The Gathering Storm
Was May 1 America’s version of Hitler in the Rhineland?
On March 7, 1936, Hitler illegally marched into the Rhineland at the head of his then ragtag Reichsarmee (Imperial Army). The Rhineland had been permanently demilitarized by the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I – then known as “The Great War.”
In The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, journalist-historian William Shirer told of how on March 7, instead of taking the Fuehrer and his troops prisoner, complacent French troops nearby played soccer. Although the French had heroically held off the Germans for four years during World War I, in June 1940, French troops in the Rhineland would offer at best token resistance before surrendering to the Germans, who steamrolled the entire country in a mere six weeks.
Although we eventually bailed out France, she never recovered from Hitler. You wonder if, had the French stood up to Hitler in 1936, whether they would be bending over for Moslems in 2006.
If America does not stand up to the illegal human beings in her midst, and send them back from whence they came, America will be destroyed within a generation, by which time she will exist in name only.
May Day! May Day!
May 1 was supposed to be a “Day Without Immigrants,” and yet all we heard or saw all day via the media, was “immigrants” telling us that we were without them, and that our withoutness was hurting us terribly. It didn’t hurt me or mine one bit. Had it not been for the saturation media propaganda, we wouldn’t even have known about it. (Mind you, we had no need to go to Manhattan.)
Had the illegals been serious about making us do without them, they would have slinked off into the proverbial shadows in which they live in the cliches of MSM propagandists. If only they lived in the shadows! It is American citizens – including millions of American workers who have been unemployed for so long that they long ago exhausted their benefits and no longer show up in unemployment statistics, or are chronically underemployed in part-time, low-wage jobs – who have been forced into the shadows by the motley anti-American alliance of the MSM, America’s alleged educators, communist organizers, the cheap labor lobby’s stooges in the U.S. Senate, and the traitor in the White House.
On May 1, alleged TV journalists kept saying that the “boycott” marchers were demonstrating their “power.” At the immigration-restrictionist Web site, VDARE, columnist-blogger James Fulford heard and read the media use the phrase “show of force”, though he reports that at least one outlet, the Los Angeles Times, thought better of it, and changed its photo caption from “Show of Force” to “Images of Protest.”
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
I see someone's been smoking some of that famous 'loco weed' found in the deserts of Mexico.
When your paranoia level reaches critical can we expect your head to explode dramatically?
First off, the illegal immigrants aren't part of a Marxist takeover. They aren't even Marxists. That's all wishful thinking from these self-appointed 'organizers' like Nativo Lopez. The illegals don't share his crazy viewpoint. They're coming here to work, not to take over the country.
Plus, do the math. 11 million immigrants cannot POSSIBLY cause the population to double in 75 years all by themselves. The math just doesn't work. Demographic studies have shown that the rate of birth declines very rapidly after immigrants come to this country. Your scenario would require them to average 5 or more children per couple for three generations. It just won't happen.
There's so much more that's wrongheaded here I can't go over it all now - got to go down to Home Depot and hire some day laborers to work on my lawn. It's been addressed already in a dozen other threads. The economic benefits of immigrant labor for EVERYONE in the country are blatantly obvious.
Out of curiosity where do you live? The attitude you display is characteristic of the paranoid and ill-informed who live in the Northeast and Midwest. I think it's very telling that in those states which actually have substantial numbers of illegals the misconceptions you perpetuate are generally laughed at.
Dave
2 - Michael J. West
This is the most laughable article I've ever read on Blogcritics, and that includes every edition of "A Puddle of Suss." I'm not sure which is the funniest: comparing illegal immigrants to the invasion of the Rhineland? The "destruction of America within a generation"? The idea that people who shot out their TVs on seeing coverage of the boycott were patriots? The idea that illegal immigrants have "impoverished" millions of Americans? Or perhaps the idea that...wait for it...the Reconquista movement was to be taken seriously as a threat?
3 - Nicholas Stix
Wow, Dave. So many falsehoods, so little time. But I'll give you this -- your spelling is impeccable. I envy you that.
1. It's not 11 million illegals, it's 20 million. I accept Justich and Ng's analysis. (Since you are so well-versed in the issues, I need merely mention their names, right?)
2. Where did I say the population of the U.S. would double? And where did I say the takeover would occur solely through the immigrant birthrate ? The takeover would occur through:
A. The amnesty of 20 million illegals;
B. The then legal chain migration of 60 million-100 million parents, spouses, and children of the amnestied former illegals;
C. Another baby boom of amnestied former illegals, such as the one that occurred following the 1986 amnesty, in which Hispanic women bore twice as many children per woman (4) than the average non-Hisapnic American woman (2);
D. The illegal chain migration of millions of phony "parents" and "children" from the home country for a fee pocketed by the amnestied "American"; and
E. A wave of as many as 60 million new illegals inspired by the most recent mass amnesty, and the realization that America has de facto surrendered her borders and thus her sovereignty.
If the 1986 amnesty granted citizenship to three million illegals, and over twenty million invaded during the next twenty years, another mass amnesty will lead to a jailbreak situation.
"Demographic studies have shown that the rate of birth declines very rapidly after immigrants come to this country."
Not for Hispanics. If you have demographic studies contradicting me, let's see 'em. What I've seen says the opposite.
"First off, the illegal immigrants aren't part of a Marxist takeover."
They aren't Marxist, but are still part of a conscious takeover. Just ask 'em. Or try listening to what they are already saying.
"The economic benefits of immigrant labor for EVERYONE in the country are blatantly obvious."
That's pure bluster on your part. The fact that immigrant labor does not benefit the U.S. economy has been proved in study after study by economists and statisticians. How has illegal immigrant labor benefited the Americans who lost their jobs in the meatpacking, rug-making, pallet-making, construction, and hotel and restaurant industries, just to name a few?
"Out of curiosity where do you live? The attitude you display is characteristic of the paranoid and ill-informed who live in the Northeast and Midwest. I think it's very telling that in those states which actually have substantial numbers of illegals the misconceptions you perpetuate are generally laughed at."
That's an embarrassingly pathetic ad hominem attack, to cover the fact that you have nothing to support your position. Do your homework, and get back to me.
4 - Nicholas Stix
You laugh too easily, Michael. But that's hollow, forced laughter on your part.
5 - Armin Siljkovic
Legal or illegal, human beings will always travel to places where the possibilities of survival are the greatest.
6 - Arch Conservative
It's not really like Hitler on the Rhineland. It's more like HOward the Duck in which the "Dark Overlords of the Universe" wanted to take over planet earth for thier own selfish reasons.
7 - licus
Illegal human beings....lmao!!
8 - Nicholas Stix
Armin: "Legal or illegal, human beings will always travel to places where the possibilities of survival are the greatest."
Actually, Armin, prior to circa 1970, they couldn't come here in large numbers, and when they tried, during the 1950s, they were deported en masse. "Operation Wetback" deported one million Mexican illegals, which was almost all of the illegals that were here at the time. I guess you could say that their possibilities of survival here were pretty small at the time.
9 - Nicholas Stix
Arch Conservative: "It's not really like Hitler on the Rhineland. It's more like HOward the Duck in which the "Dark Overlords of the Universe" wanted to take over planet earth for thier own selfish reasons."
Having yet to see Howard the Duck, I'll have to take your word for it, Arch.
10 - zingzing
you'd have to be pretty dumb to take his word on anything. of course... having read this... joke... i'll have to give you the benefit of the doubt there. ok, ok... you need to reread your article, realize you're very paranoid, and edit out all of the racist and/or illogical sections. thanks!
11 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Nicholas, I'm a litle late here, but I'm sorry. I'm the son of an immigrant and now an immigrant (to Israel) myself. I see the value of immigrants and immigration - daily.
Your counry would be worth nothing without the millions of immigrants who provided the raw energy it took to build it up. Basically, without those immigrants, there would only be Indians tribes living there, making flour from inch long maize stalks and hunting herds of buffalo and passenger pigeons. Europe would be a crowded cauldron of hate with millions of unwashed and uneducated serfs looking for any excuse to revolt and for Jews to kill in the meantime.
American nativist whiners forget that it takes raw energy to build a nation and immigrants provide that raw energy. That you are ruled by an oppressive class system that is robbing you of lots of your money (through the gas tank and thorugh encouraging you to go into debt) is your fault. If you ween't there would be more wealth in your country and less resentment of those seeking a better life in your country.
There is plenty of room in your country for many more immigrants than you have now. You need to readopt the values that guided you in the past and get rid of the robbers at the top.
12 - Nicholas Stix
zingzing: "you'd have to be pretty dumb to take his word on anything. of course... having read this... joke... i'll have to give you the benefit of the doubt there. ok, ok... you need to reread your article, realize you're very paranoid, and edit out all of the racist and/or illogical sections. thanks!"
There you go with the race-baiting -- I knew you could do it!
Of course you don't take the word of someone you disagree with. You only take the word of someone with whom you agree. Don't let the facts get in the way of your beloved prejudices!
13 - Erik
This is one of the strangest things I've ever read. I couldn't tell if you were joking; the comments indicate you weren't. Bizarre.
14 - Michael J. West
American nativist whiners
This is a great phrase, Ruvy, and a revealing one. If we're really going to talk about "nativists" vs. "invaders," after all, then everybody who's not an American Indian should be deported.
15 - Michael J. West
Of course you don't take the word of someone you disagree with. You only take the word of someone with whom you agree. Don't let the facts get in the way of your beloved prejudices!
Nicholas, Zingzing was referring to Arch Conservative, aka Bing, when he said "you'd have to be pretty dumb to take his word on anything." If you are acquainted with Arch Conservative's commenting style, you would never use the word "facts" in conjunction with him.
16 - zingzing
yes... i am race-bating... you.... hrm. admit it! how much of a problem do you have with all of the asian and white illegal immigrants you find in the states? hmm? how much? you seem to assume they don't even exist.
17 - Nicholas Stix
When you guys call me a “racist,” is that meant as a criticism or as a compliment? After all, you support racism. And yet, the tone I detect when you call ME a “racist” sounds less than loving. How can this be?
Oh, I get it! You support certain kinds of racism. Anti-white racism. And I oppose your kind of racism. Thus, that makes me a bad “racist,” instead of the “good” sort of racist you know and love.
And yet, I am still as confused as ever. Since most or all of you are white, you are supporting a racism designed to enslave you. What sane person supports his own enslavement? Perhaps it is because you assume that only other whites, whom you consider racially inferior to yourselves, will be enslaved.
I don’t think I can cure you, but I would like you to acknowledge your racism.
Next, I would like you to acknowledge that you support a nation, Mexico, that has a zero tolerance policy towards illegal immigration, while opposing immigration restriction for America.
BTW, it is the white Mexican ruling class that makes Mexico’s immigration policy, and that pushes the millions of Mestizos north into the U.S. So, ultimately you do support some white folks, as long as they are rich and aren’t Americans.
18 - DrPat
The errors Dave points out rise from a (perhaps unconscious) willingness to regard "classes" of lawbreakers, rather than individual criminals. There is no "lawless employer class", but there are certainly companies who make that choice to criminally employ illegals.
There is no Marxist uprising of illegals, but there certainly are plenty of Mexican citizens (and other-than-Mexican) who each choose to cross our borders illegally to take advantage of the benefits of residence in the US.
Just as the individual who chooses to pick my pocket or steal my car is a criminal who should be prosecuted (however "beneficial" the eventual outcome may appear for him or me in the short run), illegal immigrants are breakers of the law, and should be dealt with under the law. In their case, that means deportation to country of origin, whenever we catch them, and regardless of how "hard-working" they may be.
In the case of US employers who choose to break the law, jail time and fines are already part of the consequences. (Not to mention citizen reactions such as boycotts.)
That being said, I share the concern you express. Amnesty for the millions of illegal immigrants -- whatever the conditions under which it would be granted -- is a social engineering project that promises to be more extensive and expensive than Johnson's Great Society.
19 - Dave Nalle
I think the tone was sent by the extended Godwinism in the first section. After that, where else could the article go but the bizarre world of surreal conspiracy paranoia?
1. It's not 11 million illegals, it's 20 million. I accept Justich and Ng's analysis. (Since you are so well-versed in the issues, I need merely mention their names, right?)
I'm familiar with the figure. Pat Buchanan and the Minutemen use it a lot. BTW, that doesn't make it true. Every responsible source suggests a maximum of 12 million.
2. Where did I say the population of the U.S. would double? And where did I say the takeover would occur solely through the immigrant birthrate ?
Sorry, I picked up that insane figure from John Conlin's article which I read at the same time. I just assumed that since it was crazy it must be in your article.
The takeover would occur through:
A. The amnesty of 20 million illegals;
B. The then legal chain migration of 60 million-100 million parents, spouses, and children of the amnestied former illegals;
That's a consideration, I'll give you that. But the numbers would be nowhere near what you suggest, since many immigrants already have family here, or come as families.
C. Another baby boom of amnestied former illegals, such as the one that occurred following the 1986 amnesty, in which Hispanic women bore twice as many children per woman (4) than the average non-Hisapnic American woman (2);
That's not a baby boom, that's the birth rate they have in Mexico. All immigrant groups continue to have the birth rate of their parent country during the first generation and then rapidly adjust to the typical birthrate of the native population.
D. The illegal chain migration of millions of phony "parents" and "children" from the home country for a fee pocketed by the amnestied "American"; and
E. A wave of as many as 60 million new illegals inspired by the most recent mass amnesty, and the realization that America has de facto surrendered her borders and thus her sovereignty.
Any immigration reform will have to include in it border enforcement. The bill which almost passed recently included strong enforcement provisions which would control this problem substantially. Plus, a temporary guest worker program would act as a pressure valve on illegal immigration, because it would allow Mexicans to come here legally to work while retainin Mexican citizenship.
If the 1986 amnesty granted citizenship to three million illegals, and over twenty million invaded during the next twenty years, another mass amnesty will lead to a jailbreak situation.
That was actual amnesty, which no one is seriously discussing here, and it also included no border enforcement at all.
"Demographic studies have shown that the rate of birth declines very rapidly after immigrants come to this country."
Not for Hispanics. If you have demographic studies contradicting me, let's see 'em. What I've seen says the opposite.
Yes, but it's clear you pick only sources that confirm to your preconceptions as demonstrated by your 20 million illegals figure.
I know you'll find this ironic, since you view Hispanics as being like a disease, but the Center for Disease Control has all the birth rate stats you could want. And yes, Hispanic birth rates are higher than those of whites in general, but comprable to those of all other catholic groups, including white catholics.
"First off, the illegal immigrants aren't part of a Marxist takeover."
They aren't Marxist, but are still part of a conscious takeover. Just ask 'em. Or try listening to what they are already saying.
I have asked them. They mostly laugh at the idea. It's a self-serving fantasy of the idiot spokesmen who get themselves into the public eye because of their outrageous statements. More than anything else this 'reconquista' is a creation of the media.
"The economic benefits of immigrant labor for EVERYONE in the country are blatantly obvious."
That's pure bluster on your part.
If 'bluster' is synonymous with 'common sense', anyway.
The fact that immigrant labor does not benefit the U.S. economy has been proved in study after study by economists and statisticians.
Really? Let's see some citations from legitimate journals.
I can help you out. Try this article by George Borjas who gives a very balanced view of the subject.
How has illegal immigrant labor benefited the Americans who lost their jobs in the meatpacking, rug-making, pallet-making, construction, and hotel and restaurant industries, just to name a few?
A very, very few if any. In fact, unemployment statistics suggest none. The wagest in these industries have remained high enough to attract native workers. The impact on these jobs has been that massively overpaid unionized workers have been forced out, not that native workers willing to work at a sensible wage have lost their jobs.
"Out of curiosity where do you live? The attitude you display is characteristic of the paranoid and ill-informed who live in the Northeast and Midwest. I think it's very telling that in those states which actually have substantial numbers of illegals the misconceptions you perpetuate are generally laughed at."
That's an embarrassingly pathetic ad hominem attack, to cover the fact that you have nothing to support your position. Do your homework, and get back to me.
So I have to conclude that you, like Rick Santorum and the other 'fortress america' nutcases are from a northern state and basically have no idea at all what you're talking about when it comes to illegal immigration.
Dave
20 - zingzing
ha! woo... i knew you were one of them. this isn't just about mexico, or latinos, and you can't even pretend that you actually feel threatened, can you? what do illegal immigrants do that actually threatens your whiteness? i don't really see anti-white racism as an issue even remotely connected to this. show me.
21 - Michael J. West
Nicholas, have you read David Duke's comment on my post last week? His is comment #9. Judging by your comment #17 here, you and he no doubt have a lot in common. Maybe you can get together.
22 - zingzing
that was for nikki sixx. or whoever.
23 - Michael J. West
More than anything else this 'reconquista' is a creation of the media.
In fact, Dave, as you may know, in Mexico the media considers the term "reconquista" to be a humorous one.
24 - zingzing
say it really slowly, emphasizing the "kwee" and drawing out the "ssss."
25 - Nicholas Stix
Ruvy in Jerusalem: "Nicholas, I'm a litle late here, but I'm sorry."
That's ok, Ruvy. Your apology is accepted. Join the party!
"I'm the son of an immigrant and now an immigrant (to Israel) myself. I see the value of immigrants and immigration - daily.
"Your counry would be worth nothing without the millions of immigrants who provided the raw energy it took to build it up."
Not exactly, but I would be the last to deny the value of the immigrants who built America. But those immigrants were much different than those marching in the streets and announcing their plan to take over America, and throw out all of the whites. Thw immigrants of the past loved America; the criminals marching in thge streets hate America.
And America was built by: 1. Legal immigrants; 2. At a time when there was no welfare state; and 3. At a time when industrialization was exploding, and there was a need for workers.
As Milton Friedman has observed, you can have open borders or you can have a welfare state, but you can't have both. If you have both, you will soon have a bankrupt nation. You will also attract the scum of the earth. A nation that has no welfare system will at least attract a much higher quality (i.e., self-reliant) immigrant. But even in that case, there is neither the need nor the room for any substantial number of immigrants in today's America. A few rocket scientists we could fit, but that's about it.
"Basically, without those immigrants, there would only be Indians tribes living there, making flour from inch long maize stalks and hunting herds of buffalo and passenger pigeons."
I'm glad you brought up that piece of unchallenged, multicultural pseudo-wisdom, Ruvy. The Indians are as much immigrants as anyone else. They came over from Asia, crossing the Bering land bridge during the Ice Age. So, America truly is a land of immigrants. But then, so is every other nation, too. But being "a land of immigrants" has no political or ethical ramifications whatsoever, try as some may, to project their own politics onto the phrase.
"Europe would be a crowded cauldron of hate with millions of unwashed and uneducated serfs looking for any excuse to revolt and for Jews to kill in the meantime."
Well, this is a bit far afield from supporting Mexican and Central American invaders, no? America didn't accept European Jews for humanitarian reasons anymore than it did the Irish, Germans or Italians. It had use for them. Today, it has no use for large numbers of immigrants.
"American nativist whiners forget that it takes raw energy to build a nation and immigrants provide that raw energy."
Are you writing in 1840 or 2006, Ruvy? We don't need to build a nation anymore, thus, we no longer need that "raw energy." Been there, done that.
Those people whom you deride as "American nativist whiners" have forgotten more history than you'll ever learn.
"That you are ruled by an oppressive class system that is robbing you of lots of your money (through the gas tank and thorugh encouraging you to go into debt) is your fault. If you ween't there would be more wealth in your country and less resentment of those seeking a better life in your country."
Huh?
"There is plenty of room in your country for many more immigrants than you have now."
Wrong.
"You need to readopt the values that guided you in the past and get rid of the robbers at the top."
The values that guided us in the past were that we only permit immigrants to enter the country if they served America's vital interests. That means saying no to further immigration.