That sounds dramatic enough. Please, first read about the great mental paradigm shift<\/a>, based on the scientific level where the brain and the mind largely coincide. <\/p>\n\n\n\n [OP = old paradigm; NP = new paradigm]<\/p>\n\n\n\n You know by now what the shift is about.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This is important in politics, increasingly also at the global scale. People search, accept, or elect leaders who either stay put in the safely known OP or evolve toward the NP \u2015 of course, without using these specific terms. All in all, the crowds get the leaders they deserve, so the future of humankind lies in the hands of humankind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thus, a profound insight into us is direly needed \u2015 not just abstract thinking in a philosopher\u2019s armchair. It determines the near future of the planet<\/a>. At least, of the people on it, and maybe the planet in a way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is basically not about the right versus the left in politics.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n It may be, but in some countries, OP tends to be far left; in other countries, far right. Much depends on historical evolutions. The paradigm shift itself is neutral regarding left-right politics, although the related anxiety may be fueled by one side (or both) to try to mold the electorate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Presently, in the West, <conservative vs. progressive> arguably fits the picture, but not exclusively. OP-NP is not necessarily neatly divided between political parties \u2015 which does not diminish the tension.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Letting go versus holding on (to the OP)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This is as heavy as a paradigm shift concerning the core of the human being can be: ruthless while profound meaningfulness is at stake. If this is perceived by many to lie in the OP versus by many others in the NP, we have a recipe for high-voltage aggression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here comes the metaphorical flower bud<\/a> again. It needs to open by itself, NOT be torn open from the outside. Such tearing damages the bud and provokes more anxiety. Even the perception of tearing can make vulnerable people increasingly anxious, especially through talking about it among themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The paradigm shift needs to be realized following a gentle slope. That is also the most efficient. It may even be the only way to thoughtfully proceed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Defending the OP may appear selfish.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n As a matter of fact, it is ego-centered but not necessarily egoistic. To indiscriminately accuse OP-defenders of egoism is incorrect and surely not helpful, creating resentment and resistance. In combination with the anxiety, one quickly gets an aggressive reaction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But eventually, almost nobody is against mental growth and opening up if the fear of the bud being torn can be relegated. OP-defenders may be only against NP-oriented progression if this is perceived as threatening to tear the bud. They, too, want natural growth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Shift-anxiety<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Anxiety is never a good adviser. In this case, it should be taken with utmost seriousness. What is at stake can lead to paranoid fantasies (see the news), conspiracy theories, and disregard of science and even truth as a worthwhile striving. What remains is a politics of anxiety<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the other hand, one can deduce from such reactions that something deeper is going on than what is visible at the mental surface level. Within the shift, while not seeing the shift, much is not rational from the start. Being stuck in the pre-shift stage is the cause of the irrational mayhem and hinders the solution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n People feel their anxiety \u2013 consciously or non-consciously \u2013 then project it.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n For instance, it can be projected into a threat from another (sub)culture perceived to destroy the well-known OP. One of these may be \u2018the elite, bent on destroying the OP of us, the people, by imposing their ideology.\u2019 There may be much pathos involved in this feeling of threat as if survival is at stake \u2015 which is symbolically true.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <Own people first> is an OP-defensive reaction. Intriguingly, OP parties usually search for alignment with other OP parties from other countries. This shows that it\u2019s not about \u2018own people first\u2019 but \u2018OP first,\u2019 defending the OP against impersonal forces (Europe, the deep state\u2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Frequently, there is an imagined golden age in local history, when \u2018things were pure,\u2019 and \u2018national identity\u2019 was unthreatened. This is: when the tension toward the NP wasn\u2019t felt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n OP-Leadership<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In a democracy, people who try to hold on to the OP may choose autocratic-minded leaders who promise to keep things directly under control, cracking down even if people must die to retain this kind of control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From the OP-view, the leader is a champion of law and order, ready with God\u2019s help (or another ideology) to keep country, family, and the \u2018bad ones\u2019 under control \u2015 the \u2018good ones\u2019 being those who support the OP-leader. This leader is generally an autocrat because he needs to show himself as a strong solution for all the violence \/ a country in chaos \/ the incompetence of the ruling class \/ the fear of hated minorities, the threatening \u2018them,\u2019 or of any X for that matter since the real thing is a symbolic projection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This, of course, gives leeway to populists\u2019 stoking more fear and anxiety for personal power or out of personal resentment. Since anxiety<\/a> is principally not the result of a conscious decision, this amounts to mass manipulation of which, unfortunately, we see a lot. Such manipulation can be explicitly concocted or just the result of trial and error, together with a disdain for deontology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is only one good answer to all this.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n