Insecurity

Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.


ty[To order William Kilpatrick's new book Insecurity, click here.]

In his new book entitled Insecurity, William Kilpatrick has captured with keen insight the absurdity of political correctness gone wild and the tragic consequences that can follow. Insecurity is part satire, part thriller, and part a warning about the Orwellian future that awaits us if this nation does not wake up soon.

Mr. Kilpatrick, the author of several nonfiction books about cultural and religious issues, including, most recently, Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West, wrote Insecurity as a work of fiction. However, as he noted, “In writing Insecurity, I had a difficult time inventing situations that were any more absurd than the ones being reported with a straight face on the daily news.”

The story begins at an army base known as Fort Camp. Muslim soldiers, led by a Colonel Mohammed Faisal, are laying plans for what they call Zero Day. It could involve a very deadly chemical attack, but only if necessary. As Faisal tells his fellow conspirators, “We have other means of persuasion that should be sufficient.”

As the story unfolds, the “other means of persuasion” become evident. And it will not take much persuasion for the Muslim plotters to get their way. That is because Fort Camp, other army bases and the federal government, right up to the president himself, are already swimming in the cesspool of political correctness, which demands unquestioning deference to the sensitivities of the Muslim community and special solicitude to all of their needs.

When the one independent thinker, Captain James Cassandra, arrives at Fort Camp to take up his new leadership assignment, he cannot believe what he sees and hears. Badges of honor are issued for completion of an inclusiveness program. Having an American flag hanging on the wall is considered insensitive to minorities. Muslim officers proudly wear the emblem of the Muslim Brotherhood. Signs are posted in Arabic. A Muslim only area is cordoned off with a large yellow sign proclaiming “YOU ARE ENTERING A SHARIA CONTROLLED ZONE.” Alcohol is no longer served at the Officers’ Club because, Captain Cassandra is told, it is “haram” (forbidden). At the same time, the captain observed a pronounced presence of openly gay soldiers flaunting their sexual preference. “Provincetown and Mecca all mixed together,” as Captain Cassandra described his new home base.

Things turned even more bizarre when, after observing some suspicious looking behavior amongst a number of Muslim soldiers, Captain Cassandra met the officer in charge of Fort Camp, General Coddle. Aptly named, General Coddle was most proud of the Army’s new affirmative action program for Muslims and gays. The lesson of Fort Hood, General Coddle explained, was that Major Hasan acted the way he did – committing what the Obama administration has called “workplace violence” rather than an act of jihadist terror – because there were not enough Muslims in the military to give Hasan, in the general’s words, “the support and understanding he needed.” General Coddle went on to assure the increasingly anxious captain that there was nothing to worry about. “Islam is a peaceful religion. We think they’re talking subversion, and what they’re actually doing is exchanging recipes for roast lamb.”

The story’s plot thickens after Captain Cassandra overhears Muslim soldiers discussing details about the plan to take control of Fort Camp and other military bases in the coming days along with key communications centers. His strenuous efforts to be taken seriously in sounding the alarm bell run afoul of the politically correct environment that helped pave the way for the scheme to move forward so smoothly in the first place. It’s hard to overcome charges of being Islamophobic and a conspiracy wingnut when dealing with a military hierarchy devoted to affirmative action for Muslims, a Secretary of Homeland Security named Jennifer Apoligeto, who decided to replace red with a subtle shade of pink as the color code for the highest threat level, and a president who liked the phrase “man-caused tragedies” to describe jihadist attacks because it is important for all to use “the proper, non-offensive terminology.”

I won’t spoil the ending, but suffice it to say that Insecurity is a real page-turner you won’t want to put down. The book made me laugh at certain points, but it also made me feel insecure knowing how close to home its satirical picture of political correctness run amok is to what the Obama administration has already foisted upon us. It is this administration that coined the phrase “man-caused disasters” and “workplace violence” to describe jihadist attacks, and that purged law enforcement training materials of any references to Islamic jihad or Islamic terrorists.

The world portrayed in Orwell’s 1984 is becoming all too real today. The America portrayed in Insecurity, in which a single-minded focus on multiculturalism overcomes our core constitutional values and liberties, is also becoming all too real today. Multiculturalism demands deference by the authorities to the differentiated needs of each culture, even if doing so tramples on the rights of other individuals.

The idea of America as the great “melting pot” of different cultures, races and religions is anathema to the die-hard, politically correct multiculturalist. In a multicultural society, immigrants do not have to adapt to the ethos of their host country; rather, the host country must adapt to each immigrant group’s differences and demands. Thus, it becomes discriminatory to deny requests for special accommodations for Muslims. It makes no difference if the request violates a core defining principle or norm of the host country’s political and social system, norms that have kept it cohesive and stable thus far.

Without a shared set of moral and social values, a country will disintegrate. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and respect for the individual — the hallmarks of Western democratic societies — are life-affirming values. Allowing Islamists to impose their atavistic practices on our institutions is tantamount to surrendering our core values in the service of a warped notion of “tolerance.” That is the lesson that William Kilpatrick teaches us in Insecurity. It is well worth a read.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • herb benty

    Tolerance. That word used to mean something totally different than what it means now. Tolerance in America was the attitude of Americans towards immigrants WHILE IMMIGRANTS SETTLED IN TO BECOME AMERICANS. Progressive, America-haters, changed the meaning to AMERICANS ADAPTING TO THE DIFFERENCES IN AND ACCEPTING THE DIFFERENCES OF, NEWCOMERS. No more “melting pot”, instead a Balkanization of the USA, a socialist’s dream. And a wide open road to destroy the U.S.A. as it was.

  • Pilgrim786

    “I used to care
    But things have changed.”
    —Bob Dylan

    There is no “enemy” when it comes to “peecee” since westerners in general and Americans in particular believe in it with their heart & soul.

    I’ve lost two jobs due to my religious and political beliefs and, virtually, my entire friend circle.

    You can’t “help” these people because “help” is causing them to abandon their faith, an act which takes tremendous courage. I used to believe in the whole package until I didn’t. But it wasn’t easy: abandoning a system that had nurtured me and been a part of me for almost twenty years.

    I am disgusted and repelled by the fanaticism of Americans. I can’t think of another people who take such joy in destroying heretics. Now, I understand Mencken’s bile and antagonism towards and booboisie.

    Let them do their worst. Their time has come.

  • Walter Sieruk

    Actually the Patriot Act is a good thing.Thomas Jefferson did teach ” To save permanent rights, temporary sacrifices were necessary.””To put this in a more contemporary way. in regard to safety and security with the threats of violence and mass murders because of the militant jihadism of the Islamic terrorists it thus should be said “To save permanent rights temporary sacrifices are necessary.”
    That other Founder father who said that people deserve neither safety or freedom if they give up some freedoms because of any dangers to the public never knew about or heard about al Qaeda

  • zoomie

    i happened to be at Sequoia Forest over the weekend. interesting analogy regarding the death of mighty giants.

    they rot from the core until a storm comes through that, would have been no match for the tree before, blows it over.