeling he stayed up late that night thinking about it. I think he might come around.

I feel sometimes like a therapist helping someone gradually come to terms with a painful memory that they subconsciously fear to remember.

Years ago I read an account by Milton Erickson — a psychiatrist and innovator of hypnotic techniques — doing an experiment in a college class he was teaching. One of Erickson's students couldn't stand the sight of blood and this was a problem because he was studying to be a doctor!

Erickson hypnotized the young man and uncovered a memory the student had completely blocked from his conscious mind. But rather than overwhelm his conscious mind, Erickson gave post-hypnotic suggestions to allow the memory to be revealed to his conscious mind slowly, bit by bit, over the course of many weeks.

I sometimes operate the same way with information about Islam. For some people, to discover that the core doctrines of Islam — a religion in which 1.2 billion people claim membership — teaches intolerance, totalitarianism, and violence, is not only overwhelming and frightening, it is profoundly disruptive to their worldview.

So if I am going to have regular and continued contact with a particular person, I reveal the information gradually.

Just a little at a time does the trick. Let them come to it on their own terms. As Dale Carnegie says in his book, How to Win Friends and Influence People — a book every counterjihadist should study — when trying to change someone's mind, it's best to let them think it was their idea, and the gradual approach is one way to do that.

Find out why it is so important to help people understand Islamic doctrine: Just One Thing.

Read more...

Still More on Talking About Islam by Talking About Scientology

I'VE WRITTEN in several places (here, here, and here) about how to get around the resistance to information about Islam by first giving the same information about Scientology. Because Scientology is a new religion and doesn't have a lot of followers, most people have no aversion to learning anything interesting about it.

If you tell a friend something about Scientology and they have no problem with it, and then you say the same thing about Islam and they want you to stop talking about it, you're in a good position to open their minds about Islam. The double standard will be obvious. This can help you sweep aside their unjustifiable antagonism toward learning about Islam.

Along those lines, a very long article in the New Yorker is an investigative report on the current state of Scientology, and below I'll quote a few things from the article. The title of the article is The Apostate. It's about a famous man who left Scientology (and the stir that caused among Scientologists). The quotes below are things about Scientology that are similar to Islam but unlike any other religion I know about.

The Koran is very clear about the strictness of Islamic teachings, for example. The teachings are perfect as they are. They are not to be altered. There is no "picking and choosing" passages you like or agree with. Islam is Islam, and it is strictly forbidden to ignore or change any part of the teachings. Along those lines, here is a quote from Tommy Davis, the chief spokesperson for the Church of Scientology International:

"Mr. Hubbard's material must be and is applied precisely as written. It's never altered. It's never changed. And there probably is no more heretical or more horrific transgression that you could have in the Scientology religion than to alter the technology." (Scientologists consider the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder, to largely consist of "spiritual technology" — specific methods and "drills" to achieve specific spiritual results.)

Many Islamic organizations use the courts to harass people, and they use organized political and legal actions to intimidate people into doing what they want (apologizing, retracting public statements, keeping silent, firing an employee, etc.). Here's a quote from the article about Scientology. Notice any similarities?

"The Church of Scientology had recently gained tax-exempt status as a religious institution, making donations, as well as the cost of auditing (a form of 'spiritual counseling'), tax-deductible. (Church members had lodged more than two thousand lawsuits against the Internal Revenue Service, ensnaring the agency in litigation. As part of the settlement, the church agreed to drop its legal campaign.)"

Another thing that becomes very clear in the article is that the spokesperson, Tommy Davis, is lying to protect Scientology, and Scientology's teachings explicitly make clear that lying for the cause of Scientology is completely acceptable. Islam does something similar. Known as the practice of taqiyya, Muslims are given explicit permission in Islamic teachings to lie to non-Muslims if it serves the goals of Islam.

Another similarity is that becoming an apostate is very bad in both Islam and Scientology. Very very bad. They consider it a kind of treason. Leaving the religion is considered a very serious offense. In Islamic law, the punishment is death.

In Scientology jargon, someone who leaves the church has "blown." Apostates are considered "fair game" in Scientology, meaning they can be tricked, lied to, sued, and harassed (read more about that written policy here). Here is another quote from the New Yorker article:

"Whitehill and Valerie Venegas, the lead agent on the case, also interviewed former Sea Org members in California. (The Sea Org is the headquarters of Scientology worldwide.) One of them was Gary Morehead, who had been the head of security at the Gold Base; he left the church in 1996. (Gold Base is a central Scientology outpost in the desert near Hemet, a town eighty miles southeast of Los Angeles.) In February, 2010, he spoke to Whitehill and told her that he had developed a 'blow drill' to track down Sea Org members who left Gold Base. 'We got wickedly good at it,' he says. In thirteen years, he estimates, he and his security team brought more than a hundred Sea Org members back to the base. When emotional, spiritual, or psychological pressure failed to work, Morehead says, physical force was sometimes used to bring escapees back."

Talk about some of these aspects of Scientology with people you know who are reluctant to listen to information about Islam, and then talk about how similar these aspects are to Islamic doctrine. Don't push to hard; just open up their minds a little. Think small bits and long campaigns.

Read more...

The Information Slipped Right In

I WAS TALKING to a man the other day who had already told me (months earlier) he doesn't believe the Muslims he knows follow the Islamic teachings I told him about, and he is skeptical of my assertion that the Koran is strewn throughout with messages hateful toward non-Muslims and encouraging violence against them. And he feels that our U.S. laws will protect us anyway. I'm telling you this so you understand the mindset of the man I was speaking with.

So the other day, I said, "Remember I was telling you I'm reading a book about L. Ron Hubbard?"

He said, "Yeah, I remember."

"Well I finished it and I'm reading another biography of Hubbard. The guy was amazing in his audacity! Remember the Freedom of Information Act?"

"Yeah."

"When it passed, Scientologists discovered that the U.S. government had lots of information on Hubbard and Scientology, and almost none of it was favorable. So Hubbard decided to infiltrate government organizations so they could change or destroy that negative information."

"What do you mean?" my friend asked. I had suddenly gotten his attention. "How do you 'infiltrate' the government?"

I liked his interest. I could tell this conversation was going to be instructive. I said, "Hubbard assigned a bunch of loyal Scientologists to get jobs at the IRS and other government offices. And then they proceeded to find documents on Scientology and either steal them or change them or shred them. Unbelievable! I mean who even thinks of doing something like that?!"

"Yeah, that's amazing!" he said. He looked genuinely dumbfounded and appropriately outraged.

Then I dropped a bomb on him. I said, "The Muslim Brotherhood has done the same thing."

"What? What do you mean?" I had taken him by surprise.

"They have infiltrated government organizations," I said matter-of-factly.

"What for? What would they do?" I could tell he had never heard anything like this, and really couldn't imagine what a "real" religion would want to accomplish by infiltrating government offices.

My answer wasn't as good as I would have hoped. I wished I had been better prepared with examples. But I will be next time. What would the Muslim Brotherhood do in government offices? I said, "All kinds of things that might help Islam advance in America. I told you the clear goal in Islamic doctrine is an Islamic world, remember? Well, the devoted ones intend to accomplish it. So, for example, one guy fairly high up in the U.S. government was caught trying to get a known Islamic terrorist organization off the FBI 'watch list.' Others have gotten jobs at the FBI instructing agents on how to be careful not to offend the American Muslim population. Others have gotten jobs as interpreters in security agencies. And we only know about the ones who got caught, of course. Nobody knows how many have infiltrated without getting caught."

After that, I said something else interesting I read about in Hubbard's biography. Sometimes, you've got to just let things sink in and not push too hard. But some new information got through in that conversation. It's a beautiful thing when it happens. Step by step, inch by inch, we are converting unwitting enemies into allies for the cause.

Read more about how to use Scientology or Japanese Bushido to help you get information about Islam to penetrate your listener's defenses.

Read more...

A Simple Way to Respond to Resistance

WHEN YOU SHARE something about Islam with a non-Muslim and you get resistance, respond with something like this: "Well, tell me what you've learned about Islam so far. Let's start there." Ask the question in a casual, relaxed, easygoing, not-in-the-slightest-bit-defensive way. Practice asking that question when you're alone, so you can deliver it perfectly and with just the right tone.

And after you ask the question, listen. Let the person speak until they're done.

When they finish, tell them what you have found out. Take something specific, and say, "I used to think exactly the same thing until I read the Koran. And what I found out really surprised me..."

A back-and-forth argument usually doesn't change anyone's mind, and tends to create negative feelings. But the kind of conversation you get with the approach above has a chance of making your listener consider what you have to say, which could lead to them changing their mind eventually.

Read more...

Self-Righteousness Impedes Our Educational Efforts

WHEN SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS is expressed, it tends to evoke self-righteousness in the listener. Self-righteousness (also called holier-than-thou) is a feeling of smug moral superiority derived from a sense that one's beliefs, actions, or affiliations are of greater virtue than those of the average person.

When you know a lot about Islam and your listener doesn't know anything (but thinks he does), self-righteousness is bound to crop up somewhere.

In a conversation, if someone expresses self-righteousness, that look on their face and that tone in their voice tends to arouse self-righteousness in you, doesn't it? And of course, any self-righteousness you express does the same to any listener who doesn't agree with you.

So ideally, you would not express any self-righteousness when you're trying to educate someone about the disturbing nature of Islam. The self-righteousness is a barrier to communication, making it almost impossible for your listener to accept what you say.

But Houston, we have a problem. You can't just suppress your own self-righteousness. If you feel self-righteous, it communicates whether you want it to or not. In order to not express self-righteousness, you actually have to feel no self-righteousness.

But how can you do that? There is only one way: You must develop genuine empathy for the other person. You cannot see them as an enemy, as an idiot, as a fool, or as anything derogatory. You have to see them as a good human being defending worthy values.

That's a big challenge, psychologically, especially when they are both ignorant about Islam and self-righteously thinking they know more than you. But you can do it. You can see them as a good human being defending worthy values. And when you do, your persuasive efficacy will increase tenfold.

You were once ignorant about Islam too, and you may also have had a difficult time believing a religion could be so intolerant in its core doctrines. I know I did. I did not want to believe it. Most of us felt that way in the beginning. And we felt that way for good reasons. In this culture, we are committed to fairness, to religious freedom, and to protecting the defenseless. These are some of the core values that make our culture worth defending.

You have to see that when a non-Muslim argues against what you're saying and tries to defend Islam, he or she is ultimately motivated by these core values — values that are so instinctive, the impulse to protect those values arises automatically and with heroic strength.

Now that you have learned more about Islam, you have not given up those values. You have simply added more information and more distinctions that you didn't have before.

You must see your interaction through this light. It will give you more empathy and less self-righteousness.

Your empathy will make your conversations much more pleasant and it will greatly improve your ability to educate. This ability to empathize is one of the things that makes a great leader great. And you are now a leader. You are leading people into the light of new knowledge, sometimes against their own resistance. That's what leaders do. You must see yourself as a leader and use empathy the way other great leaders have done.

To see a good example, watch the movie Invictus or read Mandela's Way or Long Walk to Freedom. Empathy is what made Nelson Mandela a great leader. His goals were against what people naturally wanted to do, especially people who were on his side. But he was able to see the world from his opponents' side, and was able to bring many of them onto his side. That's what a leader does.

If you want to increase your ability to educate people about Islam, you will cultivate a heartfelt, sincere, passionate empathy for your listener, and this will reduce or even eliminate self-righteousness as a barrier in your conversations.

Educating our fellow non-Muslims is the most important thing we civilians can do. Let's get it done.

Read more...

Stand and Deliver

LOTS OF NEW national and international policies need to be changed in order to halt the Islamization of the West. But for this to happen, more of us must become educated about Islam's prime directive. That's where you come in. Is this a tough assignment? You bet it is. Here's a little inspiration to help you... Jaime Escalante got out of the computer business because he wanted to teach high school. He got a job in East Los Angeles at a public school to teach computers, but there wasn't enough funding to buy the computers, so he ended up teaching math. His class consisted of mostly Chicanos (people whose parents or grandparents were Mexican immigrants). The class was rowdy and noisy, the students were rude — they threw papers, they talked out of turn, there was spray-painted graffiti on some of the chalkboards, and they weren't interested in learning math. But Escalante wanted to teach. And this class was what he had available for students. So he began to teach them math. But instead of doing it in a conventional way, he took into account the students. He customized his approach for this particular audience. So the next day he showed up looking like a chef, wearing a cook's hat and an apron. He had already cut up some apples in different proportions and placed them on the desks around the classroom. The whole thing made the students curious. He pointed to a student and said, "What do you have?" The answer was half. He pointed to somebody else, "What do you have?" She said, "Missing 25%." That was the beginning. Escalante used humor, he challenged his students, he built on their strengths, he used lots of class participation, and he was hard on the students sometimes. He used some rote repetition, and he relentlessly motivated them in every way that would reach them. Then he decided to teach them calculus. It wasn't normally taught in the school, and he did it against some of the administration's objections (they thought he would be lucky to teach the students basic math, or even just keep the students in their seats). But Escalante wanted to challenge the students and he wanted them to do something that brought them into the future. The reason he wanted to teach them calculus was that you could get college credit for passing the very difficult Advanced Placement Calculus Exam. He wanted them thinking about a college education. He wanted them to see themselves differently. He wanted to change their future. Less than two percent of all high school seniors nationwide even attempt to take the Calculus Exam. Most of the other teachers thought it was ridiculous and that the students would fail this challenge. The students didn't even have some of the prerequisites normally required for calculus. Trigonometry, for example. So Escalante taught them trigonometry during the summer so the following year they could take calculus. One of the reasons he wanted to teach them calculus is that it's a form of math used in the computer industry. He wanted to put their sights on a future goal rather than fulfilling the low expectations everyone else had for them. This was another way he motivated them. It was another way he found to reach them. He was creative. He found new ways, found what worked, and continued to innovate new ways to reach them. And he succeeded beyond anyone's wildest imagination. Out of the 18 students in Escalante's class, 18 of them passed the AP Calculus Exam! No other high school in Southern California had more students pass the test. But then when their scores were reviewed, the students were suspected of cheating because all their scores were so high and they all made similar mistakes. So they re-took the test under more strict and careful observation, and all 18 passed again. An inspiring movie was made about Escalante's amazing achievements, starring Edward James Olmos and Lou Diamond Phillips. The movie is called Stand and Deliver. (Watch the trailer here.) Escalante kept learning and innovating. The next year, 31 of his students passed the AP Calculus Exam. The year after that, 63 students passed. The year after that it was 77 students. And so it went. We are in a similar situation as Escalante. We often find ourselves trying to teach people things they don't want to learn. And the reasons they don't want to learn are not legitimate, but they don't know that. We may be able to use many of the specific techniques Escalante used with his students when we talk to people about Islam, but the more fundamental principle of commitment, innovation, thinking outside the box, and using whatever fits the personality of the person you're trying to reach — those are principles we should enthusiastically emulate. He could have given up like many teachers have done under similar circumstances. But instead he innovated and experimented, and that is what we must do.

Read more...

Getting Through to People: How to Get Listening Leverage

ONE OF THE most powerful things you can do to increase your ability to persuade is to do genuinely, physically helpful things for the person you want to persuade. To be kind in action — not making a show of it, but just doing it. Nothing says, "I'm on your side," with as much impact as a genuinely kind deed.
Everybody can use some help now and then. Just look for small things. Once you start looking, you'll find lots of opportunities to help.
Not only will this feel good, and not only will it be good for your health (because of the "helper's high" kind acts will give you), but for our purposes here, it also puts the other person in a position of obligation to you. Most people have a natural desire to reciprocate kindness. They will want to discharge their feeling of obligation to you, and you have a great deal of influence over how they discharge it. You can ask them to watch a DVD or read an article or watch an online video, for example. You can say, "I know you don't like this stuff, but just do it for me, okay?" If you have built up a sufficient feeling of obligation toward you, they will do it.
Doing kind, thoughtful things also makes them see you as a kind, thoughtful person, which helps prevent them from thinking of you as a "hater" or a "racist." This will help reduce their resistance to your influence.
Are you having a difficult time getting through to someone? Gain some listening leverage.

Read more...

More on Using Scientology to Criticize Islam

I'M READING another biography of L. Ron Hubbard, this one entitled, Bare-Faced Messiah. I've mentioned before (in this article) that when you encounter resistance to your criticism of Islam, you can sidestep to talking about Scientology, which has many parallels with Islam. Nobody seems to mind when you criticize Scientology (except a Scientologist, of course).

You can criticize something about Scientology, and then say the same thing about Islam, and if someone gives you a bad time about it, you can ask, "Why is it okay to talk about Scientology but not Islam?"

It is no more racist to talk about Islam than Scientology, for example. And you can make that point very effectively and very reasonably, and thereby greatly reduce the flak you take for doing something everyone in free nations should be engaged in: Religious and political criticism and free discussion. What's the point of free speech if we aren't exercising it?

Anyway, below are eight excerpts from Bare-Faced Messiah. As you read, I'd like you to consider what a conversation might be like if you said, "I was reading something about Scientology today that really surprised me." Then talk about it for a bit. And then say, "It reminded me of something very similar about Islam." And talk about that for a bit. This is received with less resistance than talking about Islam only. Give it a try and you'll see what I mean.

Here are the eight excerpts from the book:

1. While Hubbard (L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology) was skirmishing with the FBI, he was also tightening his grip on the Scientology movement and urging his followers to take action against anyone attempting to practise Scientology outside the control of the 'church'. He derided apostates as 'squirrels' and recommended merciless litigation to drive them out of business. 'The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease,' he wrote in one of his interminable bulletins, casually adding, 'If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.'

In the same bulletin he offered the benefit of his advice to any Scientologists unlucky enough to be arrested. They were to instantly file a $100,000 civil damages suit for molestation of 'a Man of God going about his business', then go on the offensive 'forcefully, artfully, and arduously' and cause 'blue flames to dance on the courthouse roof until everybody has apologized profusely'. The only way to defend anything, Hubbard wrote, was to attack. 'If you ever forget that, you will lose every battle you are ever engaged in.' It was a philosophy to which he would adhere ardently all his life...

2. The same month as the Freedom Congress, the Central Intelligence Agency opened a file, No. 156409, on L. Ron Hubbard and his organization. CIA agents trawled through police, revenue, credit and property records to try and unravel Hubbard's tangled corporate affairs. It was a task of herculean difficulty, for the Church of Scientology was a cryptic maze of ad hoc corporations. The printed notepaper of the Academy of Scientology gave only a hint of its labyrinthine structure — on the left-hand side of the page was a list of no less than seventeen associated organizations, ranging from the American Society for Disaster Relief to the Society of Consulting Ministers.

Agents traced a considerable amount of property owned either by Hubbard, his wife, son, or one of the daunting number of 'churches' with which they were associated, but the report quickly became bogged down in a tangle of names and addresses: 'The Academy of Religious Arts and Sciences is currently engaged as a school for ministers of religion which at the present time possesses approximately thirty to forty students. The entire course consists of $1500 to $1800 worth of actual classroom studies...The public office is located at 1810-12 19th Street N.W. The corporations rent the entire building...

'The Hubbard Guidance Center, located at 2315 15th Street, N.W., occupies the entire building which consists of three floors and which was purchased by the SUBJECT Organization. The center also rents farm property located somewhere along Colesville Road in Silver Spring, Maryland, on a short-term lease. The center formerly operated a branch office at 8609 Flower Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland. In addition to the Silver Spring operation, the center has a working agreement with the Founding Church of Scientology of New York, which holds classes at Studio 847, Carnegie Hall, 154 West 57th Street, New York City. Churches of this denomination number in excess of one hundred in the United States...'

3. While he was still in Melbourne, Hubbard received an urgent telephone call from Washington with some bad news. Nibs (Hubbard's son), he was told, had 'blown'. To Scientologists, 'blowing the org' (leaving the church) was one of the worst crimes in the book: it was almost unbelievable that the highly-placed son and namesake of the founder would take such a step. Nibs had simultaneously held five posts in Scientology's increasingly cumbersome bureaucratic structure: he was Organizational Secretary of the Founding Church of Scientology, Washington, DC; Chief Advanced Clinical Course Instructor; Hubbard Communications Office World Wide Technical Director; and a Member of the International Council.

[Nibs] failed to take into account the fact that his father would automatically view his defection as an act of treachery...

4. Returning to a familiar theme, Hubbard urged his followers to defend Scientology by attacking its opponents: 'If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace...Don't ever defend, always attack. Don't ever do nothing. Unexpected attacks in the rear of the enemy's front ranks work best.'

5. 'It was not really possible to question what was going on,' explained David Mayo, a New Zealander and a long-time member of the Sea Org (the headquarters of Scientology worldwide, which was a small fleet of ships), 'because you were never sure who you could really trust. To question anything Hubbard did or said was an offense and you never knew if you would be reported. Most of the crew were afraid that if they expressed any disagreement with what was going on they would be kicked out of Scientology. That was something absolutely untenable to most people, something you never wanted to consider. That was much more terrifying than anything that might happen to you in the Sea Org.

'We tried not to think too hard about his behaviour. It was not rational much of the time, but to even consider such a thing was a discreditable thought and you couldn't allow yourself to have a discreditable thought. One of the questions in a sec-check (a security check, using a lie detector, which is done frequently throughout the organization) was, "Have you ever had any unkind thoughts about LRH?" and you could get into very serious trouble if you had. So you tried hard not to.'

6. Now sixty-two, Hubbard was also beginning to ponder his place in posterity. The Church of Scientology had been swift to make use of the recently enacted Freedom of Information Act, which had revealed that government agencies held a daunting amount of material about Scientology and its founder in their files, much of it less than flattering. Hubbard, who had never been fettered by convention or strict observance of the law, conceived a simple, but startlingly audacious, plan to improve his own image and that of his church for the benefit of future generations of Scientologists. All that needed to be done, he decided, was to infiltrate the agencies concerned, steal the relevant files and either destroy or launder any damaging information they contained. To a man who had founded both a church and a private navy this was a perfectly feasible scheme. The operation was given the code name Snow White — two words that would figure ever more prominently over the next few months in the communications between the Guardian's Office in Los Angeles and the Commodore's hiding place in Queens, New York.

7. At six o'clock on the morning of 8 July 1977, 134 FBI agents armed with search warrants and sledgehammers, simultaneously broke into the offices of the Church of Scientology in Washington and Los Angeles and carted away 48,149 documents. They would reveal an astonishing espionage system which spanned the United States and penetrated some of the highest offices in the land.

8. This is a quote from the government sentencing memorandum on Mary Sue Hubbard and the others, October 1978: "The crime committed by these defendants is of a breadth and scope previously unheard of. No building, office, desk or file was safe from their snooping and prying. No individual or organization was free from their despicable conspiratorial minds. The tools of their trade were miniature transmitters, lock picks, secret codes, forged credentials, and any other device they found necessary to carry out their conspiratorial schemes. It is interesting to note that the founder of their organization, unindicted co-conspirator L. Ron Hubbard, wrote in his dictionary entitled Modern Management Technology Defined that "Truth is what is true for you." Thus, with the founder's blessings, they could wantonly commit perjury as long as it was in the interests of Scientology."

All of this could be pulled straight out of the Muslim Brotherhood's playbook. Go on the offensive. Attack people who impede your goals. Use the courts to harass. Be merciless until people are apologizing profusely. Invoke "freedom of religion" as a cloak of protection. Create lots of different important-sounding organizations, and make the names seem mainstream and respectable, and try not to use your own religion's name in the title to throw people off your trail and to make it seem like a coalition of many religions. Create a "labyrinthine structure" of organizations to make it difficult for anyone to follow the money. Consider apostates as enemies to be destroyed. Criticism of the religion or the founder is completely forbidden, resulting in unthinking, uncritical (and therefore fanatical) followers. Scientologists use a lie detector. Islam uses Allah, who knows every thought you think and will judge you and punish you accordingly. Infiltrate government agencies in order to protect and promote the religion. And lying is allowed if it is done to further the goals of the religion.

Begin to talk about Scientology and Islam together and your conversations will be more interesting, less contentious, and more productive. With this new strategy, we should be able to reach more people in less time. Our goal is to educate non-Muslims, focusing on the undecided, because whoever is most organized will win.

Read about the Muslim Brotherhood's labyrinthine structure of their organizations.

Read about Scientology's "Fair Game" policy.

Read more about Scientology.

There's a biography of Hubbard that I think is the best book to read for an overview of Scientology. The book is called Messiah or Madman?

Read more...

Bushido and Islam: Creepily Similar

I RECEIVED an interesting email from a woman who calls herself Western Feminista, who has eloquently commented before at Talk About Islam Among Non-Muslims. She was struck by the strange similarity between Islam and Bushido. I thought we could use this in the same way as comparing Islam with Scientology (which I recommend here), in the sense that we may be able to get around some of the defensiveness non-Muslims have about Islam by talking about similar teachings in other religions. Here are some of the similarities Western Feminista found: Blind Submission: Devotion to the Emperor (as a direct descendant of the Sun Goddess, Amaterasu Omikami) and the view that the Emperor was an earthly agent of divine origin. His decisions and judgments were, by default, moral and legal. Muslims also revere Mohammad, the direct chosen Prophet by Allah (God). He will sit next to Allah interceding on behalf of believers on Judgment Day. It is his dictation of the word of Allah that make up the Koran that all Muslims must adhere to. His utterings are by default, moral and legal. Humiliation and Shame: The notions of "saving face" and the avoidance of shame have also been an integral part of Japanese culture for centuries. To admit one's wrongdoings, or worse the wrongdoings of an ancestor, would be a disgrace according to the belief in filial piety. Lower-ranking soldiers were often beaten for the “crime” of serving a superior's rice too slowly, and sick and wounded soldiers were treated with disgust. (Infringement of the Laws of War and Ethics (January 1945) “Many incapacitated soldiers, with a good chance of recovery, have been disposed of on the grounds that they are useless to the Emperor. A-17 Division Order commands medical officers to dispose of any sick and wounded who become a liability.”) Perceived insults from Allied prisoners were met with executions, and attempts to “shame” POWs by forcing them to bow, fight for food, etc., were routinely used. Women civilians were “shamed” by being used as “comfort women.” Islam is also a Shame/Honour-based culture — obsessed with keeping face, guarding against the threat of humiliation and over-the-top reactions to the slightest perceived insult. An excellent example is the Mo-toon worldwide frothing-at-the-mouth scenario, Theo Van Gough, the film “Submission,” Geert Wilders' stand against Islamification, a fatwa issued against Pokemon Toys…the list is innumerable and is growing daily. Dhimmis are “shamed” by having to pay protection tax (jizya). Women are subjugated in the name of “honour” daily. Free Thought Banned: In Bushido, the Confucian precepts also set the parameters for a samurai's unquestioning obedience to his daimyo. Within the Confucian context, a "Just War" was any undertaking that the ruler sought to fulfill. They could not be questioned by anyone because that would demonstrate disrespect for authority and a questioning of the authority's divine judgment. In Islam…“the verses of the Qur'an and the Sunnah summon people in general (with the most eloquent expression and the clearest exposition) to jihad, to warfare, to the armed forces, and all means of land and sea fighting." Those who can only find excuses, however, have been warned of extremely dreadful punishments and Allah has described them with the most unfortunate of names. He has reprimanded them for their cowardice and lack of spirit, and castigated them for their weakness and truancy. In this world, they will be surrounded by dishonour and in the next they will be surrounded by the fire from which they shall not escape though they may possess much wealth. The weaknesses of abstention and evasion of jihad are regarded by Allah as one of the major sins, and one of the seven sins that guarantee failure. (Al-Banna) We can also look to Islamic leaders for backup: “Keep on fighting for the application of Islamic law. If this state and nation wants to become great, safe, and at peace then it has to return to Islam one hundred percent without bargaining. If not, then it will be destroyed.” (Abu Bakar Bashir, spiritual leader of the Indonesian Mujahideen) "I am one of the servants of Allah. We do our duty of fighting for the sake of the religion of Allah. It is also our duty to send a call to all the people of the world to enjoy this great light and to embrace Islam and experience the happiness in Islam. Our primary mission is nothing but the furthering of this religion." (Osama bin Laden, May 1998) R-E-S-P-E-C-T: Bushido also stressed respect for others, however, the term others was very illusive and often manipulated to mean almost anyone or only a select few. POWs being held by the Japanese Imperial Army were taken on death marches, starved, beaten, beheaded, shot and certainly not respected…the mere fact that they had surrendered, sent them to the bottom of the food chain. We have seen lots of examples put forward by Islamic apologists stating the same thing — that Islam is a peaceful religion that accepts women, Christians and Jews with respect…the passages from the Koran are too many to show here that is not the case… War as a means to an end: Bushido sees war as an act that could purify the self, the nation, and ultimately the whole world. Within this framework, the supreme sacrifice of life itself was regarded as the purest of accomplishments. “Do not live in shame as a prisoner. Die, and leave no ignominious crime behind you.” Yamamoto Tsunetomo's Hagakure (1710) Ritual suicide (seppuku) was preferred over a life of shame (defeat), and was adopted as a means of war by the Japanese Imperial Army. (Kamikaze tactic during WWII — this was also consistent with the Bushido Code’s requirement of self-sacrifice.) The idea that war is a way of “purifying” the whole world is another area where Islam agrees — the whole globe should become Islamic. Islam means submission, and so the House of Islam includes those nations that have submitted to Islamic rule, which is to say those nations ruled by Sharia law. The rest of the world, which has not accepted Sharia law and so is not in a state of submission, exists in a state of rebellion or war with the will of Allah. It is incumbent on dar al-Islam to make war upon dar al-harb until such time that all nations submit to the will of Allah and accept Sharia law. Islam also believes the premise that dying while waging jihad is the purest of accomplishments…”But nothing compares to the honour of shahadah kubra (the supreme martyrdom) or the reward that is waiting for the Mujahideen.” (Al-Banna) Employment Opportunities: It was not unusual for civilians to be routinely slaughtered by the Japanese Imperial Army, as well as taken as forced labour for war projects. (Thai/Burma Railway used civilians taken from Indonesia as well as Malaya and other neighbouring SE Asian countries, as well as POWs.) Islam has a long history of taking slaves by force, and is currently still perpetrating horrors against indentured servants from other countries, especially in Saudi Arabia. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11795356 Conclusion: The punishments meted out to civilians and POWs by the Imperial Japanese Army have been recorded by history as shocking — atrocities that still sicken to this day. The belief in their superiority over all others led to acts of pure evil being perpetrated, for which they were condemned by all western nations. Why then, does a doctrine that is easily aligned with Bushido still exist? (Bushido already having been condemned as inhuman and vile.) Why is this doctrine still being allowed to infiltrate our daily lives? Why does the media apologise and excuse it? Why do the politicians of the same nations that held war-crime tribunals against the JIA now trip over each other to appease the latest practitioners? At the end of WWII, a declaration was given to the Japanese to sign….one of the conditions read:

"We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation...The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established."

In other words, "No More Bushido." Why then, can I not say, "No More Islam" without being accused of hate speech? When I asked Western Feminista if I could reprint her analysis, she said yes, and then added: I sat down after watching the mini series “The Pacific” and Googled the JIA and Bushido and just picked out a few bits that struck me as being creepily similar. I thought it was strange that so many people compare Islam to Nazism (Jew hatred etc) — but I haven’t heard anyone looking at it from a “religious spiritual” side…everything the JIA did was in the name of the Emperor and the belief that he was a divine being unable to be criticized. (Even Hitler had people who doubted him…but the Emperor didn’t.) My Grandfather was on the Thai Burma railroad, and he always said that theirs was an ideology that encompassed every aspect of their lives, was completely irrational and evil to the core…

Read more...