What would political debate be like if fire was the taboo instead of immigration?

@ElentirENG ES 8·24·2024 · 7:02 0

Illegal and mass immigration has been the subject of growing public debate due to its consequences for society.

The great favor of all the Spanish parties except Vox to the illegal immigration mafias
The massive transfer of illegal immigrants on anti-terrorist alert 4: a real madness

These consequences exist, whether those who defend illegal and massive immigration like it or not, and if nothing changes the negative effects of this phenomenon will continue to exist regardless of the fact that some do not even admit a debate about it, an authoritarian attitude that is increasingly common among the left and the extreme left.

Let’s imagine for a moment what would happen if the left side of the political map defended illegal and uncontrolled fires (someone might consider this an exaggerated example, but we are talking about a left that defends something as atrocious as abortion, which is much worse), to the point of not only justifying them, but also considering it reprehensible to talk about them. Maybe, when there was a forest fire, we would see headlines saying that there had been a disaster in a forest, but without indicating the cause, as if the fire were unmentionable and as if questioning it made you an extremist.

Of course, we would also hear voices talking about "firephobia" and saying that critics of uncontrolled fires are against all kinds of fire, including St. John's bonfires, kitchen stoves and bakery ovens.

If some disaster were to claim human lives, we might see left-wing politicians avoiding showing their grief for the deceased until they confirmed that the cause was not the fire (I know the example may seem somewhat absurd, but that is precisely what happened a few days ago when, after the murder of a child, the socialist Pedro Sánchez said nothing until he knew the nationality of the murderer).

If fires were to become a daily occurrence in the poorest neighbourhoods, we would see politicians, media and intellectuals from the better-off neighbourhoods trying to silence a problem that would not affect them, which is precisely what is already happening with the problems of insecurity generated by illegal immigration in many places in Europe.

Just like the problem of illegal immigration, the problem of fires does not go away by not talking about them, and even less by trying to convince us that they are necessary for society. What some people do not want to understand is that problem that a problem that is not wanted to be talked about ends up becoming entrenched and ends up causing a conflict that is now getting out of hand for many politicians, media outlets and intellectuals.

Those affected by this problem are not just a handful of dangerous right-wing extremists: people of all ideologies suffer from this insecurity, and labelling them as "xenophobic" and "racist" no longer serves any purpose, except to anger those affected and make all these people realise that some are trying to hide this problem with a tool as anti-democratic as censorship.

In fact, those primarily responsible for the rise of new political options critical of illegal immigration are the politicians who deny this problem, as they are pushing many people to reconsider their vote when they see how their representatives turn their backs on them in the face of a problem that puts their families at risk on a daily basis. The left is the one that is pushing many of its voters into the arms of patriotic parties that reject illegal immigration, because beyond the posh left that lives in well-off neighborhoods, many left-wing voters live in working-class neighborhoods that are being seriously degraded by the effects of illegal immigration. The fact that the political and media left refuses to even admit that it is being talked about gives an idea of ​​the little respect it has for its followers.
---

Photo: Elentir.