Some political spokespersons take advantage of our broad news coverage to broadcast their message. Sometimes these messages are devoid of emotional content. Only rarely do we see angry politicians raving in the news.
Iran's president, for example, often makes public statements and has given several interviews in public, in America. You don't see him with strong, inspirational messages, nor does he rant and bang his fist in anger. Antagonism isn't his message. The feelings associated with argument are not contained in his interviews and are not contained in his public messages. Antagonism is above his message and anger is above his message.
His message is founded on and delivered from the emotion of hate. And so the Western world can not believe his message. We dismiss his message because he delivers it without any urge to argue its truth. And without any anger which could be reacted to. Instead his words and feelings are hate.
"The Holocaust never existed", he states. He comes right out and says this. He isn't arguing and he isn't antagonizing. He is hatefully stating what he believes is true.
"Elements of the USA government caused 9/11", he states. He isn't arguing, he isn't angry, he is stating a hateful message.
These are non-negotiable statements, do you see? His are statements without argument, they are below argument. They fit perfectly with the world view he proposes.