By Hunter Wallace
“From Malmö comes the news that the Sweden Democrats, scrubbed-up neo-fascists who have forsaken the Roderick Spode uniforms, have become Sweden’s most popular political party, commanding the allegiance of a quarter of Swedish voters. …
“We are all national socialists now,” he writes. Some models are a little more nationalist (Trump) and some are a little more socialist (Sanders), but both reject laissez-faire categorically. “Hitler was not the founder of National Socialism, not even in Germany,” Lukacs writes, “but he recognized the potential marriage of nationalism with socialism, and also the practical — and not merely rhetorical — primacy of nationalism within that marriage. . . . He also knew that old-fashioned capitalism was gone; that belonged to the 19th century.” …
Nonetheless there is a large overlap between those who put immigration restriction at the center of their agenda and those who oppose free trade, and they share the assumption that economic interactions with foreigners absent government guidance toward the “national interest” is necessarily destructive. It is not that there is no such thing as the national interest: We have an intense and necessary interest in what’s going on in Pyongyang at the moment, and what happens in Syria, whether our borders are secure, whether our banking regulations put us at a global disadvantage.”
We have a “national interest” in Syria, but deporting illegal aliens sounds like something straight out of Hitler’s playbook.
With respect to our recent exchange, Sam, about the consequences of the Mobile rally, we need results of polls that were conducted wholly after that rally. I’m pretty sure the new South Carolina poll, which Mr. Wallace mentioned, in his post immediately above yours, was conducted from August 20-23, which means it was started a day before Mobile. I don’t know about the New Hampshire poll you’ve cited.
Regardless, what you said is striking: Those with rousing presences (in New Hampshire) don’t seem to be rousing anyone. I’d be interested to hear a response to that by the author of that Politico article.
Last night, if you haven’t seen the news stories, Trump tweeted shots at Megyn Kelly, who’d returned to her Fox show after her Trump-induced vacation. That really makes me wonder whether Trump understands something basic that I don’t. My own thought would have been, “Well, I disposed of her; no need to return to that conflict.” Maybe Trump would say, “Unless I drive her off that network, she’ll continue to oppose my campaign.”
Trump slaughtering the opposition:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/08/ppps-new-new-hampshire-poll-finds-donald-trump-in-the-strongest-position-of-any-poll-weve-done-anywhere-since-he-entered-the.html
Megyn Kelly as symbol of cuckservatism:
http://mpcdot.com/forums/topic/8496-the-donald-trump-presidential-archive/page__st__1520#entry217643