Sunday, April 19, 2009

Taking the Jihad Temperature - A Gathering Storm Special Series – DISINFORMATION Part 8

If you throw a frog into boiling water, he will jump out. If you put it in cold water and slowly turn up the heat, he will not notice the rise in temperature and will eventually boil. 

The Islamists are boiling our frog and though this blog and hundreds like it record almost daily the rise in the Jihad temperature, unless we see how far and fast the temperature has risen, we will not know how far along our boiling has progressed. 

So, the Gathering Storm will be posting only once a week but these weekly posts will take the Jihadist temperature by looking back at news and events over the last two years. Over the next several weeks in the areas of intimidationinfiltrationdisinformation and those appeasers and apologists who either knowingly or unknowingly advance the Jihad agenda, the Gathering Storm will show how far our frog has been boiled. 

By seeing the boiling water around us, we can see how far the boiling has progressed. 

The good news is that we are noticing that the water is getting warmer. There is a glimmer of awareness here - a glimmer of hope there. But we have a long way to go. 

Here’s this week’s look back at the rising Jihad temperature of DISINFORMATION !! And remember – this is just a sampling of Jihadist Disinformation. More to follow.

Storm Track Disinformation: Useful Idiots for Islam or Just Plain Stupidity?

In case you missed it, Christiane Amanpour of CNN is doing a three part series called ‘Gods Warriors’ – an exercise in moral equivalency. I know you’re not surprised.

Coming to the defense of this blatant piece of Liberal disinformation that compares the most extreme practitioners of Christianity and Judaism with the extreme Islamists who routinely blow up innocent men, women and children is Tamron Hall who seemed to suggest that Christians and Jews could be next to emulate Muslim terror tactics.

From NewsBusters.

Earlier today, Hall had watched the segment on Jewish extremists. Scarborough called CNN on its moral relativism.

JOE SCARBOROUGH [Note: speaking very much tongue-in-cheek]: I'm sure we're going to find that there are Jewish and Christian organizations, international terror networks, that are set on the destruction of entire civilizations as we find in the Muslim world.

View video here.

SCARBOROUGH: The way they're promoting this, they're promoting this as "God's Warriors." And there is a moral equivalency argument here, that somehow there's extremism in all religions, and somehow it's all equal. It is the Rosie O'Donnell argument that we should be just as nervous with Christian extremism as Muslim extremism.

HALL: I don't think that's what they're implying. I don't think that. I can't speak for . .

SCARBOROUGH: It's certainly what it looks like in the advertisements.

A bit later:

SCARBOROUGH: There is a big, big difference between me believing that Scientologists don't have the way to heaven, and me going out and blowing up Scientology centers. And that right now is what separates Muslim extremists from Christian and Jewish extremists.

That's when Hall took her argument one giant step further . . .

HALL: But is it fair to ask the question "how long does that separation exist?" Because you never know who the next [terrorist] group [will be]. I'm not saying that [a few additional unintelligible words]."

Ding Dong. Ding Dong.

Not to be undone, Michael Hodges wrote an article about the positive impact that Islam would have on London.

Writing in the entertainment paper TimeOut London in June, TimeOut editor at large Michael Hodges imagined an Islamic London. London under Sharia law, Hodges wrote, would be healthier: “the Muslim act of prayer is designed to keep worshippers fit, their joints supple and, at five times a day, their stomachs trim.” It would be sober: “Forbid alcohol throughout the country, and you’d avoid many of the 22,000 alcohol-related deaths and the £7.3 billion national bill for alcohol-related crime and disorder each year.” It would also be ecologically sound, and Islamic education would raise “general levels of discipline and self-respect among London’s young people.”

Meanwhile, “application of halal (Arabic for ‘permissible) dietary laws across London would free us at a stroke from our addiction to junk food, and the general adoption of a south Asian diet rich in fruit juice, rice and vegetables with occasional mutton or chicken would have a drastic effect on obesity, hyperactivity, attention deficit disorders and associated public health problems.”

Ding Dong. Ding Dong.

As Robert Spencer mused, “Religious bigotry would disappear as Jews, Christians, and – probably — Hindus became protected dhimmis under the benevolent rule of Islamic law.” How nice.

It boggles the mind that a leftist would write about the good that could be brought by imposing a state religion. Aren’t these the same people who will rage against anything Christian at every turn? Aren’t these the same people who would have us removed anything Christian from every square inch of public property? Yet here he goes out of his way to find good in a untenable situation.

Every bad thing that Christians have ever been accused of, has actually been done ten fold by Islam; yet this nut wants to encourage the adoption of Islam as a state religion.

Storm Track Disinformation: Are Muslims the Biggest Threat to Western Civilization? Uh! Uh!

The liberal mind can’t seem to prioritize reality. Their attempts at seeing everything as being relative prevents them from seeing one threat being worse than another. It explains why to liberals, global warming, free healthcare, and poverty are equal or worse than the threat from Islamo-fascism.

So what IS the greatest threat to Western Civilization according to one blogger?

The concern on the right about the Muslim threat to Europe, overlooks the inconvenient truth that in the UK out-of-control youths - most of them white and ‘Christian’ - are responsible for a lot of the vandalism and violence. The threat to ‘civilization’ isn’t coming from Muslims of Asian origin. It’s coming in part from a resurgence of British yob culture, fueled to some degree by xenophobic nationalism. It would be pushing it to overplay the link between yob culture and the far right. Many of these kids are just acting out for the sheer hell of it - but a percentage are racist and anti-immigrant.


So, he sees the growing response to the Islamafication of Europe by ‘Christian’ thugs as a threat to the very civilization they wish to defend. Now, I’m not defending thuggery by any group but when the leadership of a country continues to ignore attempts by Islamists to impose Islamic law upon non-Islamic countries and allow the slow erosion of Western values and culture by committing national suicide, there will be groups of people who will one day take matters into their own hands.

In a recent survey of Muslim youth cited in the Guardian 31% said they felt “completely” British, 27% said they felt “a lot” British. A great many British youths of Muslim background do indeed see themselves as Brits and their gang activity is more often than not a response to neighborhood threats, or at least the perception of threat.


31% Completely? 27% a lot? Wanna take bets on how many of the Christian youth see themselves as British? And is the threat from Christian gang youth or is it really a threat to their attempt at Islamatizing the UK community.

Manzoor Moghal, of the Federation of Muslim Organizations, takes the view that British born Muslim youths have assimilated the worst of British culture. A BBC news report quotes him as saying - "They are following the norms of the youth culture of this country. Then because they come from a different racial group things do tend to acquire a racial complexion."


What? What norms? Getting back to British born yobs. They have no problem assimilating. Oh, and what about the Islamic influence?

Great care needs to be taken when attempting to brand Muslim youth violence as Islamist inspired. A lot of these young guys are "Muslim" in name only. Many of them couldn't quote from the Qur'an if their life depended on it. To try and classify them as Islamist sympathizers is absurd. To even get to first base as an Islamist you have to at least know the rudiments of Islamic teachings.


So to be an Islamist you need to quote the Koran. That’s rich. Al you need is some radical imam to quote it to you. And where does he think they pick up these rudiments of Islamic teachings?

And then he trots out that old liberal standby for why we have unhappy people.

The recent rioting in France was immediately pegged by some right wing pundits as a form of European jihad. This is way off base also. The riots were triggered by factors relating to discrimination, unemployment and a sense of hopelessness.


I and others have written about this troublesome future for Europe. If the European leadership does not face up to the threat to Western Civilization and ACT, the choice just may well be one between Islamo-fascism and the neo-fascism, or yobs, that the blogger wrote about.

So according to his post there is a reason for Muslim violence in the UK and it has nothing to do with ideological beliefs.

Ironically, a lot of the Muslim youth violence that right wingers like to pretend is Islamist inspired, often comes down to Muslim youths imitating the yob culture they find around them in UK cities. Who can blame them? If I was a young Muslim encountering gangs of local yobs I would get together with my buddies and fight back. Isn’t that human nature?

Yep. Muslim violence in the UK is just some local street gangs imitating yobs. So you see, the Islamic threat is solved! Stop the Christian UK youth from rumbling in the jungle and all will be at peace with Muslims in the UK.

Don’t laugh. That will be the exact response from the political leadership when civil war breaks out in Europe between the Muslim and non-Muslim populations.

It will be the non-Muslim’s fault.

 

Storm Track Disinformation: Islamic Taquia or Muslim Confusion?

Ever since 9-11 Muslim have said that everything had changed for them in America. But was that change discrimination by non-Muslims or by their own motivation to return to their faith.

First the alleged discrimination.

Back in July of 2005, USA Today ran an article about how workplace discrimination towards Muslims has increased since 9-11. BUT, as I wrote in a post a couple of weeks ago:

Muslim employment discrimination cases are rising at an alarming rate. The number of judicial opinions that were formerly issued in an entire decade are now coming out in a single month. Meanwhile, the rate of successful Muslim employment discrimination claims remains extremely low. In fact, the total number of judicial opinions in which courts have affirmed Muslim employment discrimination is 12. That is not a typo - the total count is a single dozen, in U.S. history. How many total claims? Around 300 resulting in court decisions. I believe that this astounding fact shows that there is a growing effort to perpetuate the myth that Muslims in the U.S. are treated poorly. The more interesting question is why this type of religious discrimination claim is on the rise. Perhaps we should look to the Muslim civil rights organizations for answers.

Then this piece of weird news. There have been quotes by young Muslim-American women who said that after 9-11 they felt they had to put on the hajib to show her solidarity with Muslims.

Rather than wrapping herself in an American flag, however, Azadeh Zainab Sharif, a Muslim student at San Francisco State University who grew up in San Diego but lived for several years in her father's native Iran, decided it was time to bring her religious identity out in the open. After 9/11, she began wearing a hijab, the scarf worn by many Muslim women around the world.

For Sharif, now 22, putting the scarf on coincided with her spiritual awakening as a devout Muslim, but it was also a reaction to what she perceived as growing fear among Muslims in this country.

What’s wrong with that picture? She fears for Muslims in the country so….she does her best to dress like one?!

Self-proclaimed Muslims fly planes into our buildings, claim to do it for Allah and the first thing a young Muslim-American woman does is put on a symbol that identifies herself with the motivation for the terrorists? Would a Japanese-American the day after Pearl Harbor prance around in a kimono?

Then there was this short video clip promoting a segment on BridgesTV - the all Muslim cable channel that is working its way into American households across the country. In a running segment called ‘It’s My Country too’, a Muslim rock band member laments the changes in non-Muslim attitudes towards Muslims in America.

In the short clip, he says that before 9-11 he would attract thousands of Muslims in Central Park to his concerts. Now none will come.

Why? He doesn’t say. Is he hinting that a Muslim audience would be attacked in some manner? Or perhaps, rock music is not halal and his audience has voluntarily withdrawn their support for his band now that after 9-11 they, like the young Muslim-American woman, have had a “spiritual awakening as a devout Muslim”.

He goes on. He says he’s fears a religious conflict in a country (America) that he loves as much as Pakistan. Again, here’s one of the prime reasons why Muslims can not adapt or assimilate into the countries they emigrate to. Their dual loyalty. Where in most cases, freely admitted, the loyalty to the Islamic nation – or Ummah – takes precedence.

Am I wrong or is there something screwy here?

Storm Track Disinformation: "It Is Not Easy to Defeat Islam, But It Is Easy to Live With It."

“Islam and the Living is Easy”

My apologies to Porgy and Bess.

According to OSCE Chairman Miguel Angel Moratinos, that’s what he advised the residents of Western countries which had Muslim populations. OSCE stands for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

Of course, if you’re a regular follower of the anti-jihadist movement in the blogospher, you know that to live easily with Islam – is easy. Just do what Islam means – submit and you shall have peace.

And the bull gets even deeper from Mr. Moratinos.

The delegates were attending a conference on how to fight intolerance and discrimination against Muslims. Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa warned that the current situation contained "the seed of a long-term confrontation" between the West and the Muslim world, cautioning against acts such as creating caricatures of the prophet Mohammed.


He still doesn’t get it. The Mohammed cartoons were an expression of our right to free speech and if he is going to hang his entire argument on intolerance against Muslims on one of our basic rights, than Muslims are going to have a hard time being tolerated.

Then we have this myth which continues to propagate.

Several speakers referred to the tolerant coexistence of Muslims, Christians and Jews in Cordoba while Spain was under Moorish rule more than half a millennium ago.

Here’s the truth of Moorish Spain and what follows is the reality of living easily with Islam.

The Muslim Brotherhood has laid down its first detailed political platform, which would bar women and Christians from becoming president and establish a board of Muslim clerics to oversee the government, reminiscent of Iran's Islamic state.

The platform has dismayed secular reform activists who have cautiously hoped the Brotherhood was becoming more moderate and who supported the movement in the face of an unprecedentedly tough government crackdown against it.

Or how about this kind of ‘easy living’.

A fatwa issued in August 2007 by the secretary-general of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America (AMJA), Dr. Sheikh Salah Al-Sawy, states that marriage between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim man is forbidden and invalid, and that children born of such a union are illegitimate.

"Marriage between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim [man] is forbidden and invalid – that is a consensus among Muslims.

Get that? The consensus of Muslims. They'll never feel welcome in non-Muslim countries when spokesmen like this clown represents Islam.

A [Muslim] woman who has taken the liberty [of marrying a non-Muslim man] has removed herself from the fold of the Muslim community – and one who has done so knowing that it is wrong, has done something strictly forbidden, and has committed an open [act of] abomination that may hurl her into the abyss of heresy and apostasy.


Polish up those stones.

Isn’t life easy with Islam?

Storm Track Disinformation: This is What Passes As Academic Thinking in the West

A blog for students engaged in doctoral studies in the field of human rights, called PhD studies in human rights, posted and article entitled “Muslim World Journal of Human Rights” (Now there’s a contradiction in terms) in which it links to an article by Barb Rieffer-Flanagan, entitled "Improving Democracy in Religious Nation-States: Norms of Moderation and Cooperation in Ireland and Iran". Quite a mouthful but your thesis has to sound impressive for the pinheads in academia to hold any water.

At any rate, you read that right. She’s comparing Ireland to Iran! And get this. She posits that the same process that transpired in Ireland between Protestants and Catholics could be used to move Iran towards civil rights in that country.

And you wonder why academics have no clue as to what’s really happening in the world. I’d love to be on her thesis committee.

Many in the human rights community have expressed concern about the illiberal religious political system found in Iran today. However, Iran is not unique in its illiberal religious nationalism. Some contemporary liberal democracies in the West also have a history of illiberal religious nationalism. The English and later the British discriminated against Catholics in various ways. The Irish also have a history of discrimination against Protestants and inequality towards women which was based on a deep seated illiberal Catholic nationalism.


Moral equivalency between good and evil run amok. This deluded moonbat is actually comparing the act of discrimination by Catholics and Protestants to the burning of churches, beheading of apostates, hanging of homosexuals and stoning of adulterers.

In all of these cases moderation and liberalization occurred over time. An interesting question is whether moderation over time might be repeated outside of Europe, especially in religiously based nations in the Middle East.


Hey Barb? I think you need a remedial course in world history. Islam does not and can not allow moderation. It is the word of Allah written down verbatim by Mohammed to all Muslims.

When looking especially at the evolution of Ireland we notice that: economic prosperity spread throughout the population, the perception of a threat from the United Kingdom declined, European norms were spread within Ireland, and there were scandals within the Catholic Church.


Did you catch the indoctrination she parroted? A literal laundry list of Leftist philosophy. And economic prosperity improved civil rights. Isn’t that the mantra of the Left? Muslims in the Middle East hate the infidel because Muslims are economically disadvantaged?

And here’s the brainwashing showing through again.

If the external threats to Iran were removed and economic prosperity was to spread, as corruption and scandals came to light, we might expect that Iran may begin to moderate its political system.

Right. Like the average Iranian isn’t aware of the corruption of the Mullahs. Iranians live in a totalitarian theocracy and are just too scared to do anything about it.

Dream on, lady, dream on. And remember she may be teaching your kid in college someday.

Storm Track Disinformation: The Language of Jihad

I’ve been waiting to see the analysis of the letter from the 138 Muslim leaders call for common ground with Christians before I blogged on it. Many of the Christian leadership and political pundits shot from the hip and said this was a peaceful overture to non-Muslims and perhaps the beginning of a dialogue of peace between Muslims and non-Muslims.

To bad it ain’t so.

The reason is that we are dealing with an alien culture to our own. One that speaks its own language, has its own pedagogy, and except for a few non-Muslim scholars on Islam like Robert Spencer, it’s a language that the non-Muslim world ceases to understand.

Some say Muslims don’t say what they mean. That there words are a type of lie, or what Muslims call ‘taqiyya’. Though Muslims are permitted to lie and misdirect non-Muslims with their words, they, more often than not, mean exactly what they say. It’s just that the meaning of many of their words is very different from those of non-Muslims.

And the recent letter proves it.

First a personal experience as told by Robert Spencer. He was riding in a cab to some lecture he was doing years ago and saw that the cab driver was middle-eastern. He asked the driver if he was a Muslim. He said yes. Spencer asked why Muslim suicide bombers kill innocent people. The cab driver replied that it was against the Koran to kill innocent people – except if they’re Jews. To Muslims, the word innocent does not apply to everyone. There is a pecking order of innocence.

All Muslims are innocent. People of the Book – aka, the Bible - who welcome Islam either through conversion or submission are innocent. Infidels or those that refuse to accept Islam are not innocent – except the Jews. They’re damned if they do and dammed they don’t.

So let’s look at that letter and see what it really says.

One of the best analyses comes from Phyllis Chesler.

May I suggest that you share the following three points with Christians and Jews (People of the Book) and of course with Muslims whom you may know. These points were made by a Christian student of the Qur’an, “Steve Chambers,” (a pseudonym), who has self-published a book entitled “Jihad On Us All. The Roots and Branches of Islamic Militancy” (and is available through Amazon online). One ex-Muslim and one Christian Qur’anic scholar who do not wish to be named agree with his points.

POINT ONE: The very title of the letter, “A Common Word between Us and You” comes from the Qur’an. Here’s a fuller quote, from 3:63-66:, which says: ‘people of the book, let us come to a common word between us and you that we will worship none except Allah, that we will associate none with him, and that none of us take others for lords besides Allah. ‘if they turn away, say: ‘bear witness that we are Muslims. People of the book [i.e., Christians and Jews], why do you dispute about Abraham when both the Torah and the Gospel were not sent down till after him?’

In other words, the Qur’an - Allah - is saying that the Qur’an’s view of Abraham, including his having been prepared to sacrifice Ishmail rather than Isaac, is correct and the Torah and New Testament are wrong because they were written by human, not through explicit divine revelation. In fact, this verse comes from a later chapter which “abrogates” (nullifies or overturns) earlier more conciliatory chapters and precedes the last chapter or two which call for “offensive jihad” against the “People of the Book.”

TWO: The Letter appears to follow a very ugly and dangerous precedent in Islamic history. Just before Mohammed’s death, he supposedly sent audacious letters to the heads of the three main empires of his day and region - the Persians, Egyptians, and Byzantines. His message: convert or be conquered. All three emperors supposedly laughed him off. Their empires were all conquered by Muslim jihadists.

THREE: The similarities between the religions are not as important as the differences. “Love thy neighbor” does not appear in the Qur’an, except when that neighbor is Muslim. Nor does, “turn the other cheek.” But “submit to Islamic rule or die” does. The Muslim clerics state: “As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes.”

Let’s look at those three phases. On the surface non-Muslims would say that, or course, we shouldn’t do those things. But those three phrases are a veiled political statement of Muslim reality today. Waging war against Muslim is in reference to Iraq and Afghanistan. Should we have not gone into Afghanistan after 9-11 to wipe out the jihadists there who claimed responsibility for it? After all, it was OBL, a Muslim, who declared war on us.

And who is oppressing who? Muslims can practice their religion freely in non-Muslim countries but that is not reciprocated in Muslim countries. By constantly whining about being oppressed they seek to gain accommodation and appeasement from the non-Muslim societies to move their agenda forward of Islamitizing the world.

As for driving Muslims out of their homes, this a veiled attempt at capitalizing on the lies of the Left who say our soldiers terrorize innocent Iraqi citizens in their homes.

This is a grotesque bit of taqiyya, (theologically permissible propaganda) not to mention a total misrepresentation of Christian attitudes towards Muslims. After all, in Muslim countries Christians are systematically being driven out, while in Christian countries in the West, Muslims are rapidly increasing.


Here’s another analyses of those phrases from Freedom Fighter’s Journal.

The scholars state: “As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes.”

In other words, we Muslims are not against Christianity, so long as Christians don’t do any of the myriad things we Muslims are hard-wired to regard as “waging war against” us. This is often repeated by apologists of Islam who maintain that Islam, the religion of peace, only resorts to war in self-defense.

Robert Spencer explains just “how elastic and essentially meaningless the concept of fighting only in self defense” actually is in Islam.

By way of example, he records the answer to an inquiry about offensive jihad given by South African mufti Ebrahim Desai, who confirmed that, since “the primary responsibility of the Muslim ruler is to spread Islam throughout the world…if a country doesn’t allow the propagation if Islam to its inhabitants in a suitable manner or creates hindrances to this, then the Muslim ruler would be justified in waging Jihad against this country…If the Kuffar [unbelievers] allow us to spread Islam peacefully, then we would not wage Jihad against them.” (The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades).

Spencer concludes the concept has no boundaries at all:

That constitutes a sufficient provocation? Must the defending side wait until the enemy strikes the first military blow? These questions have no clear or definitive answers in Islamic law, making it possible for anyone to portray virtually any struggle as defensive without violating the strict canons of that law. But this also renders meaningless the oft-repeated claims that jihad warfare can only be defensive.

As we’ve seen, Muslims can justify defensive warfare over slights including a non-belligerent Christian leader addressing a Christian audience (Benedict at Regensburg), in a Christian nation and making mention of some failings of Islam, or the insupportable cartoon riots when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published drawings of Mohammed--neither of which remotely entailed waging war on Muslims nor driving any from their homes: (but of course, many found themselves “oppressed” by being forced to share a planet with people holding contrary opinions about the Prophet!).

Any abused enabling wife will tell you that her black eyes are not the fault of her husband for being a brute, but her fault for always doing things that drive him crazy. If she would just give him what he needs to remain peaceful, he's as harmless as a lamb.

And what does the Vatican think of this letter after studying it over the last week or so?

The top Vatican official for Islam has praised a novel Muslim call for dialogue but said real theological debate with them was difficult as they saw the Koran as the literal word of God and would not discuss it in depth.

Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, in an interview on Friday with the French Catholic daily La Croix, also said Christians would have to discuss curbs on building churches in the Islamic world in the dialogue advocated by 138 Muslim scholars in the appeal.

His interview, coming after mostly positive comments by other Catholic Islam experts, signaled the world's largest Christian church wanted a serious dialogue with Muslims that did not avoid some fundamental issues dividing the religions.

"Muslims do not accept that one can discuss the Koran in depth, because they say it was written by dictation from God," Tauran said. "With such an absolute interpretation, it is difficult to discuss the contents of faith."

The fact that Muslims can build mosques in Europe while many Islamic states limit or ban church building cannot be ignored, he said. "In a dialogue among believers, it is fundamental to say what is good for one is good for the other," he said.

Right. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. At least they have their heads screwed on straight and can see through the taqiyya of the imans.

Those are examples of the rising Jihad temperature of for this week. When seen in groups like this, the slow boil becomes obvious.

Next week a look back at the rising Jihad temperature of Islamist appeasement!!

Get a FREE TRIAL COPY of the The Gathering Storm eBook which includes the Forward by Walid Shoebat, Introduction, and first 50 pages of The Gathering Storm eBook. And sign up for my free WEEKLY STORM REPORT and receive a synopsis of the most important weekly news revealing the intimidation, infiltration and disinformation tactics used to soften-up the non-Muslim world for domination.

 


3 Comments:

  • Guys,
    When I go to your site, I get an alert that your site contains MALWARE, and I should not go there. If your traffic has decreased lately, that's the reason.

    Mark

    By Anonymous Mark, at 3:21 AM  

  • Mark - what kind of alert are you getting? I don't get any alert using any of my browsers - IE, Chrome or Firefox.

    Anyone else getting a malware alert?

    By Blogger WC, at 8:00 AM  

  • Influence can be defined as the power exerted over the minds and behavior of others. A power that can affect, persuade and cause changes to someone or something. In order to influence people, you first need to discover what is already influencing them. What makes them tick? What do they care about? We need some leverage to work with when we’re trying to change how people think and behave.

    www.onlineuniversalwork.com

    By Blogger davidbaer, at 9:56 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home