Selling our Souls for the Sake of “Tolerance”

by CYNTHIA E AYERS

Western cultural adaptations of the basic theme of selling one’s soul to the devil abound.  While having certain entertainment value, the idea of selling out your own values and ethics (and/or those of the society from whence you came) was, until recently, considered abhorrent. Unfortunately, we (as a nation) appear to have done just that as of late; but few would dare to put it in those terms.  Indeed, many quickly retreat from the barrage of verbiage — words such as “racists,” “bigots,” “intolerant (fill in the blank)phobes,” and “McCarthyites” — used as missiles against the few brave souls who speak out on behalf of the security of our country.  Worse, many retreat in fear — fear of ostracization, lawsuits, and even death threats.

One could be forgiven for wondering if we haven’t adopted a policy that the Saudi Royal Family has occasionally been accused of – “pay[ing] off terrorist groups in part to keep them from being more active in their own country.”  What’s the payoff in the United States?  Our complacence; our compliance; our “willful blindness; ” our endless concessions to demands that we change our ways, our laws, our financial systems; our acquiescence to the infiltration of adversarial entities into U.S. governmental bodies; and our silence in the midst of character assassination and insufferable verbal assaults on those who try to protect our country and maintain our freedoms.  In essence, we agree to allow our country to succumb to a hostile takeover while we act like the three proverbial monkeys — hearing no evil, seeing no evil, and speaking no evil, while we sit on our tolerant backsides.

A small number of intrepid individuals who have managed to make their voices heard on behalf of our nation’s security have been summarily slapped with demands to conform, and then further victimized for their efforts with threats against selves and families…..

 

….The manipulation of our society isn’t an overnight process — it has been a long-term, “strategic use of information operations . . . embedded with and emboldened by self-perpetuating elements that are both incremental and inescapable” — a.k.a. “Information Momentum Warfare.” The weapons of choice are “”lawfare,’ media manipulation, indoctrination, subversion, ‘truthful disinformation’ and demographic expectation management.”  As a result of their use, we’ve been conditioned, as a nation, to either adhere to political efficacies and one-sided definitions of politically correct “norms,” or be abandoned by society as “radicals” and “extremists.”  This conditioning has evolved into a willful acceptance of adversarial demands on our society — amazingly to the extent that our enemies are allowed to define themselves.  They have also been allowed to call the shots on what information law enforcement and military officials are given to “know” the enemy.  When we are unable to define an adversary who is obviously at work within our society, we instinctively default to those we are allowed to know about.  Thus, recently, the quest to understand enmity was turned inward.  “The enemy is us” — those who question the nature of true adversarial intent. In effect, our attention has been drawn away from real dangers, the real enemies and placed on a more socially palatable network of “violent extremists.” Information Momentum Warfare is being used to “divide and conquer” us — theologically, philosophically, ideologically, economically, and politically.

It is succeeding.  The long-term nature of Information Momentum Warfare makes it difficult to perceive, especially for inhabitants of Western cultures who are used to sound-bites and quick results.  Its tactics or “weapons” are extremely effective.  “Any opponent who can use these tactics subtly enough to keep the host nation from rising up in mass rebellion against them will eventually achieve victory.“

The questions we have to ask ourselves are:  Will we allow our adversaries to divide us and conquer us in the manner and time period of their choosing?   Are we going to stand up for extraordinary individuals like Reza Kahlili, who has risked his own and his family’s lives in defense of freedom?  Will we stand by the five brave members of Congress – Rep. Michelle Bachmann of  Minnisota, Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas, Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia and Rep. Tom Rooney of Florida – who have risked their positions and the approval of colleagues as well as constituents to speak the truth?  Or have we already sold our souls for the sake of “tolerance?”

More