Centrism Collapses in Sweden as Swedish Democrats Rise to First Place -End Of The EU: Surprisingly Brilliant

This fellow nails it, as the polarization of political ideologies in Europe assures the return of tribalism and the eventual dissolution of the EU. Unfortunately, for the globalist power elites they overestimated the extent of their social brainwashing in taming human nature, a nature that has phylogenetically been supreme in humankind for far longer longer than the two hundred years or so of propaganda induced passivity of the One World Government elites. Although, there is some confusion as to the origin of the phrase, subsequently disproving by science, I still find it useful as it reflects the permanence of millions of years of social development relative to the mind control and indoctrination induced behavioral changes of the power and control seeking elites since the time of Adam Weishaupt; ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

Human nature is not as malleable as the progressive, eugenics minded, fascist progressive elites, in their overweening hubris, thought. However, this opens up the next phase of their plan, where it bears to remember that the favorite war of Henry Kissinger, the now reigning American/Rothschild master elite, which is the extraordinarily bloody Thirty-Years War. From 1618 to 1648 well over an estimated eight million Europeans died, which at the time was on a per capita basis, one of the, if not the bloodiest war in European history. From this war, under the Peace of Westphalia, a new balance of power emerged and the nation states of Europe were born.  This evil war criminal holds that this was the true beginning of the New World Order and the death and destruction that resulted from this battle of the Princes, was to coin a phrase from another former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, was “worth it.”

A war is coming, for it is not a ring that will bind us in Mordor, but a new period of chaos and blood that will lead to a new peace: the peace imposed by the technocratic, elite rule of One World Government. 

The Return of Tribalism
Anthony Stahelski

After the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union a political scientist named Francis Fukuyama wrote a book entitled The End of History and the Last Man. Fukuyama stated that the Soviet demise signaled more than just the end of the Cold War. He provocatively hypothesized that the demise meant that humanity’s ongoing search for a utopian ideology was over, because Western liberal democracy and associated individualistic ideology would be universalized as the final form of worldwide human governance. In this new world order humans would not have any specific group identities, and therefore cultural differences would disappear. Instead humans would function strictly as autonomous individuals in a homogeneous global community. Sadly, events of the last two decades have made this prediction as spectacularly erroneous as Marx’s prediction of a universal classless society. Why was Fukuyama so wrong?

Primarily because he ignored humanity’s tribal evolutionary roots. For millions of years our hominid ancestors lived in small hunter-gatherer tribes of 10 to 50 people. They spent their entire lives with the same group of people, and they were hardly ever alone. They identified with these people as their tribal In-group (‘us’), and everyone else were identified as Out-group members of other tribes (‘them’), who were viewed with suspicion and sometimes hostility. The onset of agriculture and industrialization (civilization) 10,000 years ago has not erased our genetically programmed tribalism. We still engage in In-group/ Out-group categorization. Civilization has simply given us new ways to categorize people as Us or Them. Now, in addition to categorizing people by family or clan kinship, we also categorize by national and regional culture, race, religion, social class, age, gender, and numerous other factors.

This helps explain why there is so much resistance to globalized homogeneity; people clearly do not want to give up their tribal identities. The evidence for this is all around us. Directly counter to Fukuyama’s thesis, global democracy has been in retreat since 2008. Dictators like Xi, Putin, Kim and others cloth their domestic oppression and territorial aggressions with appeals to the national pride of their tribal members. Islamic jihadists want to destroy Western values and reinstitute a unified patriarchal Muslim empire. British voters rejected membership in the European Union, primarily based on immigration fears. In our presidential campaign Trump’s appeal is primarily tribal. His vehement anti-immigrant stance appeals primarily to the white working class. Even in the Olympics competitors do not just compete as individuals; they also compete as members of their national tribes. These are just a few of the many current examples of reemerging tribalism.

The most ominous problem with modern tribalism pertains to the current lethality of weapons. Now the various tribes can attack each other with nuclear and biological weapons, rather than fists and clubs. Therefore we cannot succumb to this rampant reemergence of violent tribalism. However, if humans are genetically predisposed to tribalism, what can be done? We could slow down the relentless push toward Westernized globalization, which features autonomous individualism as the cultural ideal. In individualistic cultures each person’s needs, desires, values and goals have precedence over group identities and obligations. Independence, autonomy, freedom, competition, and individual rights are valued. Americans and other westernized citizens perceive individualistic values positively. We don’t realize how negatively these values are perceived by people who live in more collectivist cultures. Many people in tribal-oriented collectivist cultures and subcultures view the individualism associated with Western values as the pathway to anarchy, chaos and self-destruction.

Humans are social animals; they are not just autonomous individuals. They are members of groups that add positive meaning to their lives. Groups such as families, tribes, neighborhoods or countries are sometimes more important than the individuals who compose them. If prosocial values such as interdependence, conformity, duty, loyalty, obligation, and cooperation are recognized as legitimate aspects of a good life, then it is possible that tribalism can be nonviolent. Out-groups can be recognized as different but non-threatening. Tribalism becomes violent when tribal members feel that there group/cultural identities and values are threatened.

Anthony Stahelski, is a a professor of psychology at Central Washington University in Ellensburg Washington.

Source: The Return of Tribalism – The Moderate Voice

Written in 1994, many of the trends that actually were considered positive in terms of adding to social cohesion have, with the internet, on-line shopping and the increased decision making authority of the powerful, centralized government bureaucracy, accelerated the dissolving of national and social cohesion. Combined with the intentional divisiveness induced by the fanning  of racial, gender, ideological, religious and regional tribalism by the ruling establishment and power elites, who have been following the roadmaps set out by the Fabians, the Frankfurt School and the Illuminati and others for well over 100 years, it may be that the return of the positive forces of social cohesion in America, and Europe as well, is now all but impossible.

Thus, the elites will achieve their goal through the dialectical process. The solution to bind us all into a unified whole will be the forced homogeneity and mass conformity of the total surveillance police state. 

Fragmentation and Cohesion in American Society 

Gary T. Marx: MIT
Only connect. That was the whole of her message.
–E. M. Forster, Howard’s End

In the 1950s and early 1960s, American society was criticized for its conformity and homogeneity. Observers such as David Riesman in The Lonely Crowd (1950), William Whyte in The Organization Man (1956), and C. Wright Mills in The Power Elite (1956) decried what they saw as the leveling and stifling effect of bureaucracy and mass society. The individual was seen to be overly responsive to the group and unduly timid. In the 1960s, many idealistic and optimistic young persons heard John F. Kennedy’s charge to “ask not what your country-can do-for you, but what can you do for your country?” But in recent years these concerns have rarely been heard. They have been replaced by what is in some ways an opposite concern over the pronounced differences and indifferences in contemporary society. Worry over the tyranny of community has been replaced by worry over whether or not there is any community to begin with, or what kind of community it is.

Consider the following:

the rise of strident single issue political groups

the popular tax revolt

a negative politics that earmarks candidates to-be defeated rather than elected

a retreat from public institutions and the public provision of health and welfare services (e.g., increased attendance at private schools and emphasis on the role of private organizations in meeting social needs)

the dispersion of political power from the national to the state and local level and among a plethora of seemingly gridlocked interests and bureaucracies

an apparent resurgence of ethnicity and ethnic diversity apparent as new groups from Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean grow in size

an increase in adversarial and litigious behavior and a tendency to treat an ever larger number of relationships in legal terms

an apparent increase in tax cheating, littering, running stop signs, vandalism, the failure to pay fines and other indicators that may suggest civic decline

high rates of predatory crime and the appearance of new forms such as drive-by shootings

inventions such as the personal radio and video games that can isolate the person from direct interaction with others

the enhancement of specialized channels of communication such as cable television that permit “narrowcasting,” appealing to highly differentiated groups, rather than the more diffuse “broadcasting”

an increase in the geographical separation of groups based on life-style or special needs (e.g., whole towns, neighborhoods, or buildings for the retired, young adults without children, the physically handicapped, and homosexuals)

the appearance of medieval-like walled or “gated” towns (e.g., California and Florida) with access to the town itself gained only by passing elaborate security and surveillance measures

Fragmentation and Cohesion in American Society