All of the examples you've been given are hilariously wrong. 'Shitposting' is a play on the idea that people with non-pc views are 'shitlords.' It grew out of groups like "Shit Reddit Says" and "Shit 4chan Says" that meant to police language on those sites. tl;dr A "shitpost" is a post that's not politically correct.
> bring inherent stability and progress to society.
I would classify this sort of thinking as "whig historiography." It's a popular meme, but there's no evidence that it's a good model of reality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history
Embracing "diversity is strength" feels good in an abstract sense, but it seems to fly in the face of evidence. The chaos and conflict brewing now are a direct result of this motto being played out over the last fifty years or so.
> That being said, those are politicians (not military leaders). Both of them have something to lose and a worldview that is antithetical to recent changes (Biden vs the Trump election, Araud vs Brexit). As of a year ago neither of those people would have predicted current events. Why should we believe they now know something we don't?
Military leaders are great tacticians, but that doesn't mean they know anything about the power structures of the world. Politicians on the other hand have to develop a keen sense for where things are headed [politically]. And don't forget, war is the ultimate expression of politics.
> There will always be wars and rumors of war.
Right, and we won't be able to predict when the next one will be or how it will start. What we can say though is that things are getting unstable. The current system is bleeding. Now that it has shown weakness it will be challenged by groups hoping to fill a [potential] power vacuum.
In the west minorities and outsiders are treated as morally superior to natives. It's a pathologically "benign" civilization.
How long do you think an Arab would last in Han dominated China if he constantly criticized the Chinese for "Han supremacy" and called for an end to their way of life?
How long would a Han Chinese survive in Qatar behaving the same way?
Ironically, the openness of western society has led to its constant attack by disgruntled minorities. Who realized long ago that complaining loudly wins them resources and privileges.
"French Ambassador to the U.S. Gerard Araud foretold of a new world order. "After Brexit and this election, everything from now on is possible," Araud tweeted. "A world is collapsing before our eyes. Vertigo."
> What countries really want to engage in war and disrupt the global economy?
Humans are passionate animals. We will wage war for ideology. We always have. And while some will lose [economically] others will profit. War is big business.
This is very childish and shows that you never really knew much about America in the first place. Love it or hate it, our nation was never a Scandinavian hug box. Even under Obama.
Forcing non-optimal decisions based on an arbitrary notion of "fairness" will only weaken our institutions and breed resentment: "group A gets loan approval with a lower credit score than members of my group, what gives!?"
It also increases the fragility of the group you're trying to help by acclimating them to lower standards.
The success of Asian and Jewish people suggests that things can correct themselves over time. The law should stay out of it.