Tesla8209

I'm seeing the West go through the same historical beats that led to the fall of my country long ago. The people are unaware of the lengths governments, media, and financial institutions can go to get what they want. Is the concept of a border wall now "racist" because it's a rejection of some utopian concept of open borders? From what I recall, the line that set the media on fire about Trump being "racist" near the start of the election cycle was him explaining that illegal immigrants that cross the border are composed of criminals with reason to avoid the proper naturalization process. Does attacking this group of criminals now constitute as an attack on an entire ethnicity? Take note on how this collective view on a people only comes into play when it's convenient for those who stand to gain from the status quo. The argument to buffer Muslim immigration? A reasonable desire, albeit skirting the line of legality, for those who can think beyond the emotional gratification of welcoming someone from an exotic, foreign land into your home and observe long term cultural ramifications. Take Europe for instance. Their native populations' birthrates are on a decline. As a means of self-preservation, the government's solution has been to import migrants from Africa and the Middle East - who ironically are fleeing because of Western intervention in the regions in the first place - without any form of assimilation out of a mandatory respect for other cultures as dictated by law. The expectation is that they'll be a source of cheap labor and proponents of big government. While there is not much friction when native Europeans move between countries, many of the people of Africa and Middle East have cultures that are far removed from European standards. Any form of resistance to this change in Europe gets you slapped with a string of labels: xenophobe, racist, Islamaphobe, etc. In more recent cases, you can even get sent to prison for criticism of these policies. The basis of this argument is that rejecting a government policy is because of irrational fear and not because of a deduction of what happens when two different cultures collide based on historical precedent. In essence, those who fling these labels around haphazardly have the audacity of claiming they can read peoples' minds. Over the past two years, the right has been experiencing a resurgence while the left, which is currently the establishment in a majority of the West, is only doubling down on their refusal to assess the reality of the situation. I've seen many once proud liberals break ranks and join the right or form their own movements knowing their political parties have taken on an authoritarian and pro-corporate stance. You saw this in the US with Sanders. People are beginning to realize they've been taking advantage of by way of emotional appeals and fear of ostracization. They have figuratively severed all lines of communication with the mainstream media and academics as they were the main proponents of such policies seeping into society and becoming mandates. The suppression of such incidents such as the Rotherham rape scandal because of law enforcement's fear of being called "racist" and Sweden's continual cultural decline from an outsider's point of view all have more sway on a person's judgment than off-color remarks ever could no matter how desperately the media tries to alter perception. I said little about Trump because I strongly disbelieve that celebrity appeal was the main force behind his success. He's ran for presidency in the past after all but without his 2015-2016 platform. It's his seizure of the often ignored, nuanced issues facing society that propelled him to victory and all the usual suspects behind these problems coming out of the woodwork to attack him. His invigorated voter base, finally seeing their issues brought to the forefront, made up for the smaller voter turnout this cycle. You pass the failings of the Democrat Party onto the voters using the same circular argumentation that cost them the election in the first place. The first term is pseudoscience nonsense that was coined for the purpose of dismantling establishments by appealing towards the basic, tribal instincts of the lower classes without enlightening them about what really ails them. The second term, along with almost every derogatory -ist, -ism, and -phobia, has been reduced to mean nothing in the eyes of many over the past five years. You may not see it that way, but speak to someone who has rejected most mainstream sites because of their constant bombardment and blame of all the world's issues on a particular race regardless of the individuals' social standing, class, and nationality. What are the expectations of telling someone their skin color is reason for their achievements and that they should feel guilty, and as penance for this original sin, they should flagellate themselves at every opportunity and bend the knee to the self-proclaimed oppressed, moral group? Do you expect them to meekly take your word as truth because you somehow know them all better than they know themselves? It may work on those who have bought into the self-loathing that has been pushed by their educational institutions since childhood. Those who reject your claims are instead caught in an absurd Chinese fingertrap where the more they deny your claim, the more they are seen as "guilty."