Who is really dividing Western society?

           Undoubtedly, you have heard the term "divisive" thrown around recklessly as a way to discredit politicians, journalists, political policy, and even entire political ideologies. With this being such a hot topic; we must question what is division really, and who is behind it? 

The popular narrative  has become that anyone who believes in things like national borders or native culture is divisive. But what better way to unite a large collective body of people than allegiance to the proverbial law of the land? If anything that is an effective glue to keep the populace focused and heading in one direction. Naturally most people would agree the only direction they would want to go is up, which in time can lead to prosperity.  Instead we are told that it is divisive, racist, and anti-progress. It is too often suggested that the only way froward is to allow everyone in and coddle every anomaly that springs up; even if they have no allegiance to the nation and do not wish to become even remotely culturally compatible with it. 

This should seem absurd. Civic unity to the nation is divisive but ethnically and culturally divided nations are somehow unifying progress? Who can believe that? Only people who have ulterior motives and definitions in mind. They don't want the current human model to succeed. The plan is to intentionally cause it to fail by convoluting the social landscape into  a chaotic mess that legitimately cannot function without massive reform. They wish to control that reform and think they will personally gain from it. While they claim to be the selfless type, its hard to find anyone more selfish. How wicked do you have to be to ruin things for everyone so that you can improve your personal social standing? It doesn't sound very selfless. 

Traditional vs Progressive

You must understand their definitions are not the same. To them "divisive" means keeping the world divided up into countries. Its just a key point of the anti-nationalists, and internationalist socialists. However, they often do not openly explain that. They instead co-opt the traditional definition of the word and pretend that national protectionism is dividing the nation. They actually know its not dividing the nation, but the world. They do not want national unity, conversely they have a dream of global unity. Which can realistically only be achieved by collapsing nations and cultural norms. They will lie, intimidate, and manipulate people as much as necessary along the way. 

Nationalism is ultimately an extension of tribalism and the idea that to each their own kind. Humans naturally desire to be on a "team" of people that are like themselves, even in mentality and faith. Members of the same race, may not be of the same tribe or mindset. They may see things differently and thus choose to separate into their own nations as an extension of their tribe. They may then become allies or "brother/sister" nations, but its still more harmonious for them to be separate. Historically, trying to collect many different tribes under one government has led to growing discontent and rebellious sentiment in time. When people value their identity they accept they are different, not inherently better than others, but different. When they feel different they separate, and when they separate they form nations. This occurrence is natural for every race of humans ever on record. From Sudan dividing into two countries, to the Native American tribal turf wars; no one is exempt from it. This is the natural "divisive" order that most have found comfortable for thousands of years. 

Obviously, this way is unacceptable to the internationalists, communists, or what are now known as the globalists. This seemingly natural order cannot continue or their ideas will never come to fruition. Thus, they have begun working diligently to undermine, and ultimately subvert this mindset into their preferred radical reform. This is done largely through what I call micro-division for lack of a better term. They realize the human desire to separate but have craftily come up with the strategy to muddy the waters to confuse the lines being drawn. If tribes are no longer coherent and like minded, then people are more inclined to abandon the tribe. 

Micro-division

What is it? Its a new systematic division of humanity based largely on nu-wave identity politics and immigration with the ultimate goal to destroy nations or entire tribes. This is achieved through encouraging division of things that used to be generally united, like man and woman. Sowing seeds of dissent such as atheism, individualism, homosexuality, and transgenders who will work to dismantle cultural norms.  They wish to turn people into such insufferable narcissistic weirdos that they don't even have the most basic human connection; family. The government will naturally become the replacement for all the things these people lack in life. All of this is followed by perhaps the most aggressive shove into destruction: bringing in mass migrants from every corner of Earth knowing they will never assimilate and begin to fight for an identity contrary to the native tribe in every way.

Humans naturally desire to get along and avoid conflict as it is inherently exhausting and dangerous. The more "diverse" things get, the more likely people are to either move away or adopt an internationalist ideological reform. They begin to submit to the dissenters and even change national legislation to suit them. In a twist this occurrence is lauded as "noble" and "unifying" while nations have never been more internally divided. Its sold as such because its the sort of reaction that is desired. However, some people have the opposite reaction in which stricter ideologies like populism, or fascism are born in a desperate attempt to save the traditional way of life. This of course cannot be allowed, even if they aren't particularly hurting anyone. The fact they would want to save their tribe and its culture cannot be an ideology allowed to thrive in an internationalist doctrine.  They will be dubbed; divisive. 

Is uniting the tribe divisive? Is dividing humanity on the most basic levels like family, faith, and gender unifying? Only if your definition of these concepts has been shifted to the post-modern variant. However, many pretend this particular switch in definition never happened.