TOWARDS NATIONS OF OBEDIENT MUTTS

From Western Australia, 12th January, 27 A.D. (1999)

WESTERN AUSTRALIA, Jan. 12 - If you want to stupefy a horse, you breed a mare with a donkey. What you get is a sterile mule - a slow, steady, obedient "mutt" suitable for hard farm labor, and little else. A mule can't even reproduce itself. So forget the grace and power of a horse. Or the toughness and stubbornness of a donkey. Mules, the horse-donkey mutts, are bred for hard labor and obedience, not for their varied personalities.

The globalists' immigration policies amount to the same thing. They are also designed to take the spice out of life, and life out of vibrant nations. Thriving, entrepreneurial countries, once energized by freewheeling immigrants, are being turned into nations of obedient mutts. Enter United States of America, Australia, Canada…

All three nations are former British colonies. All three are "nations of immigrants." All three share the English language as the common bond. Yet, all three are being driven by mysterious forces to self-destruction through their contemporary demographic policies. Except that you'll never see it put quite that way in the establishment media, which glorifies the virtues of "multiculturalism," while ignoring its pitfalls.

The U.S. Immigration Act of 1965, for example, signed into law by the Democratic President, Lyndon B. Johnson, launched "a demographic event of seismic proportions," wrote Peter Brimelow, a British-born Forbes magazine editor, in his best-selling book, "Alien Nation." Mr. Brimelow called this process the "browning of America." Immigration from Europe, the traditional source of American immigrants who shared the cultural heritage with the original American settlers, was immediately choked off by this act. By late 1980s, immigration from Europe was dipping below 10 percent of total inflow.

Meanwhile, immigration from Third-World countries soared. As a result, the U.S. government now officially projects that the American whites will be on the verge of becoming a minority (53 percent) by year 2050, if the current trends continue.

And even that figure (53 percent) understates the rapidly declining share of Americans of European descent, who for nearly two centuries had accounted for more than three-quarters of the American population. The U.S. Census Bureau, which made the above year 2050 projection, counts all immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa as "whites," according to Brimelow.

Similar trends are discernible in Australia and Canada. Western Canada, especially the Vancouver metropolitan area, is flooded with immigrants, especially those from China (Hong Kong). From there, the great Asian demographic tsunami has washed over the Rockies and the Canadian plains, leaving them virtually intact, only to crash in industrial Ontario. Agincourt, for example, once a typical middle-class suburban neighborhood in northeast Toronto, is now only partly jokingly referred to by the Torontonians as "Asiancourt."

"I have a feeling we'll be in for one hell of a backlash," a (ruling) Liberal Party Member of Parliament (MP) told this writer in August 1996. He was right. Yet this MP's party is the one leading and heralding the virtues of multiculturalism in Canada.

Just as is Australia's (ruling) Liberal Party. It is ostensibly the equivalent of "conservative" parties in the U.S., Canada or Britain. A country which stuck with a "White Australia" immigration policy until 1973, is now also being flooded with Asian immigrants. Just like Canada. And the U.S.

The U.K.-born net migration, the traditional source of Australia immigrants, has been outstripped by far by the immigration from Asia during the past 15 years, according to Dr. Charles Price, a Canberra-based demographer. The U.K.-born immigrants averaged 28,133 per year, while the annual influx of Asian newcomers amounted to 48,103 people.

"Changing the population mix substantially and too quickly tends to make people scared, and Pauline Hansons have a wow of a time," Dr. Price told The Australian, a national newspaper, on Jan. 8. (Pauline Hanson is a populist leader of the Australian One Nation party which advocates curbs on immigration, and repatriation of refugees once the crisis in their country is over).

The present Australian immigration mix is leading to a "bizarre situation of largely Asian cities on our coast which will be culturally and racially different from the traditional Australian nature of the rest of the country," Pat Buchanan, a nationally syndicated American columnist, and a Republican Party 1996 presidential candidate, quoted Hanson in his July 3, 1998 column.

In 1945, Australia had seven million people, most of British descent. Since then, the country's population has grown 150 percent. With present immigration trends, Australia will be 27 percent Asian in 25 years. "It is the socioeconomic consequences of this demographic revolution that have brought Australia to a boil," noted Buchanan, echoing Brimelow's observations about the frenetic demo-seismic activity in the U.S. since 1965.

So, let's recap… Three vast sovereign countries on two continents; three different political systems, yet each is trotting the same immigration path toward eradication of the traditional European cultural dominance. A coincidence? A happenstance? Or enemy action? (Playing off of what Goldfinger told James Bond, in the 1960s film of the same title: "Mr. Bond, we have a saying in Chicago… Once is a coincidence; twice is a happenstance; the third time - it's enemy action").

And if it is the "enemy action," as Mr. Goldfinger would have undoubtedly concluded, who is the enemy? And why are they trying to destroy these great nations? To answer these questions, let's follow the globalists' interests, and ignore their rhetoric.

This writer's Aug. 31, 1997 WASHINGTON TIMES column, "Dancing 'Round the Golden Calf," suggested that domestic and multinational bankers and industrialists, for example, do have an interest in turning America (as well as Canada and Australia) into nations of mutts.

"Because such a stupefied population is easier to subjugate by the elite's financial shackles than would be the free-spirited, free-thinking, patriotic, enterprising Americans who had made this country the envy of the world," the column explained. Just as the mules-mutts are easier to control, compared to wild horses or stubborn donkeys.

But there is more than economics at work here. Because some of the economic logic behind rising immigration defies reason. Immigrants were brought in big numbers around the last turn of the century primarily to build railroads, work in mines and staff factories. It made good economic sense to do it back then. 

Nowadays, however, no one is building new railroads anymore; many mines have closed, leaving this resource-based activity with only a 0.6% share of the total U.S. employment. As for factories, the Fortune 500 companies had laid off more than three million American workers in the 1980s, and are well on their way of doing the same in the 1990s. Such a downsizing and exporting of manufacturing jobs offshore, to places like China, Latin America or Southeast Asia, left the U.S. factories with just over 19% share of the total U.S. jobs. Yet, despite the above economic realities, immigrants, especially the low-skilled ones of non-European origin, continue to flood the U.S. labor market (see the chart). Why?

Because in relatively free labor markets, such as those in the U.S., Canada and Australia, unskilled or less qualified immigrants can lower the overall wages by merely competing for jobs with indigenous Americans, Canadians or Australians. More money for the bankers and industrialists; fewer pickings for Main Street taxpayers.

But there is more at work here than just the economics. The three former British colonies' traditional predominantly Christian-European character is being systematically destroyed by the globalist liberals, the New World Order's centurions. And a California college professor has now provided an answer as to WHO some of these liberals are; the " mysterious globalist forces " are who are bent on destroying the predominantly Christian countries. At the forefront are the Jewish-American leaders, according to a recent article by Dr. Kevin MacDonald, "Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy" (go to "Curiculum Vitae" section; you will need the Adobe Acrobat software to view this file).

"Jews have an interest in opposing the establishment of ethnically and culturally homogeneous societies in which they reside as minorities," writes Prof. MacDonald. "Jews have been at the forefront in supporting movements aimed at altering the ethnic status quo in the United States in favor of non-European peoples."

Why? Because then the Jews would "not stand out as a solitary group of [religious] non-conformists" (Higham, 1984, p. 156). And because the Jews, "while constituting approximately 2.4% of the population of the United States, represent one half of the top 100 Wall Street executives," according to Prof. MacDonald. So their business interests closely match their ethnic agenda. "Shapiro also shows that the Jews are over-represented by at least a factor of nine on indexes of wealth. And nine-fold is a "conservative estimate," he thinks.

How did they do it? They bought the influence. They bought the politicians; they bought the media; they bought Hollywood; and then they told their vassals, many of them gentiles, what they want the rest of the mutts to think. Which is how the people got to be brainwashed by the NWO establishment into believing that immigration and multiculturalism mean axiomatic goodness.

"Jewish influence on immigration policy was facilitated by Jewish wealth, education and social status," notes Prof. MacDonald. The Jews make "between one-quarter and one-third of all political contributions in the United States," including one-half of Democratic Party contributions, and one-fourth of the GOP sponsors (Lipset and Raab, 1995). By 1988, the Jews' income was at least double that of American gentiles.

If you take the time to read carefully Prof. MacDonald's dispassionate essay, you will note that it is painstakingly impartial and devoid of his personal opinions. As a matter of fact, you may observe that he cites mostly Jewish sources throughout his article. And that his arguments are based on unfiltered facts, unlike the establishment propaganda, which never mentions the root causes of contemporary immigration policies which discriminate against Europeans.

That, plus Prof. MacDonald's CV, give his essay extra weight and credibility. He has been a professor at the Department of Psychology, California State University-Long Beach, since 1985; a Visiting Assistant Professor, 1983-1985, Department of Psychology, Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut; a Post-Doctoral Fellow, 1981-1983; University of Illinois, Department of Psychology (Ross Parke Supervisor); a University of Connecticut; Ph. D. in Biobehavioral Sciences, 1981 (Benson E. Ginsburg, Advisor); a University of Connecticut; M. S. in Biology, 1977; and a University of Wisconsin-Madison; B.A. in Philosophy, 1966.

But it would be both unfair and inaccurate to put all globalist liberal ideas, including the contemporary immigration policies, at the Jewish leaders' doorstep. Even if they do account for half of the top 100 Wall Street executives; even if they account for half of the Democratic Party's contributions and a quarter of the Republicans… the flip side of such statistics is that the other half of the top 100 Wall Street executives are NOT Jews; that the other half of the Democratic Party's funds comes from non-Jews, as well as three-quarters of the Republicans. 

As a matter of fact, the latter ostensibly "gentile elite" are every bit as responsible for the destruction of America the Beautiful which is under way, if not even more so, because they used to be a part of it. By selling out their brethren's interests while worshipping the Almighty Dollar, these "gentiles'" complicity in trying to enslave the world by financial and demographic means is even more repugnant. Such American quislings include Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich and many others in Washington who have consistently voted against the taxpayers' interests, and for those of Wall Street and Big Business.

"In preparation for such an ultimate enslaving of the free human spirit, a new, ugly, primitive, obedient America is being crafted by the NWO architects," this writer's WASHINGTON TIMES Aug. 31, 1997 column noted. "America used to be a country in which most people worshipped Jesus Christ, the son of God, who died on the Holy Cross. Now most Americans worship the Almighty Dollar, the son of Usury, the enslaver of Free Man, in shrines like Wall Street."

Canada and Australia are following the same path. As are many European countries, who are also being swamped by hordes of non-European immigrants, especially from Islamic countries in North Africa and the Middle East. Mr. Goldfinger was right. This is hardly a coincidence or happenstance. It's the enemy action.

But that's protectionism, do we hear the globalist liberals scream? Of course, it is. Isn't that what governments are supposed to do - protect their citizens' interests?

Besides, such globalist liberals should try to immigrate into China, for example, their economic darling into which the multinational companies had poured $202 billion in the 1990-1997 period alone (see "Two Faces of Globalism: Of Yin and Yang"). Chances are, they'll be laughed at by Chinese officials, just as the writer, Peter Brimelow, was when he put that country's openness to a test. China's immigration policy is very clear. Foreign factories and labs are welcome; foreign workers are not. Foreign capital is welcome, but not foreign ownership. Nor export of domestic currency. And that's not protectionism?

The preceding four points are neither meant to be an exhaustive, nor a comprehensive immigration policy plank. They are only intended to get you started thinking about possible solutions to this serious problem. Feel free to add to it or subtract from it as you see fit.

"But what if we did nothing?" some may wonder. Then "what happened in Bosnia is going to happen in the United States," this writer said in his August 1996 WASHINGTON TIMES column, "When Cultures Collide," written in late November 1995, just as the Dayton Accord was being signed. Here is an excerpt:

"Why would the U.S. break up? Two reasons: First, demographic forces similar to those which have torn Bosnia asunder… are present in the United States. Second, a technological revolution is under way which will accelerate the process, changing forever change the way we think and work. Only one kind of a country which is secession-proof - a homogeneous single-ethnic state.

Bosnia is both 150+ years behind the U.S. and 50 years ahead. It is 150 years behind as evidenced by the war's brutality, especially toward civilians. But Bosnia is also 50 years ahead of the U.S. because our country is certain to disintegrate along racial or ethnic lines as Bosnia did.

Prof. Samuel Huntington predicted in his 1993 essay "Clash of Civilizations" (published in the FOREIGN AFFAIRS journal) that the next world war or a major regional conflict will be a clash of civilizations, not ideologies. However, Mr. Huntington was so busy focusing on the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia that he neglected to consider what was happening back home.

How will the country break up? Peacefully, if current trends continue. Violently, if the 'establishment' decides to fight the loss of its powers with physical force. Either way, the U.S. will split along demographic fault lines." (see the map below).

So, unless we stand up and fight for America, Australia or Canada which our forefathers have passed on to us, we will deserve to be remembered in history as once great nations which became obedient mutts; the "ignorant blunderers or dunderheads" (an Oxford dictionary definition for a mutt) into which the NWO elite are striving to make us. Is there any patriot who still thinks that doing nothing is an option?


Back to Musings page
Top of Page

Home