Please don't misunderstand me: for what little it is worth, I am hugely impressed with this paradigm.

If I haven't already recommended it and you haven't already read it regardless, American Nations, by Colin Woodard, basically applies your paradigm to the U.S., based on where immigrants settled in large enough proportions to establish a locally dominant subculture (plus 'the indigenous culture'--which he counts as one, though the indigenous population included all three types).

I think we are seeing the end of the Age of Ideology, due to its practical and theoretical failings. A resurgence of religious fervor is part of it, and some people are going from one ideology to another.

In (Western, at least) Europe, a pragmatic utilitarianism of a kind based on an ingrained concern for the group as a whole seems to dominate. Would you agree? It looks a lot like political liberalism, but it is deeper than ideology, no?

Concern for the group as a whole is a trait shared by foragers, farmers, and pastoralists, is it not? Yet farmers are the least group-oriented, aren't they? As I understand it, foragers are most likely to go from one subgroup to another, but for all foragers 'one for all and all for one' is the ethos.

I am convinced that a significant number of people are turning away from ideology on the basis of nothing but emotion: fear, based on 'the way things are going'. That fear makes them easy prey for demagogues. Fear turns easily into hatred--which makes all of it difficult to distinguish from fascism.

A predisposition exists among many people to focus those emotions on the dominant ideology, which in the U.S. since the 1960's has been liberalism. While that ideology has been suffering defeats politically since the 1980's, it still has a very nearly total hegemony in the pop culture/marketing complex that dominates life in this nation. That fact of our societal existence is not lost on these folks.

The upshot is that anything that liberals are for, they must be against 'on principle' (which must not be compromised): using government to solve problems, getting vaccinated, accepting the reality of global warming--in general, any way of demonstrating concern for the group as a whole, which they label as 'socialism'. That, not any philosophy, is the source of the virulence of their individualism: they are radical individualists because their fear/hatred is focused on (group-oriented) liberalism, not the other way around.

That's my theory, anyway. (I didn’t intend to go on for so long.)