The Masked Conservative

Throughout much of the 1990’s, prescient social analysts such as Pat Buchanan and Michael Savage warned of the changes that would take place in our nation should the government of the United States fail to get control over the flood of immigration that was pouring across the border. At the time, those viewing radical hypertolerance as more important than cultural survival dismissed such warnings as the ravings of lunatics. However, now that increasing numbers of Americans finally want something done about the matter, it may be too late.

In response to certain provisions of the so-called “immigration reform” being considered in Congress that would have criminalized being in the United States illegally, mobs of radical malcontents have taken to the streets no doubt to insinuate violence should political leaders refuse to acquiesce to their demands. Most accounts from the media infiltrated by internationalist sympathizers claim that these demonstrations are expressions of peaceful dissent concerned for the rights of all living within (for at least a few more days) this great country. However, upon closer examination, nothing could be farther from the truth.

For starters, a number of the protests could hardly be classified as orderly or even peaceful. Across the nation, teenage and even elementary aged pismires bolted from their classrooms in violation of school attendance policies, often with the support of their teachers and no doubt egged on by these pedagogical revolutionaries.

Those given over to mass demonstrations no doubt find their wicked hearts leaping in joy. However, would those for such unfettered democracy be as supportive had the students rushed the schoolhouse doors in support of massive deportations and the implementation of English as the official language? If not, such aged beatniks are not really the custodians of the First Amendment but rather thought police of the first order.

It must be noted that many of these youngsters were not on their best behavior but rather comported themselves in a fashion reflective of the ideals and attitudes promoted by the contemporary public school system. Apparently unable to express themselves through the use of words no doubt as a result second rate phonics and reading comprehension instruction, a number of these darlings had to resort hurling projectiles such as fruit and rocks at law enforcement personnel, according to Larry Altman and Doug Irving in their DailyBreeze.com account, and some even blocked freeway traffic. Too bad some of them weren’t rundown by motorists, but then again why ruin a perfectly good automobile?

Fortunately, police were able to teach some of the hooligans by dousing them with pepper spray and firing beanbags at them. Hopefully, they’ve learned that, if someone can’t picket back and forth in front of an abortion clinic, then others should not have the right to block traffic because the average citizen has more of a divine right to drive to work unmolested than some skank that wants her unborn baby hacked to pieces.

Despite the significant nuisances spawned by these naïve whelps, the real threat lies with the organized subversives pulling their strings. For even though the American people have been duped into believing these mass demonstrations represent spontaneous grassroots outbursts, they are in fact being orchestrated by forces whose intent is nothing short of the destruction of human liberty and the American way of life.

One of the groups pulling the strings is MECHA. Mecha or Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán is a revolutionary front group dedicated to the secession of the American Southwest from the United States and its ultimate reunification with Mexico through either peaceful or violent means. Funny, I remember vaguely that when White Southerners wanted to do something similar there was a little skirmish or whatnot. This movement glorifies pre-Columbian civilization and would no doubt reinstitute the ancient pagan beliefs of the area they seek to reconqueor. Wouldn’t surprise me someday if they didn’t start sacrificing Whites to their heathen deities if ever allowed as it is their ultimate goal to expel “Anglo-Americans” from the face of the continent and many feel more of an affinity for their Aztec heritage rather than the Spanish component of their identity.

At a number of the rallies across the country were banners reading, “This Is Our Continent. Not Yours”, “Brown Is Beautiful”, and North American maps with the United States crossed out. According to Tammy Bruce, American flags were burned. Mike Savage marked he believed in nonviolent protest, so Mexican flags should be burned in retaliation.

In her column posted at WorldNetDaily.com, Michelle Malkin observed , “Can you imagine the uproar if someone had come to a rally holding up a sign reading, ‘White is Beautiful’.” Nowadays White folk are considered racist if they hold a position anything short of compulsory miscegenation yet our leaders stand passively by as these radicals rub their brown rearends in our faces constantly telling us what they are while expecting the rest of us to open not only are arms but apparently our very homeland in a union of mandatory brotherhood.

The average American of commonsense and decency thinking their elected officials will come to the rescue in the nick of time are in for a rude awakening. For instead of defending the nation and its people from the marauding hordes, our so-called leaders are using the situation to transition the United States into the pending global order where American standards of living and liberty will be dragged down to Third World levels.

As with most other issues being used to whip the American people into compliance, they will be manipulated through a campaign of misdirected guilt blaming everything on their own prosperity and “greed”. At a ceremony swearing in thirty new American citizens, the President (no doubt thronged by his Secret Service detail, chided, “No one should play on people’s fears or try to pit neighbor against neighbor. No one should pretend that immigrants are a threat to the American identity, because immigrants have shaped America’s identity.”

Apparently, his infamously limited mind has never heard the old adage about too much of a good thing. I bet something would be done if this transborder rabble guffed up the White House lawn the way many immigrants have done to many of our suburban neighborhoods. Maybe when members of Congress come home to find illegals rummaging through their houses and ravishing their wives as occurs in border regions such as Arizona, something will finally be done about the issue.

Encase the President has already forgotten, each and everyone of the 9/11 hijackers was an immigrant as well as are many of the notorious street gangs prowling our cities and suburbs. Perhaps Ted Kennedy would like to invite some of them to dwell at the various family compounds if such souls pose no threat to anyone.

One of the primary justifications for allowing the invasion to continue is that the illegals do jobs Americans won’t do. Once again the blame has been shifted to the average American rather than placed squarely upon those it actually belongs.

Actually, the issue is not so much that Americans won’t do certain jobs, but rather that often times the rich are not willing to pay more to have these tasks done. While one must vigorously stand against any legislative efforts to mandate a living wage, if we are to be lectured as to how it is our duty as to embrace all immigrants irrespective of their intentions or desire to whether or not become Americans, what about the patriotic obligation of the well-to-do to share some of the sacrifice for the benefit of their countryman to earn an honorable living? As Mike Savage has asked of the luxury class, is a 50 foot yacht not sufficient and now you need an 80 footer?

Even if one were to admit that there was a need for immigrant labor for jobs pampered Americans simply refuse to do, such a market imbalance owes itself a great deal to undue government interference in the economy. For at one time, it was argued the nation needed a social welfare safety net to prevent the downtrodden from falling through the cracks; but as both the waistlines of those receiving such entitlements and the bureaucracies that administer them continued to expand, more and more such beneficences have come to pay for the luxuries of those unwilling to work for them than the bare essentials to squeak by for those unable to provide for them.

If the government simply eliminated most of these programs, those at the lower end of the socio-economic ladder as a result of their own diminished intelligences or poor decisions made in their lives would be forced to fill the positions now occupied by illegals. It will be that or starve; it is that simple.

“BUT SUCH CRUELTY, you heartless conservative!!!!” those given over to making sure everyone far and wide knows just how compassionate they think there are. But will anyone really starve?

Those that despise America, especially those aspects of derided as “White” middle class values, regularly admonish us how much we have to learn from backwards cultures and the like. Therefore, if we are to assume that the illegals dwelling in our midst really work as hard as their apologists claim they do, then they show how one can work multiple jobs and survive (though perhaps not luxuriously, but survive nonetheless) without handouts.

Think you deserve higher then minimum wage? Good, don’t drop out of school, keep your pants on, and don’t start having babies until you are married and can afford it.

ore importantly, since we are constantly being told about the importance of giving back to the COMMUNITY, perhaps the multigenerational hyper-rich such as the Kennedys, Bushes, and Rockerfellers whose primary right to their vast fortunes stems from having fortuitously sprung from their parents loins should dedicate themselves as an example making their life’s work those tasks no one else wants to do since those from these families could continue to live comfortable lives without making an additional cent because of their vast fortunes. If a life of picking tomatoes for a pittance is not good enough for the Bush children, why should it be good enough for yours?

Like it or not, nationhood is the result of a blend of the religion, language, and ethnic mix of people living in a particular geographic location. Since the 1960’s, liberals have been at war to remove our religious heritage. Now they are about to lay siege to its linguistic identity and racial balance as well in order to commence the final demise of this once great nation.

Copyright 2006 by Frederick Meekins

Christian author Chuck Crismier, usually so concerned as to the purity of doctrine as to suggest that divorced people who have remarried should consider divorcing their current spouses in order to remarry their previous mates or face the possibility of eternal damnation, came out on the February 7, 2006 episode of his program “Viewpoint” entitled Restoring Community To The Church” as part of the growing communitarian chorus critical of George Barna’s book Revolution. It is Barna’s hypothesis that those pursuing their Christian faith outside the church institutional are just as devout as those that are in the pew every time the door swings open.

Though Crismier does a good job in pointing out that buildings and programs a good church does not make, in his interview with Tod Bolsinger, the author of It Takes A Church To Raise A Christian, he seems to insinuate that the sincerity of one’s profession of faith is based on to what extent one not so much surrenders to Christ but rather to the will of the group.

For while he encourages the growing house church movement, he turns around and condemns the electronic church such as found through loose-knit Internet associations based on common interests expressed through forums, blogs, podcasts, and message groups. It is Crismier’s contention that these do not meet the requirements of fellowship such as the breaking of bread and the “going from house to house” as described in Scripture. I guess it all comes down to the opportunity to snoop through everybody’s stuff since while one can fellowship with others over the Internet in an exchange of thought, one can’t very well rifle through somebody else’s house in a virtual manner.

The passages referenced on the program also said that the early church lived together and shared their possessions. So what’s next, condemning as “individualistsR 21; those refusing to live in Jonestown or Wacoesque communes?

In this confused age, it has now become fashionable to extol the group at the expense of the individual and almost shameful to want even the wholesome for the benefit of you as a person. But in categorizing marriage as a “community”, Crismier shows that he is mistaking the human longing for friendship with the desire to lose oneself in the herd.

The Christian conditioned to dutifully heel to his ecclesiastical masters every time they ring a bell will whine, “But the church is a family.” In a sense, but in this life it is now more LIKE a family than an actual one and even if so, there are varying degrees of relationships within the most basic form of human social organization.

For example, just because I am your brother does not mean I am going to share my wife with you. There are parts of my life and property to which no other human beings are entitled. Just because there is little one should conceal from one’s spouse, that same transparency does not apply to the guy living down the street.

Why can’t the breaking of bread and mutual prayer and care take place within the context of the traditional nuclear family? Is it because there is no way for denominational bigwigs or gadabout missionaries to grow fat off the tithes and offerings in such a close-knit context with the individual families free to best determine how to give to the work of God?

Furthermore, not everyone is going to require the same degree of social interaction. To some, community will require repeated sharings of every last tawdry detail of their life’s testimony; for others an occasional “hello” will suffice.

Nowadays, we are often admonished how we must alter the way we do things to make headbangers and other musically rowdy sorts welcome in the church. Why can’t similar concessions be made to those that simply rather be left alone? One what grounds are we to say those prone towards solitude are not closer to God when they are listening to recorded sermons, reading Christian books or simply reflecting upon the handiwork of the Lord in nature than when they are sitting in some Sunday School classroom as waves of isolation and loneliness sweep over them despite all the yammering socialites gabbing about them saying little of consequence all around them?

Crismier claims that if the Christian is not in community, they will and I do quote “live like hell.” However, from my experience, it is often those that derive their identity from the group that “live like hell” as one PCA church (and that’s the more conservative Presbyterians) I was visiting for a while couldn’t seem to have a young adult fellowship function where it was not alluded to that booze was going to be present.

And as a PCUSA pastor, one would think Rev. Bolsinger would have more fundamental issues facing his denomination such as abortion, the demphasis of the role of Christ in the process of salvation, and chummy relations with terrorists and tyrants such as Hezbollah to occupy his time than Christians in his opinion not outgoing or affable enough. Maybe someone should tell Mr. Crismier how many get remarried in that denomination.

Of course people are going to flee from a haven a perdition such as that as those not going along with the progressive trends are no doubt castigated and ridiculed. Don’t the same New Testament epistles Bolsinger likes to bash everyone over the head with about the need to further communize also instruct the believer to come out and be ye separate?

The problem with Christianity today is not a lack of socialization as it is a basic failure to stand for truth. If anything, failure to make defense of the faith the priority of the day will make this renewed emphasis upon the group a far more dangerous threat to ordered liberty as well as sound doctrine.

Copyright 2006 by Frederick Meekins

Contemporary American athletics has been a success story in that those on the field have embodied the dream Martin Luther King professed at least publicly where achievement would be measured not by the color of one's skin but rather by the content of one's character and ability.

Washington's racist mayor Anthony Williams thinks he knows more than both historical wisdom and the invisible hand of economic forces in that he believes the city's new baseball franchise, the National's, should not be sold to the most competent managers but rather to ones whose primary qualifications happen to be the pigmentation of their skin in that this whiney politician insists minorities need to be given a portion of this lucrative prize.

In the running for ownership is one group of investors with former Secretary of State Colin Powell and another featuring retired Redskins Art Monk and Charles Mann. Since Monk and Mann have darker complexions than Powell, does that mean they are more deserving of the team than Powell?

If you turn and say, well skin color does not matter, then on what grounds can you then turn and denounce the impropriety of the team predominately being owned by Whites? After all, since Caucasians are the minority in DC anyway, shouldn't they be the ones granted special status?

Why should White folks be penalized if Black people don't exhibit financial acumen? Should we take away set asides for Asians when they rise to the top despite being fewer in number? Better yet, perhaps we should set aside a number of starter positions on each sports team for short, dumpy Jews.

It's high time some referee stepped up to the plate and called foul on these minority supremacists that constantly police White Americans for the slightest hint of ethnocentrism yet go out of their way to accrue benefits and privileges for their own little specialized tribe.

by Frederick Meekins

In an interesting article posted a Christianity Today, Mark Dever examines growing opposition within the Evangelical community to the substitionary atonement, meaning the death of Christ upon the cross for the fulfillment of our sins.

Thinking they know more than God now, a number of theologians oppose the Atonement as a barbaric holdover from less enlightened times that fosters a sense of individuality among believers. Heaven forbid anything that hinders our sublimation into members of the COMMUNITY.

Frankly though, if Christ did not die for our sins and rise from the dead, why bother being a Christian at all? 1 Corinthians 15:19 says, "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."

Furthermore, what's the point of forgiveness and eternal life if it means the obliteration of our individuality in a manner akin to Brahmin in Hinduism or the Nirvana of Buddhism? Also, the observant might note that, if these theological babblers have constructed elaborate arguments to convince themselves they are without sin, the last thing they want to confront is the most jarring reminder of all that the bad in humanity outweighs the good.

The word sin is simply retained as a convenient tool with which to prod the masses when the uneducated clods drag their feet in implementing the agenda of the elite and hindering the revolution rather than to convict any one person of individual wrongdoing.

For the offenses of materialism, racism, and nationalism mentioned are so broad that they are more interpretations than specific misdeeds.

In the eyes of our social and ecclesiastical overlords, materialism is not so much the Saganist philosophy that the universe all the was, is, or ever will be but rather the failure to relinquish one's property to the state or other institutions of authority. Racism is not so much the mistreatment of a particular individual and thus covered under more traditional ethical codes but rather failure to support undue concessions or favors for protected groups. Nationalism is not so much the elevation of the state above God or even the individual but rather the failure to embrace the headlong rush towards global government.

As all powerful as the Communitarians would like their collective to be, it's not going to do one bit to keep you out of Hell or launch you into a happy afterlife. And if there is no hope beyond the grave, why shouldn't we party like a bunch of Epicureans, maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain as each of us sees fit if death is nothing but the ultimate get out of jail free card as the cold end of it all with neither the guilty being punished or the righteous rewarded?

by Frederick Meekins

There was once a Greek philosopher named Cratylus that refused to speak but rather wiggled his finger in response to a question because he believed things were in such a state of change and flux that by the time he responded the answer would be linguistically meaningless.

In the postmodernist rush to abolish all traditional values, Spain's socialist government is removing the terms "Mother" and "Father" from birth certificate and replacing these titles with "Progenitor A" and "Progenitor B" in order to accommodate the legalization of gay marriage in that European nation.

How they plan to circumvent biology, they have not yet announced.

Surprisingly, lesbians are among the first to balk at the administrative change on the grounds that in Spanish the term for "progenitor" is inherently male in nature.

I guess won't be long until those sensitive to the implications of hierarchy will be offended to the labeling of "A" and "B" since one would be listed before and thus above the other.

If things continue down this path, eventually no one will be permitted to speak at all since to translate thought into words and speech is itself a form of auditory rape since the act of communication puts the recipient of the message in a submissive position as the recipient (can't use the word person since that would be speciesist) is then bound by semiotic conformity through such cognitive intrusion.

By Frederick Meekins

A Colorado school has banned camouflage as well as other assorted patriotic paraphernalia on the grounds that such raiment represents a divisive brand of patriotism (meaning any variety that does not support the sublimation of the United States into the New World Order) and thus presents a potential threat to public safety. In a similar decision in San Diego, a school there has banned the flag as well as red, white, and blue clothing.

It is about time people remembered just what country this is. If Old Glory offends you that much, you should have never come here in the first place. Maybe students can find happiness and prosperity back in the geographic trash-piles they fled from but from which they continue to derive their sense of pride and identity.

Just how far does promulgating regulations about clothing in the name of harmony at the expense of individuality extend? If skinheads don't like the Jewish kids wearing yarmulkes, are school administrators going to make students remove those?

And what about the towel heads; technically, some will argue, there is nothing in Koranic Islam compelling women to wear headscarves. If these immigrants are to be granted a cultural, non-religious exception, what if another student’s cultural expression supports the wearing of camouflage as is the custom for young males in certain Southern and rural areas?

And though we are now heading into spring, what if a student's winter coat was camouflage as is the case of one of my own? Is the school going to provide an alternative of the pupil’s choosing since school authorities should not have that much say over non-obscene items?

In this era claiming to value racial intermingling and cohabitation above all else, one would think camouflage would represent the perfect coming together of the various shades of brown and other tones of the earth to represent a purposeful pattern. But no doubt the manly strength and independence alluded to by such garments is something the communalists running the nation's schools simply cannot countenance.

I guess educators are going to have to find another mode of dress more in keeping with the worldview to which students are expected to aspire. Perhaps those little Mao suits once worn by the Chinese would be more appropriate.

Better yet, maybe students should be forced to not wear anything at all since this would be in keeping with the notion prevalent throughout the organs of the totalist state that nothing is to be hidden from the COMMUNITY.

I went to a private school where there were all kinds of silly rules about uniform and dress that were, to use a pun, far from uniformly enforced (especially if you happened to be one of the teacher's kids or from a family favored by the school administration). And even though the school was run by a church part of a denomination somewhat pacifist in nature, nothing was said if one wore a camouflage jacket to and from school.

Things have certainly gotten so much better without school prayer and Christian values now, haven't they?

by Frederick Meekins

Those more concerned about feigned gentility than the loss of human liberty will probably be offended by my earthy language. But the term is used in the King James Bible so I am going to use it here.

Rather, such offense should be directed towards those in government no longer viewing American citizens as free people but rather as one massive prison population to be corralled, monitored, and experimented upon.

All in the name of monitoring drug use (the old for the sake of the children argument), the Bush Administration has launched a program to measure the levels of cocaine byproducts in the wastewater around the Potomac River Basin. According to the Washington Post as of March 27, 2006, thus far only Fairfax County has received the results of its collective drug test.

The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy told the Post that other Metropolitan Area utilities were participating in the project but refused to name specific ones. You know, probably the old tired song and dance about homeland security and all that blather no doubt. Can’t impede that planned Patriot Act interdiction of illicit Sudafed use, now can we?

Administration propagandists assure that the samples are taken solely for research purposes and not intended to single out specific localities. But as the technology continues to be refined whose to say the results gathered could not be use to justify additional policy and enforcement measures.

Janet C. Phelan of the Human Extermination Project , on the March 21 through 23, 2006 episodes of P.I.D. Radio, hypothesized classified public utility upgrades could be used by nefarious operatives to introduce poisons and substances to specific residences. If the engineering is now that sensitive as to direct where certain things can flow, could they just as easily monitor things flowing from the other direction.

This is especially troubling in light of the lackadaisical response to the unsettling revelation that authorities were monitoring the most basic way each and everyone one of us, to use popular socialist platitudes, gives back to the COMMUNITY, namely our personal contributions to the replenishment of the water supply.

The chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, like a good little Berlin Gauleiter, enthusiastically quipped in the Washington Post, “We’re ready to do anything and everything we can do to eliminate illicit drug use.”

Just how far are we willing to take “anything” and “everything”; those words are quite all-encompassing. Of course, more careful monitoring of the borders is automatically off the table since it is our duty to be compliant little one-worlders.

With refined sensors, one could place these devices at various intervals in neighborhoods and housing developments to monitor the flow of controlled substances in and out of neighborhoods. When amounts are detected, alarms could be set off alerting law enforcement personnel to cordon off specific communities and conduct searches house to house in search of drugs with all the tasering of bodies, the ransacking of drawers, and the looting of property such actions usually entail.

In light of the recent backlash against the Kelo ruling authorizing piracy against private property against the will of homeowners, an expansion of community drug monitoring could render any legislation or Constitutional amendments that might diminish the impact of this miscarriage of justice as impotent as a chronic steroid abuser. Developers and assorted community planners would merely have to produce the statistical proof that drugs are being used in a particular grouping of structures in order to justify bringing urban renewal to blighted communities.

And the homeowner won’t even have to be compensated. Under assorted asset forfeiture scenarios, you can end up losing your property even if proven you are not guilty of a crime yourself.

Those whose innocent minds are mired in a more wholesome era and until now been privileged to ramble down life’s road in a state of blissful ignorance will ask, “But how can an innocent individual be punished.” That response will be enough to get one sent for reeducation in the era dawning before us.

For you see, the above query is based on the assumption of an individual being innocent. My friends, the era of the individual as the font of moral concern and reflection is coming to an end.

Instead, you are merely a component of a much larger group or entity popularly referred to in the discourse and literature as the COMMUNITY. Already, since one is now rewarded on the basis of what groups one happens to belong to without merit of achievement or character as in the case of affirmative action and the like, it won’t be long until society reverts back to the inimical practice of punishing people collectively like an old hag school marm canceling recess on a beautiful spring day for the entire class because one or two whelps talk out of turn.

Have drugs been detected in your neighborhood sewer? Fine, you forfeit the domicile you reside in (note I did not say own as that denotes individuality) as pursuit to the association agreement you signed in order to enjoy the privilege (note not a right) of living in a particular area. You should have been more active in community policing efforts.

Entire undesirable populations could be easily moved around in the name of drug prevention all with the wave of the bureaucrat’s pen. Why stop with drugs and urine? Too much fatty stool pulsing through the sewer pipes? In the name of preventing obesity and heart disease, sector 6 is hereby sentenced to eat nothing but beansprouts and tofu for the next month or (even worse) forced to participate in community calishtethics.

Many frightened by the plague of drugs will argue that we must relinquish still more of our liberties to bring an end to this crisis. However, it must be remembered that the most dangerous narcotic of all is none other than unbridled power.

Copyright 2006 by Frederick Meekins