How? By being PERSUASIVE.

And how can we be persuasive?

When the conduct of men is designed to be influenced, persuasion...kind, unassuming persuasion, should ever be adopted. It is an old and a true maxim, that a "drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall." So with men.

If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend. Therein is a drop of honey that catches his heart, which, say what he will, is the great high road to his reason, and which, when once gained, you will find but little trouble in convincing his judgment of the justice of your cause, if indeed that cause really be a just one.

On the contrary, assume to dictate to his judgment, or to command his action, or to mark him as one to be shunned and despised, and he will retreat within himself, close all the avenues to his head and his heart; and, though your cause be naked truth itself, transformed to the heaviest lance, harder than steel, and sharper than steel can be made, and tho’ you throw it with more than Herculean force and precision, you shall no more be able to pierce (his mind and heart), than to penetrate the hard shell of a tortoise with a rye straw.

Such is man, and so must he be understood by those who would lead him, even to his own best interest. - Abraham Lincoln, address to the Washington Temperance Society in 1842.

Ben Franklin used to love to argue. Used to love the taste of showing others how much smarter he was than them. Unitil one day a Quaker friend that he had great respect for lashed out at him in unusual fashion, so unusual to his temperament that it caught Ben off guard and he took his words to heart. This is what his friend said:

Ben, you are impossible! Your opinions have a slap in them for everyone who differs with you! Your friends enjoy themselves better when you are not around! You think you know so much that no one can tell you anything. Indeed, no one is going to try, for the effort would only lead to discomfort and hard work! So you are not likely ever to know any more than you do now--which is actually very little!

This struck Ben to the core. And we went home and gave his friend's words some serious consideration. He was right. He didn't have many friends. And he fought with everyone all the time. Perhaps there was something to this. But he was a smart guy, and he came up with something that ended up working wonderfully for him. Here's what he said:

I made it a rule to forbear all direct contradiction to the sentiments of others, and all positive assertion of my own. I even forbid myself...the use of every word or expression in the language that imported a fixed opinion, such as 'certainly', 'undoubtedly', etc., and I adopted, instead of them, 'I conceive', 'I apprehend', or 'I imagine' a thing to be so or so; or 'it so appears to me at present'.

When another asserted something that I thought an error, I denied myself the pleasure of contradicting him abruptly, and of showing immediately some absurdity in his proposition; (but) in answering I began by observing that in certain cases or circumstances his opinion would be right, but in the present case there 'appeared' or 'seemed to me' some difference, etc.

I soon found the advantage of this change in my manner; the conversations I engaged in went on more pleasantly. The modest way in which I proposed my opinions procured them a readier reception and less contradiction; I (was less embarrassed) when I was found to be in the wrong, and I more easily prevailed with others to give up their mistakes and join with me when I happened to be in the right.

Your best chance to change someone else's mind is in private, one on one. In "The Art of Controversy" (a more accurate modern title would probably read "The Art of Public Debate"), Arthur Schopenhauer explains that the goal of public debate is not to change the mind of your opponent, but rather, to win the crowd.

This is most effectively accomplished, he explained, not by putting forth the strongest arguments, but by using logical fallacies, even if they're obvious, and ad hominem attacks to get an emotional response from your opponent, making him appear weak and unstable to onlookers as he scrambles to disentangle the web of misquotations, accusations, labels, and personal attacks you've woven around him. Meanwhile you appear cool, calm, amused, and basically superior in every way.

If you think back to Trump's many debate performances, you'll see that he was a master at this technique. Never at the end of any Trump debate did you think "His points were dazzling! I never thought of it that way! A philosopher and a scholar, take my money!"

No, you thought, "Look how angry and frazzled everyone else looks. Look how much attention he gets. Look how calm and amused he seems in the face of this highly stressful situation in front of millions of people. That...that right there...that's strength. That's masculinity. That's a leader."

Nobody even remembers any of the actual content from those debates. They just remember Trump calling people names, rolling his eyes, laughing, telling jokes, and toying with his opponents like a wise old cat toys with a mouse before eating it.

But that's when there's a crowd. If Trump had been meeting with each of his debate opponents privately one on one, and his goal was truly to win someone he thought was honest of heart over to his way of thinking do you think he would have called him names? You think he would have used literally any of the tactics he used during the debates?

Not a chance. He'd invite him to have a seat. He'd pay him a compliment. Ask him if he wanted anything to drink. Then address the elephant in the room, which is the source of their disagreement, and then ask his GUEST to explain his perspective in detail before offering up his own, and he'd make sure he felt safe doing so.

He would then look at his guest intently as he spoke, listening closely and tell himself internally, "I'm going to reserve judgment for now. I'm going to listen like this is the first time I've ever heard anything like this. I'm going to assume that he's got to be right about at least SOMETHING on SOME level, even if it's just his good intentions.

What is it exactly that my guest here is trying to communicate? Where are they coming from? What might have contributed to him feeling this way? What are his trigger points? Where are the traps? Where do I think he's gone wrong in his thinking? What do I think he has gotten right?"

And he would stop his GUEST every so often to make sure he'd understood him correctly--not as a trap, not as a form of argument itself, but in good faith, offering his guest the benefit of the doubt and time to wiggle out of whatever perspective he realizes he's communicated that doesn't actually matches up with his true feelings.

He'd give his guest time to think about his own perspective and make sure he felt safe taking his time getting it out properly.

Then, after he had proven to his guest that he fully understood his position and his guest was now calm, and waiting in pacified curiosity as to what his reply would be, he would start by commending his friend, for his openness, for his honesty, for his goodness, and his intelligence.

He would then proceed to lay out the ways in which he believes they agree, laying down those facts as the foundation for their discussion and proof of their shared values.

Then finally, after all that, if there were still something about his guest's perspective that he disagreed with, then he would gently, with language that suggests continued open-mindedness, explain why he has trouble with this or that point, and he wouldn't resist or object if his guest, upon hearing some such things, and once again feeling misunderstood, were to interrupt in order to clarify.

Our hero wouldn't take it personally, and would be patient, and perfectly content to repeat that process as many times as it took either until they reached consensus, or determined that their values or premises are simply too far apart for that to be possible. Either way, committing to treating his guest as a friend nonetheless.

Look, arguing can be a fun sport but it can get in the way of our mission. I know nothing can stop what is coming but wouldn't we all like it to come a little faster? We have an enemy that is not honest in heart and not acting in good faith. That is the Church of Satan. But those we refer to as "normies" are not our enemies, and it's irresponsible of us to make a sport out of arguing with them, when a little persuasion could save them and bring them to the side of light.

Ask yourself honestly, "Would I rather be the only person in the room who knows what the hell I'm talking about, feeding my ego and wearing that like a badge of honor...or actually wake them from their slumber?"

Have you thought about how you can do that? Have you already given up because it feels like a mystery to you? Are you content to let the end come when it comes, because nothing can stop what is coming, or would you like to give that ball a little extra shove as it rolls down the hill so we don't have to wait so long?