It may not be known to most people today, but Australia once had a terrible rabbit problem, where originally there had been none, because the continent had no rabbits.
To start with, it would be appropriate to say that the rabbit has a notable record of practising what might be called race expansionism, with his foremost goal being the expansion of his own kind. He doesn’t think in abstractions, but if he did he would think that the individual rabbit life counted for nothing, and it didn’t matter much if myriads of his fellows were poisoned, trapped, shot, eaten, or skinned and their furs made into hats; no, it didn’t matter as long as there were plenty more left to endure, expand and spread across the earth until it became one gigantic rabbit warren.
But back to Australia’s rabbit problem, the story of how this prolific mammal ever got into the country in the first place is interesting. The account I heard as a youth is that some were imported, part of them escaped, and that was the beginning of the problem. But it didn’t happen quite that way. Two Englishmen, Mr. John R. Collison and Mr. Manning Thatcher, each claimed to be the one who got rabbits started in Australia. The claims seem to have been laid with a sense of pride, which is strange; about as odd as it would be if someone sought credit for bringing bubonic plague to some country or other.
Be this as it may, it seems that the laurel should go to Mr. Thatcher. Around 1863 or thereabouts, he got permission from the Acclimatization Society of Australia to bring over some rabbits, which were wanted by a group of Victoria sportsmen for hunting purposes. Thatcher got together a batch and took off with them on the sailing-ship Relief. However, long sea voyages didn’t agree with the critters, and he arrived in Australia without a single living rabbit.
Embarking again with a new supply, he again arrived with not a single one alive. A third trip had the same result, but on this trip he did keep close watch on his rabbits to see what was killing them off, and discovered the source of the trouble. With a remedy for this, on a fourth trip he was so successful that he arrived without the loss of a single rabbit.
But the long delay caused the Victoria sportsmen to lose interest; they no longer wanted his rabbits. And neither, it seems, did anyone else. Thatcher went around the country with a helper, trying to sell baskets of live rabbits, but he couldn’t sell enough to pay expenses. Furthermore, his wards were very prolific, and steadily increased all the time. Finally, at the end of a sweltering day, the two men decided that they had had enough. They carried all their charges out into the bush and released them.
Mr. C. J. Thatcher was described as a fine looking gentleman, with a benevolent countenance, and was probably a “good guy,” as the term is generally used, yet he most likely did more harm to Australia than any other single individual, although it took about ten years for this knowledge to really start to imprint itself upon Australians.
At first, most of them probably felt that the bunnies were “cute,” and thought it a pleasant novelty to have the alien creatures around. But after a decade, ominous signs began to appear. Grassland began to disappear. People began to see more and more rabbits around. And more and more, and more and more, and more and more. They ate up the pasture intended for livestock, desolated vast tracts of land, staggered agricultural industries, and ruined thousands of farmers and ranchers. In some areas, at various times, the varments became so thick that, if you looked off in the distance, it seemed as if the earth itself was moving.
Men fought back by snaring, netting, shooting, ferreting, poisoning, warren-ripping, fumigation of burrows, and the use of repellents. “Rabbit fences” were put up in places.
The continent didn’t have much in the way of natural predators. The most notable one was the dingo, and he could hardly make a dent in the enormous rabbit population by himself. Foxes were brought over to help in the battle.
Gradually, the pests were partially brought under control, but it took a long time. A half-century after the rabbit release, Australians had had only moderate success.
Rabbits don’t think in abstractions, but if they did, we can imagine that they were happy when they were unrestricted and their exploding birthrate was enabling them to take over more and more territory, and unhappy when people finally started killing them off.
Was there any morality or immorality involved when Mr. C. J. Thatcher and his partner released the remainder of their rabbits in the bush on that fateful day? They gave them their freedom. Is freedom important, even for animals?
Today, we see that millions of racial aliens are pouring into various white nations, kind of like a plague of rabbits. Is it immoral for us to keep them out? They say they want to be “free,” and have a right to be (which means moving to some other country of their choice). It is (according to them) our moral responsibility to take them in.
But how about us being free, too? Free of their presence! We whites are disappearing, worldwide, since our birthrate has been negative since 1978. The racial aliens are replacing us. Is it moral for us to go out of existence, so that our countries can be eventually taken over by them?
It took ten years for Australians to face reality on their rabbit problem, and start doing something about it. How long is it going to take for threatened whites, everywhere, to free reality on their racial alien problem, and start doing something about it?
You can’t reason with a rabbit, but maybe you can, at least a little, with the dark homines who are swarming into Aryan nations. We should give them a simple choice, and ask: “Had you rather stay out of our territory, or be shot?”
I believe they would opt for the former.
In case some of them, at first, did not believe we were serious, we should prove otherwise by shooting illegal aliens crossing our Southern border. The men only need be targeted. Border Patrol agents wouldn’t have to shoot to kill, just aim for the legs. They could use small caliber weapons. Even sprays of .22 caliber bullets, aimed at the legs, would have a profound effect on those they hit. Illegal border crossings should be off by about 99% in a matter of days. Probably not many would need to be shot because the news would travel fast.
The U. S. Government would never do anything so “inhumane?” It did something infinitely worse in WWII when it sent huge air armadas (some up to 1,000 planes) over Germany to bomb civilian areas in what was called “carpet bombing” or “area bombing.” Women, children, the elderly – everybody was a target. This in violation of the Geneva Convention and the old Western “Code of Honor.” Then they lied about it and said that “c” was started by the Germans. Actually it was started by the British, but this was not officially admitted by the British Government until 1968, twenty-three years after the war was over.
U. S. policy-makers did many despicable things during that era, yet they postured as righteous beings. They were supposed to be our mentors; our role models; shining beacons on the hill. If they could bomb myriads of Germans of all ages out of house and home or burn them alive with incendiary devices, they shouldn’t have any trouble condoning the plugging of a small number of wetbacks.
Mexico, of course, is not the only country that illegals are coming from, but it is the main one. If we practically dry up the flow from that country, we will have more manpower and money to tackle the illegals from elsewhere. But don’t hold your breath till this happens.
It is generally assumed to be easy to tell a good action from a bad one, but this is not always so. If you consider an action with all its consequences, the sum-total of them, it is obvious that no one could live long enough to see them all, unless he lived forever. However, one should be able to look ahead for at least a few generations, or maybe even a few centuries, and get a pretty good idea of what might be the result of certain actions.
In the case of Mr. C. J. Thatcher, he probably felt that he was “doing good” when he released his rabbits out into the bush. He probably never worried much, if any, about the consequences of their future offspring, and if he thought about it at all, assumed that if the Victoria sportsmen were no longer interested in hunting them, farmers and ranchers would be, and would keep them in check. It is very doubtful if he went so far as to wonder if Australia had enough natural predators to keep the rabbits under control if the hunters failed. So we can pretty well forgive Mr. Thatcher, as probably few of us would have done any better, had we been in his shoes.
It is a very different case, though, with the leaders of those white nations who are letting racial aliens swarm into their countries. Who can excuse them? The implications of this will be immeasurably greater than any rabbit plague, yet these leaders refuse to face reality. The main reason is because they are too mentally-conditioned; another is, probably, because they (or some of them) are too wimpy.
SOURCE: The Liberty Bell, April 1995