For an ideology to actually somewhat manifest itself, it requires for a collection of like-minded & characteristically alike individuals to coalesce into some kind of much more larger collective mentality, it requires for some kind of changes to occur within society.
Now to clarify something, everyone who is an adherent to the specific ideology circles it similar to how planets circle a star: You will have those in a very adjacent position with a close proximity, and those whom exist more on the periphery.
In order for these variables to actually coalesce into something greater, it requires for some kind of greater force of nature -such as a societal-civilizational shift- to occur in which the populace are no longer living in comfort & see some kind of threat to their way of life occur: Ideologies also tend to correlate with certain traits, being that of IQ, cognitive ability, religious values, social-class, race, etc.
Essentially, all ideologies exist as is just an accumulation of that: Individuals with various aligned traits & variables whom have been shifted to orbit an ideology -be it in an adjacent position or peripheral one- in order to justify some end-goal & collective accumulation of a desired outcome, albeit in perhaps differing interpretations, yet the core collective thought remains the same. There is no "Left versus Right," but rather "Leftists vs Rightists" whom adhere to a much more broader worldview which manifested itself through their various accumulations of similar traits & for similar needs to be met.
Essentially, everything is rooted in the ideal of Pragmatism, which I attribute virtually all of my worldviews towards, since it is innately American in origins & more characteristically aligned with us:
en.wikipedia.org
The reason as to why this mentality evolved early on within the United States, was due to the sheer need for it early on: Most early settlers, colonists, etc. such as my ancestors would have needed a mentality similar to this in order to survive, due to the unfamiliarity of the new continent & conflict with Natives, Outlaws, and the such.
However, it of course stems from that of the mentality which many in Europe have, due to the sheer climate & environment of it being one which requires for longer-term planning which thus amounts to adhering to whatever stems from the most efficient & favorable outcomes.
For example, most of humanity existed within the natural state up until the Industrial Revolution: Every civilization which existed up until this point effectively adhered to this, since it had structured class-roles although they arguably were socialist within some metrics, due to the fact the upper-classes understood the need for the lower-classes to exist with their needs adhered to & taken care of, with the leading monarch or church often intervening to keep the rule of local leaders or merchants under some kind of system which worked effectively for the collective good. Similarly, guild systems also existed as a manner of individuals whom needed their needs met or voices heard to accommodate for what they saw as most pragmatic: Again, these followed some natural state which allowed for those whom are most suited for a role to take it.
From my reading of many earlier European societies, mainly Germanic ones, it appears as if they all adhered to patterns similar to this. Functioning purely on a pragmatic scale, whilst also seemingly holding some degree of adherence to the natural state & peoples inherent capabilities.
Now when we fast-forward a bit, we see many new ideologies emerge towards that of the reaction to changing circumstances: For example, National Socialism rose as a reaction to not only the lose & consequences of it Germany experienced after WW1, but also the rising Red tide which already had ascertained control over Russia & was attempting to subvert various nation-states globally. In essence, there was no "National Socialism" but merely just "National Socialists" who stood as some kind of pragmatic reaction towards that of both Judeo-Bolshevism & Liberal Democracy, which regardless of who was behind them effectively represented the two "sides of the same coin" so to speak, due to preaching a false notion of egalitarianism.
Everyone who adheres to a central ideology -even if it technically doesn't exist or its adherents know it's kind of bullshit- do so under the pretext of either self-preservation, or self-gain.
Now to clarify something, everyone who is an adherent to the specific ideology circles it similar to how planets circle a star: You will have those in a very adjacent position with a close proximity, and those whom exist more on the periphery.
In order for these variables to actually coalesce into something greater, it requires for some kind of greater force of nature -such as a societal-civilizational shift- to occur in which the populace are no longer living in comfort & see some kind of threat to their way of life occur: Ideologies also tend to correlate with certain traits, being that of IQ, cognitive ability, religious values, social-class, race, etc.
Essentially, all ideologies exist as is just an accumulation of that: Individuals with various aligned traits & variables whom have been shifted to orbit an ideology -be it in an adjacent position or peripheral one- in order to justify some end-goal & collective accumulation of a desired outcome, albeit in perhaps differing interpretations, yet the core collective thought remains the same. There is no "Left versus Right," but rather "Leftists vs Rightists" whom adhere to a much more broader worldview which manifested itself through their various accumulations of similar traits & for similar needs to be met.
Essentially, everything is rooted in the ideal of Pragmatism, which I attribute virtually all of my worldviews towards, since it is innately American in origins & more characteristically aligned with us:
Pragmatism - Wikipedia
The reason as to why this mentality evolved early on within the United States, was due to the sheer need for it early on: Most early settlers, colonists, etc. such as my ancestors would have needed a mentality similar to this in order to survive, due to the unfamiliarity of the new continent & conflict with Natives, Outlaws, and the such.
However, it of course stems from that of the mentality which many in Europe have, due to the sheer climate & environment of it being one which requires for longer-term planning which thus amounts to adhering to whatever stems from the most efficient & favorable outcomes.
For example, most of humanity existed within the natural state up until the Industrial Revolution: Every civilization which existed up until this point effectively adhered to this, since it had structured class-roles although they arguably were socialist within some metrics, due to the fact the upper-classes understood the need for the lower-classes to exist with their needs adhered to & taken care of, with the leading monarch or church often intervening to keep the rule of local leaders or merchants under some kind of system which worked effectively for the collective good. Similarly, guild systems also existed as a manner of individuals whom needed their needs met or voices heard to accommodate for what they saw as most pragmatic: Again, these followed some natural state which allowed for those whom are most suited for a role to take it.
From my reading of many earlier European societies, mainly Germanic ones, it appears as if they all adhered to patterns similar to this. Functioning purely on a pragmatic scale, whilst also seemingly holding some degree of adherence to the natural state & peoples inherent capabilities.
Now when we fast-forward a bit, we see many new ideologies emerge towards that of the reaction to changing circumstances: For example, National Socialism rose as a reaction to not only the lose & consequences of it Germany experienced after WW1, but also the rising Red tide which already had ascertained control over Russia & was attempting to subvert various nation-states globally. In essence, there was no "National Socialism" but merely just "National Socialists" who stood as some kind of pragmatic reaction towards that of both Judeo-Bolshevism & Liberal Democracy, which regardless of who was behind them effectively represented the two "sides of the same coin" so to speak, due to preaching a false notion of egalitarianism.
Everyone who adheres to a central ideology -even if it technically doesn't exist or its adherents know it's kind of bullshit- do so under the pretext of either self-preservation, or self-gain.
