Selling our Souls for the Sake of “Tolerance”
by CYNTHIA E AYERS
August 3, 2012
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. Many have lost their reputations and their jobs. The point at which adversaries can (and do) identify their opponents with the branding of "racist" -- no matter how inaccurate the label -- is when the opponent's social and professional support flatline, and their effectiveness in protecting our nation dwindles.
There have recently been demands by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR - twice named an unindicted co-conspirator in the proceedings of federal terrorism trials) on the Department of Defense to drop Reza Kahlili (pseudonym) -- a former CIA spy within the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the most credible and accurate source of information and intelligence training regarding the current Iranian regime -- as a lecturer for the Department of Defense. Almost simultaneously, CAIR singled out Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann in protest over the legitimate concerns raised by Representative Bachmann and four other members of Congress (Rep. Louie Gohmert, Rep. Trent Franks, Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, and Rep. Tom Rooney) about undue influence and possible infiltration of U.S. Government entities by individuals with adversarial linkages. These complaints indicate a bold rise in the level of personal attacks lodged by CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood organizations.
It's rather easy to destroy the credibility and livelihood of a lower-level U.S. bureaucrat for trying to establish the true nature of enmity, but quite another thing to target someone who risked their own and family members' lives, while operating within one of the most tyrannical regimes in history. And quite astonishing that CAIR should use Mr. Kahlili's conversion to Christianity as the main argument against him! Are they attempting to strip Mr. Kahlili of his rights as a U.S. Citizen as well as his ability to provide expertise that is currently so vital to our nation's defense? Or is CAIR using this complaint as a means to threaten his life because he dared to convert?
It's also an incredible achievement when those who consort with or are linked in close relationships to individuals and organizations that openly call for the downfall of Western Civilization are not only provided with high-level positions and the professional respect that accompanies such employment within the U.S. Government (occasionally at the expense of those who express concerns), but are protected against any challenges from elected members of Congress by the challengers' own colleagues!
Amazingly, many of those who not only succumb to the pressure of the payoff but join in on attacking those who don't conform to their version of "tolerance" are themselves condoning an intolerance of all they claim to have the "high-ground" on. Do they really think that they would be given safe-haven to practice their freedoms under any form of shari'a? Do they have the slightest idea that conformance to shari'a isn't merely a matter of veiling? The practice of multiculturalism and cultural relativism may seem utopian, but when it's viewed only as a one-way responsibility by cultures with totalitarian mind-sets, well . . . you're not in Kansas anymore, Toto. The United Kingdom's Prime Minster David Cameron, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have all recently attempted to reevaluate multicultural programs and state responses that have developed over decades for the purpose of avoiding social confrontation. Perhaps we should be following their example.
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?"
Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Cynthia E. Ayers is currently Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security. Prior to accepting the Task Force position, she served as Vice President of EMPact Amercia, having retired from the National Security Agency after over 38 years of federal service-a period that included 8 years at the U.S. Army War College's Center for Strategic Leadership.