It is very clear that western civilization is under attack by those who intend to destroy us. The danger, however, is not coming from foreign enemies, but from the enemies within our own countries. They are the Socialists, Marxists, Radical Islamists, Communists and Globalists within our governments, international corporations and banks, educational institutions designed for indoctrination not education and the media who hide behind the very freedoms we value so much, as they plot to progressively destroy our way of life through political correctness, judicial activism and incessant attacks on our traditional moral beliefs and free speech rights.

“Why, you ask? Because in their minds...that is the way it has always been! This, my friends, is how Congress operates... and this is why nothing changes for the better, and from time to time: all of the monkeys need to be replaced at the same time if you expect change for the better.”

Which brings me to the point of this column: our country, because of our “monkey” leaders and most of our citizens, is not prepared and will not prepare our civilization’s survival in the 21st century. We stumble into each decade without a plan or clue as to the impact of adding the projected 100 million immigrants within 38 years. We import 100,000 immigrants every 30 days as we have since 1965.

In a comment to MM's blog post, primatologist Frans De Waal expressed some skepticism about the experiment and asked MM if he had a scientific reference for this study. In response to the comment from another reader, MM posted the following response: "FIVE MONKEYS. This story originated with the research of G.R. Stephenson. (Stephenson, G. R. (1967). Cultural acquisition of a specific learned response among rhesus monkeys. In: Starek, D., Schneider, R., and Kuhn, H. J. (eds.), Progress in Primatology, Stuttgart: Fischer, pp. 279-288.)?Stephenson (1967) trained adult male and female rhesus monkeys to avoid manipulating an object and then placed individual naïve animals in a cage with a trained individual of the same age and sex and the object in question. In one case, a trained male actually pulled his naïve partner away from the previously punished manipulandum during their period of interaction, whereas the other two trained males exhibited what were described as "threat facial expressions while in a fear posture" when a naïve animal approached the manipulandum. When placed alone in the cage with the novel object, naïve males that had been paired with trained males showed greatly reduced manipulation of the training object in comparison with controls. Unfortunately, training and testing were not carried out using a discrimination procedure so the nature of the transmitted information cannot be determined, but the data are of considerable interest.?His research inspired the story of five monkeys. Some believe the story is true, while others believed it's an exaggerated account of his research. True story or not, his published research with rhesus monkeys, in my opinion, makes the point."

So MM apparently knew that the Stephenson's study did not involve a ladder or a banana (this aspect of the story is inspired by experiments with chimpanzees conducted by Wolfgang Kohler in the 1920s), that the monkeys were not replaced in the group they way he described it in the story, that the monkeys did not attack the individual who tried to climb the ladder (let alone that they "..took part in the punishment with enthusiasm!"), and that in the end no monkey ever again approached the stairs to try for the banana "because as far as they know that's the way it's always been around here." As for MM's last comment "true story or not, his published research with rhesus monkeys, in my opinion, makes the point", I couldn't disagree more. Whether or not the story of the experiment is true makes a big difference. When people report scientific experiments in books or blogs, the readers expect these reports to be true. If an author wants to make up a story to make a point, he should explicitly tell the reader that the story was invented. If the author is unsure as to whether a story is true, he should check his sources or at least warn the readers that the description of the experiment may be inaccurate. In this case, it appears that MM had the original source of the study and knew that it didn't match his description. The real experiment didn't even make the point that MM wanted to make, that "monkeys simply keep reproducing what has been done before because it's the easiest thing to do."