Sunday, May 10, 2015

What's that off the starboard bow...? Iceslam...?

Though the Catholic World Report may not be as shimmeringly mainstream as L’Osservatore (or, for that matter, the Christian Science Monitor, or the Washington Post, the New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal, et al.), and though William Kilpatrick may not be quite the crème de la crème of the Dastardly Elites of Polite Society, still both he and this publication are sufficiently within the ambit of the Mainstream to count, when we see an article by him in it such as this one, as quite a heartening sign of the fact that we may not be having a hallucination—that indeed the H.M.S./U.S.S. Titanic—our collective Ship of Fools of the West—is, with achingly glacial (pun intended) laboriousness and tardiness, beginning to diverge from its seemingly inexorable course headed straight for the Iceberg of Islamic Disaster which anyone with half a brain and a lick of sense standing at the railings of the deck aboveboard (or peering anxiously out a porthole below) can see looming as plain as the nose on their face.

I looked up this William Kilpatrick fellow. He has recently written a wicked satire of our situation, in the form of a dystopian novel called Insecurity. Described at Amazon as:

A witty satire on suicidal government policies, multicultural misadventures, and military ineptitude, Insecurity hits uncomfortably close to home.

They also provide an extended excerpt that had me literally (as well as virtually) Laughing Out Loud—which I hereby quote:

Who’s guarding the fort?

As global tensions mount and army enlistments drop, James Cassandra, a U.S. Army captain, notices signs of increasing Muslim presence in the officer corps at Fort Camp, the base to which he has been newly assigned. Bearded officers and burqas abound, alcohol is no longer served at the officers’ club, and Muslim children in mujahideen outfits practice hand-to-hand combat at the base housing. When Cassandra goes to his politically correct commanding officer, General Coddle, with his suspicions, he is reassured that what he sees is just the result of the Army’s “Proud to Be Me” program―affirmative action for Muslims and gays, “the two most underrepresented minorities in the military.”

Through a friend, Cassandra learns of similar Muslim penetration at other bases. Then, with the help of an eavesdropping device, he discovers a plot by Muslim officers to take over key commands, with a view to establishing an Islamic government. Meanwhile, information vital to the success of the coup is being relayed to the Muslim officers by Stanley Darling, a young gay soldier in army communications who has a crush on handsome Colonel Mohammed Faisal.

Realizing that General Coddle won’t listen to him, Captain Cassandra arranges to meet with a top Pentagon officer, the formidable general Jack Panzer, in order to divulge what he knows. But getting to Panzer is no easy task. Along the way, Cassandra encounters a burly Muslim TSA agent, six scary imams aboard his flight, and a leftist demonstration on the National Mall to support the construction of a gigantic mosque to be situated in the center of the Mall with the Washington Monument serving as its minaret.

Meanwhile, at the White House, President Prince and his security team are meeting to discuss global tensions, but against a background of escalating threats and falling enlistments, their top priorities are to increase the LGBTU presence in the military and to create a less threatening color-coded threat chart. Have naïve generals and politicians set the nation on an irreversible course towards disaster? Or will Captain Cassandra be able to save the day?

Having in the meantime landed in a mental health facility, however, Cassandra is in no position to save anyone―unless he can convince the staff that he’s really not crazy. In a world where craziness has become the norm and sanity is suspect, that proves to be a tall order. When burqas get a pass at the security gate, F-16s are sent to Iran, and the President decides to supplement the First Lady with a Second Lady and a Third Lady, it’s hard to say what’s normal.



Egghead said...

In the comments section in the article, you should read the long comment by Higher Calling.

Hesperado said...

Thanks Egghead; interesting comment. I left a reply for him.

Egghead said...

To answer your question to Higher Calling: in a word, no. :)

A Catholic battle space against Islam is very distinguishable from a secular one.

More later.

Egghead said...

In Catholicism, the main focus is 1) God and 2) humans striving to be as good as possible to be like the Catholic triune God.

In secularism, the main focus is 1) government and 2) NO goal that humans strive to be as good as possible to be like the Catholic triune God - with the definition of secularism being as follows:

Egghead said...

In atheism, the main focus is 1) self and 2) NO goal that humans strive to be as good as possible like the Catholic triune God.

Atheism is Protestantism writ large. Every atheist is a Protestant against organized religion - making up his or her OWN personal morality....

Christian radio says that atheists are the hardest people to 'convert' because you never know where to start. People from other religions like Islam provide a generally standardized set of beliefs to argue against whereas atheists just make up their individual belief systems 'as they go' without needing their individual belief systems to be consistent with others - or within themselves - or over time.

Egghead said...

Secularism MUST - by definition - attack religion because secularism - by definition - refuses to differentiate between 'good' and 'bad' religions - and actions (moral actions versus sins) - and people (Christians versus others - where Christians are defined by actions versus empty lip service - i.e., Obama's blatant lie that he is a Christian when his every action PROVES that he is a completely devoted Muslim).

People assume that secularism only refuses to differentiate for the purpose of conferring benefits to religions and adherents, BUT secularism ALSO refuses to differentiate for the purpose of conferring punishments to religions and adherents.

Due to its refusal to differentiate between 'good' and 'bad' religions, actions and people, secularism is inherently anti-religion BECAUSE religions that are divorced from Christian morality are a mortal threat to secularism that secularism will fight by banning ALL religions.

The beginning of the secular ban on ALL religions in well underway with Christianity whose peaceful adherents provide an exceedingly easy target.

Egghead said...

Oops - is well underway

Egghead said...

The following article is a great illustration of the abject failure of secularism: