Seems to have got Richie and Colin Hines off to a T here

The outstanding method of modern nationalism is discrimination against foreigners in the economic sphere. Foreign goods are excluded from the domestic market or admitted only after the payment of an import duty. Foreign labor is barred from competition in the domestic labor market. Foreign capital is liable to confiscation.

The problem being that that’s about Nazi economic policies.

11 thoughts on “Seems to have got Richie and Colin Hines off to a T here”

  1. #2 is perfectly reasonable and is in fact what most countries in the world do and have done throughout history. Mixing #2 up with #1, let alone #3 is disingenuous.

    To use the pejorative “nationalism” to describe countries maintaining their basic societal cohesion through immigration controls is pretty extremist.

  2. At least one of these has been advocated expressly by Paul Nuttall up here in Liverpool. And of course our wilder contributors on his blog have long advocated banning foreign labour from competing in domestic markets. And then here is Trump demanding the Mexicans pay for US policy decisions.

    Trump, Murphy, Hines, SMFS etc: arseholes all.

  3. Trump’s Mexican Wall seems entirely sensible. The dialogue might read like this:
    ” Look Snr Mexican President. These people keep jumping our border are your people & your responsibility, not our’s. So we’ll build a wall & conduct our affairs, in a civilised manner, through the properly regulated crossing points. But you’re causing the problem. You pay for it.
    Or we’ll pay for the wall. But it won’t have many crossing points & those there are will be as tight as a duck’s arse.”.
    Choose one of the above.”
    Is that being unreasonable?

  4. bloke in spain

    I’m not sure you can really charge your neighbours for it, but I don’t understand the problem. Countries are allowed to protect their borders, even if you have a generally liberal immigration policy.

    That said, I doubt it’ll happen. It’s a government project. It’ll take at least 5 years in bureaucracy.

  5. Bloke in North Dorset


    Given his record to date I wouldn’t bet against him. I also suspect the bureaucracy is in for a very rude awakening given some of his cabinet picks. TimN had a good post on Tillerson on that very subject.

    Slightly O/T but according to today’s Cato podcast there hasn’t been one fatality at the hands of a terrorist from any of the countries included in his executive order but the country that supplied most of the 9/11 terrorists isn’t on the list.

  6. It’ll take at least 5 years in bureaucracy.

    And that’s in a bureaucracy which is either supportive or at least apathetic.

  7. Look at “the list” and wonder what the U.S. loses from not granting visas. You are allowed to use an electron microscope.

  8. Bloke in Costa Rica

    “here hasn’t been one fatality at the hands of a terrorist from any of the countries included in his executive order”

    That’s straight-up bullshit of the first order. Iran was responsible for arming its proxy militias with EFF weapons which killed several hundred US troops. The Bataclan attackers, who killed a US citizen, came in via Syria. It’s a straw man argument anyway; perhaps a bit of stable-door bolting ahead of the nag running off might not be a bad idea. It would certainly be a change.

  9. It’s not bureaucracy that will stop the wall. It’s that it has to cover 3,300 km.

    He can’t build it and attack the deficit. It’s going to cost a Yuuge sum.

  10. So Much For Subtlety

    Ironman – “Trump, Murphy, Hines, SMFS etc: arseholes all.”

    Flopsy, when everyone you meet is an ar$ehole, the ar$ehole is you.

    Besides, you are wrong. It is me and Trump on one side. You, Murph et al on the other. You share their insane political correctness.

  11. So a massive wall gets built.
    People do not have access to boats or planes? They can fly a few hours to Canada and avoid the wall.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *