tBlog - The Masked Conservative

Yet Another Celebration Pandering To Minorities

07.31.05 (1:50 am) [edit]

In promoting racial equality, it is often harped that on the inside we are all the same regardless of color or background. Apparently that isn't quite the case since we are now being bombarded by yet another celebration pandering to minorities.
Minority Transplant Organ Awareness Day (try putting that on a greeting card) seeks to, well, raise awareness of transplant organs and minorities. While one can hardly oppose the quest for good health, like many other causes promoted by the liberals, this one should also be subjected to closer scrutiny and critical thought.
For starters, if we are going to have a Minority Transplant Organ Awareness Day, shouldn't we also have a Caucasian Transplant Organ Awareness Day? Not every White person that needs a transplant organ gets one either.
So why is it inherently more tragic if this tragedy befalls a minority than your run of the mill White person? Furthermore, if there was only a single organ available, can anyone justify why Jesse Jackson would be more deserving of it than Ted Kennedy? Even more importantly, are those White big shots that enjoy imposing minority favoritism on the rest of us in order to show how enlightened and progressive they are going to forego an organ for themselves or a loved one in favor of a minority should they ever find themselves in such a situation or is this merely another burden they expect to pass on to the average White American?
From the way these public campaigns are expressed, you'd think the average White guy was as immortal as Ducan McCloud of the Clan McCloud from the Highlander series. However, seems to me White folks drop dead from the same afflictions.
In one news story justifying this day of ethnic guilt, the Associated Press laments that American Indians make up 34% and Hispanics 42% of those awaiting kidney transplants in New Mexico. Maybe if these communities learned to lay off the booze a bit, they could reduce the numbers instead of shifting the blame to Whitey.
Even among conservative circles, it is now popular to claim that racial differences do not exist. While that should be true in the eyes of the law, if it is so in terms of biology, shouldn't organs be interchangeable between various groups if these distinctions are nothing more than arbitrary cosmetics?
Seems this issue will force the proponents of radical multiculturalism to make a decision in favor of either their fantasies of absolutist egalitarianism or the system of demographic spoils they have devised to ultimately lavish power on themselves as the administrators of a new ethnic feudalism.

Will Lois Lane Be An Unwed Mother In New Superman Movie?

07.20.05 (1:29 pm) [edit]

In DVD's I have of the classic Max Fleischer Superman cartoons, Lois Lane is depicted as the embodiment of American femininity as she carries herself simultaneously with spunk and lady-like decorum.

As the foremost expression of American popular culture, the changes in Superman over the years can be used to map the extent of the nation's moral decline.

For example, in the current Smallville series, the females of this subset of the DC comics universe no longer adorn themselves like the classy dames of the 1940's or even with the elegant look of Margot Kidder or Annette O'Toole in the movies of the 1980's but rather drink and whore around with the best of them all the while leaving little to the imagination as to the appearance of their bellies and lower backs.

Now it seems the saga of this hero flying high for truth, justice, and the American way might be crash landing into perdition as a Scifi.com scifiwire story seems to indicate that Lois Lane might have an out of wedlock child in the upcoming film.

If this is what now passes as upright American womanhood nowadays, we might be so bad off that even Superman is unable to save us. Frankly, not even Superman should be expected to take responsibility for another man's indiscretions. Having been unable to exercise restraint in these matters, the best Ms. Lane should be able to hope for is a second-tier costumed adventurer such as Reed Richards, whose already had a child himself, or his brother-in-law the Human Torch, whose already been divorced.

Superman is superman, after all. He can have any woman he wants. Why should he settle for one that's already been marked as someone else's property and on top of that one that treats him like bilge when he's disguised as Clark Kent?

If it was the other way around and someone ignored Wonder Woman when she had a little librarian outfit on but threw themselves at her drooling all over her when she stripped down to that bosomy patriotic number she pours herself into, fans would insist she move on to someone that cared more for her as person with mind and feelings and all that other sensitivity blather. Why doesn't Superman deserve the same? Don't tell me broads aren't into looks as much a dudes.

If filmmakers are going to keep insisting that Superman must continue to change in order to reflect the times in which we live, one wonders how many more decades will pass until a version is released where Luthor is the hero and Superman the villain if the Man of Tomorrow continues to insist upon imposing his standards upon common criminals and would be galactic conquerors.

As in regards to my columns daring to question Harry Potter and certain ethical undertones of the Star Wars universe, some (even many so-called "Conservatives") will dismiss me as a lunatic and a greater danger to the world than the most wicked of supervillians. Those that do should not go crying when their children come home practicing witchcraft or as teenage parents if we are to now smile upon these practices as wholesome in what should be the innocent realms of the imagination.

Two There Always Are: But Who Is A Jedi & Who Is A Sith?

07.17.05 (2:50 am) [edit]

Throughout the Star Wars saga, fans have been led to believe that the Jedi stood for justice and goodness throughout the galaxy. However, the actions of one of the characters renowned as the embodiment of the principles expounded by the sect compels such an assumption to undergo careful reevaluation.

Most no doubt think I am referring to Anakin Skywalker since the final installment of the series details his transformation into Darth Vader. However, I am actually referring to Yoda, the diminutive space troll so hideous he is actually kind of cute.

In a Pepsi commercial, the Jedi master is seen sitting at a lunch counter here on earth. But instead of politely waiting to order his lunch like a good little elf, he instead resorts to a level of trickery that would put Q from Star Trek to shame.

Yoda employs Jedi sorcery by casting a spell on the guy next to him to give Yoda his fries. The victim complies, but when the imp tries to exert his will to acquire a disputed Pepsi, the victim reasserts himself to retain ownership of the coveted soft drink.

While the commercial is somewhat humorous, it also gives us a bit of clairvoyance into the moral worldview of the Jedi. In the final analysis, the Jedi end up not being all that different than the Sith.

For starters, anybody thinking there is nothing unsettling about a psionic adept waving their hands and getting a weak-minded subject to fork over whatever the space swami desires is in for a rude awakening. Some might think it’s a joke, saying those under a Jedi’s sway get exactly what they deserve.

But if Jedi are allowed to roam the cosmos pilfering what they please, what’s to prevent one with more ambitious appetites from using his powers of beguilement to have his way with unsuspecting space damsels? Can’t very well cry rape when you approve of soft drinks being taken from those under psychic manipulation when someone with a bit more force flowing through them uses their powers in a slightly more provocative manner. Just because Yoda’s 800 and some years old doesn’t mean the rest of the Jedi have as much trouble extending their lightsabers.

Those with the power to take advantage of the common people in this kind of manner should be controlled by a strict code of behavior. Though the system proved inadequate, at least on Babylon 5 the earth government had an agency known as the PsiCorps to regulate telepaths from infringing upon the privacy of so-called “mundanes” or normal people.

At least J. Michael Stravinski had the foresight to realize power no matter how well controlled or intentioned is going to end up being abused. Apparently Lucas is naive as Jar Jar Binks in having no similar worries about one person crawling around in the mind of another and seeing it as something to encourage as positive by making it a practice his heroes engage in with shocking regularity.

The principles and aphorisms espoused by the Jedi sound noble upon an initial hearing but end up justifying larcenous behavior. For example, throughout the recent trilogy, Jedi elites such as Yoda remind that fear of loss is a path to the Dark Side.

I guess such is taught so --- as with the elites of our own little corner of the universe such as government revenuers and welfare bureaucrats --- the Jedi can take whatever they want and dare anyone to say anything about it. For shouldn’t it be a greater wrong to take something that doesn’t belong to you than to not want what is rightfully yours taken away?

One statement from “Revenge Of The Sith” that stands out to the philosophically sensitive is Obi-Wan’s declaration that only a Sith lord deals in absolutes (an absolute itself, by the way). But even if the proclamation is taken at face value, then how can one even say there is any difference between Jedi and Sith since distinctions cannot be made in a moral universe where absolutes are said not to exist?

The last installment of the Star Wars epic is marketed as depicting Anakin Skywalker’s betrayal of the Jedi. But perhaps instead of betraying this sect of mystic galactic warriors, Darth Vader represents that cults ultimate fulfillment.

Civic Duty To Read Latest Harry Potter --- At Least Before Sat, the 16th

07.14.05 (12:39 pm) [edit]

Normally, I would be reluctant in encouraging someone to read an occult-laced tract like Harry Potter as one has to judge for themselves whether such material might be harmful to their spiritual walk. However, in a case where a Cananadian supermarket inadvertently released the text ahead of its debut date, those getting their hands on it now have a civic duty to read the manuscript in order to take a stand against government intrusion into our minds and homes.

A Justice with the Supreme Court of British, Columbia has ruled that those acquiring the book ahead of time must not speak about the book, copy it, or even read it. Furthermore, the lucky customers must also surrender the book they purchased in good faith to the publisher until 12:01 am, July 16th when the dark lords of the New World Order have decreed their obedient minions among the ranks of mere mortals may finally gaze upon this work of juvenile necromancy.

Apart from its glorification of Satanic rituals, numerous Christian thinkers have warned of the Potter Series because of Harry's tendency to break the rules when it suits his purpose. Since this is the worldview J.K. Rowlings and her publisher wish to promote among the young, shouldn't they applaud those refusing to comply with the ruling?

Since outfits such as the ACLU and the like go into more spasms than a werewolf having its belly rubbed whenever the specter of government threatens to interfere with what goes on in the privacy of one's bedroom or when authorities exert control over what one is permitted to read, you'd think this would be a case right up their alley. Furthermore, especially among those that bought the book with cash, how can such a ruling possibly be enforced? Those having the book ahead of schedule should go ahead and read the book anyway before the approved date knowing that in doing so they take a stand for intellectual liberty.

Unless the practicioners of the dark arts have another nefarious purpose in mind such as mass manipulation or fear they might turn into a pumpkin if someone gazes upon their runes before the appointed hour, J.K Rowlings and these gnarled crones in the publishing industry have no right to complain as they will be getting the same amount of money whether these fourteen copies are sold at 12:01 am or a mere week earlier.

Is The Government That Naive?

07.03.05 (5:49 pm) [edit]

In April, police in Fairfax County, Virginia pulled over a van making an illegal u-turn. The constables soon discovered the illegal u-turn was not the only statutory violation committed by those in the van for twelve inside were illegal aliens.

After being processed by Immigration and Custom Enforcement, all eleven passengers were released and instructed to show up for final review; they were let lose onto our streets for the sake of the children and all. Unless the mother was some kind of tramp and did not know which hombre was the father, can anyone justify why every last one of them should have been allowed to go?

Furthermore, if these parents cared so much for their progeny, wouldn’t they have applied to come to this country in the proper manner? Regular, real Americans have had their own children snatched over less serious infractions of the law.

Needless to say, none of those released with the promise to return did so. But one does not have to be a PhD to figure out that was going to happen. With the drivel filling the minds of the overeducated these days, it’s probably an insight available only to those whose minds have not been corrupted in this manner.

Unfortunately, the poison of such diseased thinking is not confined to the otherwise unemployable in the ranks of media, government, and academia. Many average Americans are more than eager in promoting the surrender of this great nation.

One deluded soul posting on the WJLA.com messageboard commenting on the story posted, “If you ‘processed’ all the ‘illegals’ out of the United States, we would have economic collapse....Who the heck picks your fruit and vegetables? Cleans up your building? Cleans restrooms? Cooks your fast food? Does the dirty work that no one else wants to do? Many Americans have grown too fat and entitled to do the physical and ‘menial’ wok. Selfish people...afraid you won’t be able to afford that big fat SUV and wide-screen television?”

Such comments were probably made by one of those selfish people who has never done any menial work in their life. Usually, those clamoring for unfettered borders are the ones that have “too much” ---- if we are now going to hurl invectives against the blessings of liberty --- and want to ensure that the good life remains the exclusive province of the elite by importing laborers for the purposes of driving down wages and increasing their own wealth and power.

Instead of complaining about the laziness and girth of the average American (as if from appearances the average immigrant has missed too many meals), perhaps we should be asking how many toilets the likes of George Bush, John Kerry, or Ted Kennedy have scrubbed over the course of their lifetimes since the only thing they ever did to be entitled to their vast resources was spring from their parents loins. Hillary Clinton acted like it was revelation handed down from on high when she realized janitors are people too.

It’s not so much Americans have grown “too entitled” to do menial labor but rather don’t see why wages should be driven down for the work that they do. For the elites do not allow the invasion of the United States to proceed unabated to elevate the status of lamentable Third World peons but rather to drag down the living standards of all people to make it easy to rule over all of us as subjects of the New World Order.

Maybe if most forms of immigration were abolished and the proper steps taken to interdict transborder vagrancy, perhaps the elites would be forced to take the hit in their own pockets rather than the pockets of the average American. John Kerry and George Bush can afford to alter their lifestyles a lot more than can John Q. Public.

Often delicate economic relationships are thrown out of whack through undue government intervention and involvement. Multinationalists like to remind the American people of the need for an uninhibited free market in terms of eliminating trade barriers and subsidies to maintain global prosperity. Thus, if undue government meddling causes socioeconomic disequilibrium, then why shouldn’t this principle apply to welfare and domestic assistance programs buffeting those suffering from self-inflicted indolence?

If welfare was to be abolished for all but the physically incapacitated, the lazy would be forced to take the jobs currently occupied by immigrant labor. Fear of starvation might prove to be a powerful entrepreneurial motivator.

Meddling do-gooders will gasp, “But what of the children born to the underprivileged?” In much the same manner as a looming specter of malnutrition will inspire those with a rumbling tummy to take jobs they might not want to otherwise, the realization that one won’t be getting an additional check for each new mouth they bring into the world will cause a case of erectile dysfunction even Viagra couldn’t cure.

The United States did not have these out-of-control wedlock births before the advent of out-of-control social programs. “But won’t innocent children starve?” those placing their misguided conceptions of compassion above commonsense ask.

Not necessarily. Generations got by on what most would turn their noses up at today. So long as the “poor” have a can of soup from somewhere like a Save-A-Lot or an Aldi’s and a good set of second-hand clothes from the local thrift-store, they don’t really have too many complaints that the government or even the church should be concerned about. One of the most diabolical things ever done in devising these programs for the able-bodied was naming them “entitlements” since those unwilling to provide for themselves aren’t entitled to as much as they’ve been duped into believing.

Integrity of the nation’s borders is one of government’s few legitimate functions. If those holding public office fail in fulfilling this sacred obligation as a result of their own outright stupidity or blatant intentional neglect, perhaps those addicted to the benefits of authority should no longer be permitted to retain such lofty positions.