Amazing article. This is exactly what is happening in the Western world right now.

https://www.idrlabs.com/articles/201...atic-dynamics/

The article's five main points:

1. Successful capitalism creates prosperity.
2. Prosperity attracts mass migration.
3. Prosperity shifts the urban elites of the West to favoring hyper-tolerance.
4. Immigrants plus the hyper-tolerance of the elites triggers authoritarians.
5. When authoritarians succeed in attracting status quo conservatives to their cause, they end up with a democratic majority.

Basically, we have successful capitalism which means capitalism that has worked (not necessarily any kind of capitalism - the capitalism of Russia in the 90s didn't work out too well for example), which attracts economic migrants from poorer parts of the world. But while these migrants are usually fairly conservative in terms of their social mores and values, this is brushed under the rug by urban elites of the West who equate socially conservative values with being a bad person. From the article:

Many Western writers and thinkers like to say that third-world migrants come here seeking liberty and progressive values, but very often this is an assumption that is just made completely out of the blue, citing zero evidence in favor of this claim.
In fact, according to polls, most notably from the Pew Research Center, most third-world migrants are not liberal-minded at all, but hold staunchly conservative values. So why do people assume that third-world migrants come here with a fully-formed ‘Sex and the City’ mindset? Well, to some Westerners, especially on the left-wing, if you’re not into progressivism and liberal values, you’re not a good person. So if you don’t assume that migrants subscribe to liberal values, then that’s tantamount to implying that they’re bad people. In other words, these people let ideological considerations trump empirical evidence.
Further, when people become more affluent, such as Western elites have become, they become less fearful and mistrustful of their environment, including of migrants. Haidt distinghuishes between authoritarians and status quo conservatives. The former want strong leaders, ethnic coherence, and preservation of tradtional values and customs, whereas status quo conservatives only want the last thing. But when traditional political parties fail to address the questions raised by mass migration and the instability that results from it, conservatives start looking to far right authoritarian parties to solve their problems.

Here is the conclusion:

So if we have understood Haidt correctly, he is saying that Western democracies are being shook up by uncontrolled migration. Since the traditional parties and candidates have not been able or willing to address this point in a way that the voters find satisfactory, authoritarian right-wing parties have sprung up. These parties arose as a protest against the left-wing, urban, affluent liberal elite of Western countries who, viewing Muslims as victims, are more inclined to blame conservatives of their own ethnicity for the problems associated with mass migration than blaming the Muslims themselves. And without the support of less affluent voters, the urban elites are not numerous enough to ensure a democratic majority. The new authoritarian impulses in Western democracies will keep growing as long as the problem isn’t dealt with. In Europe, these parties have only gotten larger with each election. In America, Trump is an early representative of this phenomenon, and even if he loses, the anti-immigration sentiment that has lent him all his traction is much bigger than him, and what he has started will not end with him.
I suggest reading the whole thing.

Thoughts?