It is said that there are vast conspiracies to undermine the traditional families, that organizations such as the freemasons or the Illumanati are trying to tear up what is left of the foundation of Christian principle that was laid by our forefathers past. It is no secret that the Democrats in Washington are in league with the socialist miscreants in the U.N., whose plots to bring about a new world order are well documented and easily observed. It is an overt fact that the Republicans in the White House are out to get the little man, to uphold the principles of big business, and make the poor poorer even while pouring gold into the hands of the rich like cheap Spanish wine is poured into the mouth of an already inebriated homeless man.

At every turn there is another attack on the family, behind every corner gremlins of increasingly large size are waiting to snatch up our children. Strangers can no longer to be trusted, as we can no longer be sure that there are not devious machinations behind every smile, or nefarious plots hidden behind the reflective sunglasses of men in trench coats in July.

From every side morality is being attacked, whether by unseen radio waves that the government uses to plant ideas into the heads of the innocent through the radiation from their cell phones, or by the openly pornographic garbage that the Semite degenerates in Hollywood spew at unsuspecting families, marketing their grossly immoral films under a “General Audience”rating. There is no denying the sickeningly homoerotic themes of their blockbuster hits, such as Ice Age and Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius. It is hardly a wonder that biblically-prescribed morality standards are disappearing from our civilization when the youngest of our children have been indoctrinated in the ways of the world; they have been told that, in the words of one sincere but misguided Kindergarten teacher, “It is ok to be different.”

These woes, these sorrows, these things to be lamented can all be traced back to two sources, two sources so obvious, so accepted, so universally acknowledged that only someone who is detached from the situation could possibly see to the heart of the problem. The person who could divine these two sources would have to be one of immense intelligence, rising above the rest of humanity and its pettiness to a new level of enlightenment. I do not make the claim of being this person, but I do know this man. It is an associate of mine, an Irish acquaintance whose acumen in judging human character could almost be considered clairvoyance.

When he first expressed his agitation with what he perceived to be the twin pinnacle problems of our society, I was inclined to shrug his suggestions off as the deranged muttering of an intoxicated Mick. After a time of meditation on his hypothesis, however, I came to the sudden-- and I admit, startling-- realization that he was absolutely, unequivocally correct.

The two problems that our society faces are an overabundance of cemeteries and vegetarians.

First, to address cemeteries: they are a waste of perfectly good real estate. Whereas good Christian businessmen cannot expand their businesses into what is considered the seedy parts of town for fear of having their morality questioned, they are often consigned into the same area of the metropolis in which the churches have been zoned. Church zoning is of great consequence, as the conspirators want to keep all upright Christians of good standing within their own ghettos. But enough of that.

Because the area that Christian businessmen are forced to make their meager living in is the same area in that the faithful are compelled to build their houses of worship, the potential for further development is limited. Why? Because with every church, one must contend with a kirkyard. Practical though it may be, a man trying to expand his bookstore across a small cemetery plot– hundreds more square feet for a store that sells only the finest in Christian literature and Contemporary Christian Music– will not be allowed to by public outrage at what is a perceived slight against the dead. The faithful, as well as the pagans of the city, would decry such a businessman for even attempting to further his own means by choosing to disregard the memory of the dead; a case could be made that there is no need to remember the dead, that the past is the past, and that the kirkyard is nothing more than one more way for the Man to hold down the People by not allowing them to move on with their lives, a constant reminder that they have loved and lost. Such a case would be disregarded by the general public, and the one making it would be considered a misanthrope.

One could point out the similarities between the modern kirkyard and the ancient burial plots of the savages; the people of olden times would venerate their dead ancestors, leaving gifts of food, money, or even a sacrificed virgin at the tombs of the deceased. They believed that these tithes would please their departed forebears, who from the afterlife would return the favor and make the present existence more pleasant for the living.

The practices of today are strikingly similar. Whole chunks of land, with monuments bordering on idolatry sticking out of the earth at upright angles in neat rows, are dedicated to “...The memory of those gone before us.” The monuments are usually inscribed with some kind of horribly sentimental poetry under which the dates that the deceased lived are chiseled. The bereaved come and place flowers over the grave, or leave small trinkets of saccharine value. It is commonly known that the Papists even covet the prayers of the long gone saints.

It is obvious that cemeteries are one of the root problems in our society; how one deals with death is directly related to how they deal with living. If we cannot approach the disposal of the dead with calm reserve, how shall we approach everyday living?

The second problem that our society faces, though not as grave as the first, is one that is equally disturbing; we must address the vegetarians.

You see them clinging together at their protest marches, pasty and weak from lack of meat. At every PETA meeting, another one wavers with weakness after delivering an asinine oration at the podium. They huddle together like the cattle that they wish to protect, waving their banner of moral superiority and pretentiousness in the face of all True Americans.

They have gained ground in recent years, making vegetarianism fashionable among those who wish to portray themselves as sensitive or artistic; I am yet to meet a coherent vegetarian specimen who does not eat meat for health purposes. The entire premise behind the vegetarian philosophy– I dare grant it credence by labeling it so– is that the said vegetarian do not want to cause pain or suffering for an innocent animal. We know, of course, that this is complete balderdash, as the animal in question does not feel anything of the bullet going through its head at the slaughterhouse, but the vegetarian will, without fail, fall behind the party line that domestic animals do not eat people, so why should people eat animals?

I wish that I could ascertain more information about these strange humans, but there is not much more to the vegetarian; they are shallow and simple creatures.

How then, you ask, are they a threat to our society? It is simple: if one can undermine the sanctity of the experience of eating meat, one of the most basic human activities, then they can proceed to dupe the innocent into believing any number of immoral things. We have already seen how, using the same logic, these same people have removed Christian prayer from schools and have replaced the phrase “One nation under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance with the homosexual pornography in the textbooks.

So, dear friends, the situation is clear: we must stop the barbaric practices of burying the dead, and we must get vegetarians to eat meat. The solution is also clear: we shall feed the dead to the vegetarians.

This will, of course, clear up the necessity of kirkyards, and vegetarians shall no longer be able to make an objection over causing pain to innocent animals. Christian businesses shall be allowed to expand and grow over the desolated and useless cemetery plots, and vegetarians will be allowed to enjoy bar-b-que for the first time in years.

In fact, this could be used to cure another social ill, the neglect of the elderly. Knowing that the only way that they are going to get a delicious steak is if Grandma is healthy when she keels over, the vegetarians will invest a good deal of money into nursing homes, fattening up and insuring the health and happiness of those who do not have long with us.

Not all of the dead will be eaten, of course. Those with communicable diseases should be promptly cremated, as well as accident victims; the flesh of those whose death was violent would be, no doubt, bruised and less tasty than the meat of one who died peacefully in their sleep, and it would be impractical to sell, except at extreme discounts that would negate the price of butchering.

I am sure that there are those who would object to these suggestions; I have no doubt that there will be extra-moral outrage. To those, I say: my suggestions are valid; I have heard complaints, but I have seen nothing of political reform, of moral amendment in the educational system, of parents who will discipline their children, of genuine faith in a culture that likes to be fed the spirituality of Oprah, of those who would stand up and protest against what they see as filth or mindless pap coming the entertainment media; no, I have only heard complaints.