What will history have to say about the current rightism/leftism dichotomy that is currently affecting the entire World...

What will history have to say about the current rightism/leftism dichotomy that is currently affecting the entire World political climate?

Obviously marxism/facism clashed before, but the state of the matter today is unique in history. Sort of like the hippy movement in the late 60s but on either on crack and estrogen pills. For most of history, the idea of letting foreigners into your country was not even thought of. No one wanted foreigners, they wanted to defend their own territory and people. In fact, for most of the history of politics it was just an unspoken fact that 1. you served your country/King 2. you would die before you let foreigners invade your country and take your family.

So what will the futurefags have to say about our current time, assuming there are futurefags
In 2018 the political climate of the world seems to be bottlenecking at a rate that has gotten exponentially higher over time

For most of history, the idea of letting foreigners into your country was not even thought of. No one wanted foreigners, they wanted to defend their own territory and people.

Throughout the 17th and 18th century, it was generally understood that higher populations made countries stronger, because higher populations generated more tax revenues and more soldiers. But generating homegrown population growth was difficult, especially in central and eastern Europe, so governments handed out land and exemptions like candy to anyone willing to immigrate. Prussia was a prime example. To quote Tim Blanning:

"In the course of Fredrick the Great's long reign from 1740 to 1786 around 280,000-300,000 immigrants entered Prussia, attracted by free land, livestock, equipment and seed, personal freedom, religious toleration and initial exemption from conscription, taxation, and labor duties...Well might Fredrick claim he had 'won a province in peacetime'." (pg. 88 The Pursuit of Glory)

TLDR: Immigration was desirable and wanted at other times in history, so the basis of your question is incorrect.

Kings of Bohemia invited German colonists into the mountainous hinterland of their kingdom which became known as Sudetenland.
This obviously turned out to be a huge mistake because centuries later, German retards started believing it should belong to Germany just because Krauts live there.

Everywhere except for burgerland, immigration was ok as long as the other person looked like you. The muslims didn't enter Spain through immigration, lad. Only in early 20th century burgerland would anyone even imagine allowing a brown person in willingly.

Except the Chinese in the 19th century

Downfall of US.

Hyper partisanship is merely a second coming of the Civil War. The key point being racism/slavery

>For most of history, the idea of letting foreigners into your country was not even thought of. No one wanted foreigners, they wanted to defend their own territory and people.

This is factually incorrect and misleading at best. People back then differentiated "foreigners" who want to work/escape from other countries/empires and "foreigners" who want to invade and take over by force.

Foreigners of the first kind were always welcomed. Only in rare instances were they disallowed. Most of the time the empire/people/country saw trade/work/tax as good thing. This was true for the East Asia, Europe, and Central Asia.

what current day issue can compare to slavery (proportional to that time)?

> For most of history, the idea of letting foreigners into your country was not even thought of. No one wanted foreigners, they wanted to defend their own territory and people

This is not true. The Romans regularly recruited barbarians from across to serve in their legions, farm their lands, and pay taxes. An example is given by the Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus (Book 31, Section 4), describing the Goths asking for refuge in Rome from the Huns:

> But when the belief in what had taken place gained strength, and was confirmed by the coming of the foreign envoys, who begged with prayers and protestations that an exiled race might be received on our side of the river, the affair caused more joy than fear; and experienced flatterers immoderately praised the good fortune of the prince, which unexpectedly brought him so many young recruits from the ends of the earth, that by the union of his own and foreign forces he would have an invincible army; also that instead of the levy of soldiers which was contributed annually by each province, there would accrue to the treasuries 1 a vast amount of gold. In this expectation various officials were sent with vehicles to transport the savage horde, and diligent care was taken that no future destroyer of the Roman state should be left behind, even if he were smitten with a fatal disease. Accordingly, having by the emperor's permission obtained the privilege of crossing the Danube and settling in parts of Thrace, they were ferried over for some nights and days embarked by companies in boats, on rafts, and in hollowed tree-trunks; and because the river is by far the most dangerous of all and was then swollen by frequent rains, some who, because of the great crowd, struggled against the force of the waves and tried to swim were drowned; and they were a good many.

I agree with you. I was quoting OP to rebut him, but I forgot le meme arrow.