Debate Now Is the Cultural Paradigm Shifting Along with the Demographic Changes?

[Foxfyre]

I agree with your post with the exception of your first part. I used to live in Detroit a few decades ago, and saw a large difference in culture when I visited relatives in Small-Town Indiana, population 2000. I should not have said the two cultures are left/right when I actually meant urban/rural.

I think you have a different definition of culture than I do. The culture of Americans also have a large overlap with many European and South American cultures if you want to look at it your way. I was focusing on distinguishing features of Americans that lack commonality with other countries.

Differences, of course, catch our attention much more than commonalities do, just as do things that move compared to things that remain in place. Those relatives probably grew up immersed in the same or similar Christian-influenced culture, they celebrate Thanksgiving and Christmas, they prefer liberty to servitude, they want to make a living, live in reasonable security, and hope for a brighter future for their kids, and they didn't sacrifice you to some god or goddess, or have you for supper, obviously. Yes, they may have exhibited this or that behavior that seemed "odd", but this stood out because 99% of the rest was the same or reasonably similar.

It doesn't matter whether you call it left-right, or urban-rural, the commonalities still vastly exceed the differences. It's politics that makes Americans forget that, and tries to focus everybody on a few differences to divide the population.

Famously, there was a psychology test. Participants were handed a piece of paper and a pen (half blue, the other half red ones), and they were made to wait in a room together for the test to begin. Lo and behold, when the researchers some minutes later stepped into the room, the participants had sorted themselves according to the color of their pen. That is, I am convinced, what happens in the U.S. of A. right now: Sorting themselves along such utterly meaningless features as the color of their pen.

But is it meaningless? Misguided possibly. Imcomprehensible at times. Certainly destructive at times. But understanding changes in emphasis and point of view are not meaningless.

I do NOT want this thread to disintegrate into a discussion of pros and cons of religion or any form of religious observance, but use this as an example only:

Example:

There have always been those who rejected the Church. The atheists have always been with us. But for most of two centuries the nation was allowed pretty much unrestricted religious liberty. It was okay for schools to acknowledge national Holidays and traditional observances such as Christmas and Easter. The Ten Commandments could be hung in a classroom or be engraved in a work of art in a courthouse. Student led prayers or a moment of silence to start the school day or a generic prayer at a sporting event were not seen as a problem. Our high school performed Handel's Messiah as a Christmas tradition every year and folks from miles around--Christians, Jews, atheists, and everybody else--looked forward to it and attended. A religious symbol or something similar could be used at "show and tell" without even a ripple of objection. A Baccalaureate Service was held on a night near graduation each year, and usually it was the minister or rabbi parent of one of the seniors who was the speaker.

At the same time no theocracy developed at any level of government, and of all my teachers from first grade through college, I could tell you what religion only three of them practiced and that was incidental. I couldn't tell you the religious beliefs of any of them. And we all learned solid science including Darwin and natural selection, theories of origins of the universe many billions of years ago and we were immersed in solid history and were encouraged to evaluate the the negative and the positive within each aspect of it.

And the schools were safe places with no security necessary. In communities where most kids had a mom and dad in the home and there were lots of churches and synagogues, crime, especially violent crime of any kind was rare.

As that cultural paradigm changed, we simultaneously saw the nuclear family of mom, dad, and kids become less the norm and then the exception. Any recognition of religion in the schools or anywhere in the public sector came under significant attack so that the schools became completely a-religious. The requirement of political correctness was pushed pretty much everywhere.

And at the same time we saw a lot more bullying, school shootings and other violence became all too frequent, there was a breakdown in discipline and school security became a major issue. And verbal and sometimes physical warring in the public sector became commonplace.

Acknowledging that correlation is not the same thing as causation,but it definitely warrants a good, honest, hard consideration to determine what actually is the reason behind such a major cultural paradigm shift.

 

[Olde Europe]

But is it meaningless? Misguided possibly. Imcomprehensible at times. Certainly destructive at times. But understanding changes in emphasis and point of view are not meaningless.

I do NOT want this thread to disintegrate into a discussion of pros and cons of religion or any form of religious observance, but use this as an example only:

Example:

[...]

That was a nice set of right-wing talking points. We have, I trust, read them all before.

What really happened since WWII are two shifts, one cultural-economic, one economic, with consequences for population and, maybe, culture.

The first was women entering the workforce in growing numbers, which opened up a path towards independence. As a consequence women were no longer stuck with the husband, no matter how much abuse they took. With marriage no longer a life sentence for her, marriage for life grew rarer.

The other thing that struck the U.S. was Reagan, the most destructive political force in the 20th century, and his financialization of the industry. The result was financial institutions gobbling up an ever increasing portion of the wealth creation, power shifting away from labor towards capital, followed by so-called right-to-work legislation, and white males in non-supervisory positions not getting a raise since the late 1970s. While during the two, three decades after WWII one income sustained a family, that's no longer true for an increasing portion of Americans. That's why life became more precarious, and the outlook for the offspring darkened even more, while working two or three jobs grew more prevalent, and time for kids became scarcer, with attendant consequences.

All that put family life under increasing stress, raising the rates of divorce, and children growing up in less stable homes, again, with attendant consequences. All the while, some 90% self-identify as Christians. And the so-called War on Christmas is still a hoax. It was invented to divert attention away from the real-world goings-on, and served up a panoply of scapegoats, atheists and secularists, most notably, followed by Muslims and Hispanics, and most of all "the Left", that quarrelsome force in U.S. history.

 

[Foxfyre]

But is it meaningless? Misguided possibly. Imcomprehensible at times. Certainly destructive at times. But understanding changes in emphasis and point of view are not meaningless.

I do NOT want this thread to disintegrate into a discussion of pros and cons of religion or any form of religious observance, but use this as an example only:

Example:

[...]

That was a nice set of right-wing talking points. We have, I trust, read them all before.

What really happened since WWII are two shifts, one cultural-economic, one economic, with consequences for population and, maybe, culture.

The first was women entering the workforce in growing numbers, which opened up a path towards independence. As a consequence women were no longer stuck with the husband, no matter how much abuse they took. With marriage no longer a life sentence for her, marriage for life grew rarer.

The other thing that struck the U.S. was Reagan, the most destructive political force in the 20th century, and his financialization of the industry. The result was financial institutions gobbling up an ever increasing portion of the wealth creation, power shifting away from labor towards capital, followed by so-called right-to-work legislation, and white males in non-supervisory positions not getting a raise since the late 1970s. While during the two, three decades after WWII one income sustained a family, that's no longer true for an increasing portion of Americans. That's why life became more precarious, and the outlook for the offspring darkened even more, while working two or three jobs grew more prevalent, and time for kids became scarcer, with attendant consequences.

All that put family life under increasing stress, raising the rates of divorce, and children growing up in less stable homes, again, with attendant consequences. All the while, some 90% self-identify as Christians. And the so-called War on Christmas is still a hoax. It was invented to divert attention away from the real-world goings-on, and served up a panoply of scapegoats, atheists and secularists, most notably, followed by Muslims and Hispanics, and most of all "the Left", that quarrelsome force in U.S. history.

You accuse me of right wing talking points and then you post that???? Too funny. Bless your heart and do have a great afternoon.

 

[Wuwei]

The thread is not about how why we feel the way we do. The thread is about whether there has been a shift in cultural paradigms, what shifts if any there have been, and why.

I agree. That's why I ended my post with saying it would be a digression beyond the scope of the OP. But politics still seems to be a part of cultural paradigms.

(Progressive?) scientists, and engineers, came from (progressive?) universities and brought huge cultural changes: high speed fiber optics, massive data servers, household computers, etc... The Internet changed communication and retailing... Automation made all of this inexpensive. This cultural change, (the Information Age), that science and the universities brought has served all demographics.

As far as social changes, the cell phone in everybody's faces has changed how we deal with people and our own lives, but that crosses over to all demographics. The same thing goes for social media.

I don't see that demographics has much to do with cultural changes in the last several decades.

 

[Olde Europe]

I agree - ["The thread is not about how why we feel the way we do."]. That's why I ended my post with saying it would be a digression beyond the scope of the OP. But politics still seems to be a part of cultural paradigms.

(Progressive?) scientists, and engineers, came from (progressive?) universities and brought huge cultural changes: high speed fiber optics, massive data servers, household computers, etc... The Internet changed communication and retailing... Automation made all of this inexpensive. This cultural change, (the Information Age), that science and the universities brought has served all demographics.

As far as social changes, the cell phone in everybody's faces has changed how we deal with people and our own lives, but that crosses over to all demographics. The same thing goes for social media.

I don't see that demographics has much to do with cultural changes in the last several decades.

In a way, I have to disagree, again.

Of course, why we feel the way we do is very much dependent on cultural paradigms, and politics in general is both fed by, and also influences, the paradigms.

Let's see: The White male in 1960 (non-supervisory blue or white collar job) fed his family, and had a shot at getting one or two kids to college. He stood atop the social ladder, with lots of folks - women, minority - beneath him, the next to undisputed head of the household. That's the social status he was supposed to have, and the behavior expected from him according to the cultural paradigm. Whoever violated that would have been dismissed by his peers, also based on that paradigm, defining what a man has to be, to accomplish, and how to behave. Just over half a century later, women are independent, he couldn't sustain the family so that the wife is also working, maybe even earns more than he does, minorities are catching up, and getting a kid to college is nigh on impossible. Times have changed so much, he is in constant conflict with the social paradigm with which he grew up.

So, how is a hard-working white male to feel about the difference between his and his father's, much more his grandfather's, stature? And yes, the cultural paradigm plays into this, and in major ways.

But yes, demographics doesn't play a significant role.

 

[Foxfyre]

The thread is not about how why we feel the way we do. The thread is about whether there has been a shift in cultural paradigms, what shifts if any there have been, and why.

I agree. That's why I ended my post with saying it would be a digression beyond the scope of the OP. But politics still seems to be a part of cultural paradigms.

(Progressive?) scientists, and engineers, came from (progressive?) universities and brought huge cultural changes: high speed fiber optics, massive data servers, household computers, etc... The Internet changed communication and retailing... Automation made all of this inexpensive. This cultural change, (the Information Age), that science and the universities brought has served all demographics.

As far as social changes, the cell phone in everybody's faces has changed how we deal with people and our own lives, but that crosses over to all demographics. The same thing goes for social media.

I don't see that demographics has much to do with cultural changes in the last several decades.

Which is why I didn't say anything about demographics. But for certain, the emphasis we see in the various political parties has been a result of, not the cause of, cultural shifts. As for scientists--engineers are in the business of construction and designing and making THINGS and cultural dynamics does not play a huge role, if any, in that--educators, artisans, media etc. I will refer you to my earlier comments on all that as I really REALLY don't want to have to type all that out again.

 

[Wuwei]

In a way, I have to disagree, again.

Of course, why we feel the way we do is very much dependent on cultural paradigms, and politics in general is both fed by, and also influences, the paradigms.

Let's see: The White male in 1960 (non-supervisory blue or white collar job) fed his family, and had a shot at getting one or two kids to college. He stood atop the social ladder, with lots of folks - women, minority - beneath him, the next to undisputed head of the household. That's the social status he was supposed to have, and the behavior expected from him according to the cultural paradigm. Whoever violated that would have been dismissed by his peers, also based on that paradigm, defining what a man has to be, to accomplish, and how to behave. Just over half a century later, women are independent, he couldn't sustain the family so that the wife is also working, maybe even earns more than he does, minorities are catching up, and getting a kid to college is nigh on impossible. Times have changed so much, he is in constant conflict with the social paradigm with which he grew up.

So, how is a hard-working white male to feel about the difference between his and his father's, much more his grandfather's, stature? And yes, the cultural paradigm plays into this, and in major ways.

But yes, demographics doesn't play a significant role.

Yes, I agree with you but Foxfyre was talking about the feelings as a poster on this thread, not feelings of one type of population vs another when she said.

The thread is not about how why we feel the way we do. The thread is about whether there has been a shift in cultural paradigms, what shifts if any there have been, and why.
​

At least that is what I gleaned from it.

 

[Wuwei]

The thread is not about how why we feel the way we do. The thread is about whether there has been a shift in cultural paradigms, what shifts if any there have been, and why.

I agree. That's why I ended my post with saying it would be a digression beyond the scope of the OP. But politics still seems to be a part of cultural paradigms.

(Progressive?) scientists, and engineers, came from (progressive?) universities and brought huge cultural changes: high speed fiber optics, massive data servers, household computers, etc... The Internet changed communication and retailing... Automation made all of this inexpensive. This cultural change, (the Information Age), that science and the universities brought has served all demographics.

As far as social changes, the cell phone in everybody's faces has changed how we deal with people and our own lives, but that crosses over to all demographics. The same thing goes for social media.

I don't see that demographics has much to do with cultural changes in the last several decades.

Which is why I didn't say anything about demographics. But for certain, the emphasis we see in the various political parties has been a result of, not the cause of, cultural shifts. As for scientists--engineers are in the business of construction and designing and making THINGS and cultural dynamics does not play a huge role, if any, in that--educators, artisans, media etc. I will refer you to my earlier comments on all that as I really REALLY don't want to have to type all that out again.

As far as typing that all out again, I presume you are referring to post #122 and prior similar ones. Yes I agree, culture in that sense has changed (disintegrated in most cases). Some people are living in a culture shock. The term is used when a person moves to a radically different country or society. But my problem as described by Alvin Toffler is Future Shock. This is where your own country radically changes faster than you can assimilate the change. It seems each new generation incrementally changes our culture a bit, but the cumulative affect on older people like me actually is a shock.

I was at the forefront of artificial intelligence and automation in the 80's and 90's, but the technology I helped develop has so changed our culture that it is alien to me. I don't use a cell phone. I don't use FaceBook or Twitter, and much of the music of today is almost white noise to me. I do use Amazon because the big box stores often don't have the things I need, and are disappearing anyway. The Millennials are setting the pace now, not my generation. When they reach retirement age, no doubt they will be in future shock.

 

[Olde Europe]

Yes, I agree with you but Foxfyre was talking about the feelings as a poster on this thread, not feelings of one type of population vs another when she said.

The thread is not about how why we feel the way we do. The thread is about whether there has been a shift in cultural paradigms, what shifts if any there have been, and why.
​

At least that is what I gleaned from it.

The origin of that was your, "maybe take a path like Olde Europe said -- what are the commonalities and differences. Exactly why do we at the opposite ends feel the way we do." And that didn't seem to refer to something (merely) individual, but the societal "opposite ends", societal "commonalities and differences", and how those at the opposite ends feel about shifting paradigms and political / societal goings-on.

Whatever... nice to find some agreement occasionally.

In the end, I find it doesn't really matter. We all live through these times, and it would actually be surprising if those posting here all were radically different from those who do not.

I keep coming back to Foxfyre's posting #122, where she laid out not so much an undated reality (I suspect these were the 1950s and early 1960s), but the cultural paradigm at the time. Pointedly put, these were quiet, peaceful, well-ordered and Christian days when Händel's Messiah was performed at school, celebrating Christmas. Then atheists took over, families broke apart, and all hell broke loose. (Has anything like that actually happened? Händel's Messiah was ditched because its performance violated the Establishment Clause?) All that following a jeremiad about liberal educational malpractice, distorting science and deluding the youth. The charge of spoiling the youth is almost as old as humankind, as it was the allegation that led to Socrates meeting an untimely end about two-and-a-half millennia ago. Some things never really change.

Of course, these were also the times (if I dated it correctly) when segregation was the law, these same Christians had just abandoned cheerfully to attend lynching parties, when black men worked for pennies on the White man's dollar, women were little more than chattel, Blacks were near-universally prohibited from voting and excluded from Social Security and other Whites-only benefits like housing subsidies, and White Terror in the South was still not eradicated.

The missing parts of that "reality", of course, open a window into assessing the societal and cultural changes through which we are actually living, to this very day. They have, I hold, very little to do with pushing Christianity out (even though a monument depicting the ten commandments at a courthouse was actually removed), and very much to do with "all born equal" finally, finally being implemented, imperfectly, but still. The resulting White man's grievance (over the loss of supremacy) was instrumental in getting Trump the job he now holds, and the differences are less about "Christian or atheist", but about dividing the electorate along race and rural / urban lines for electoral gains.

 

[Foxfyre]

The thread is not about how why we feel the way we do. The thread is about whether there has been a shift in cultural paradigms, what shifts if any there have been, and why.

I agree. That's why I ended my post with saying it would be a digression beyond the scope of the OP. But politics still seems to be a part of cultural paradigms.

(Progressive?) scientists, and engineers, came from (progressive?) universities and brought huge cultural changes: high speed fiber optics, massive data servers, household computers, etc... The Internet changed communication and retailing... Automation made all of this inexpensive. This cultural change, (the Information Age), that science and the universities brought has served all demographics.

As far as social changes, the cell phone in everybody's faces has changed how we deal with people and our own lives, but that crosses over to all demographics. The same thing goes for social media.

I don't see that demographics has much to do with cultural changes in the last several decades.

Which is why I didn't say anything about demographics. But for certain, the emphasis we see in the various political parties has been a result of, not the cause of, cultural shifts. As for scientists--engineers are in the business of construction and designing and making THINGS and cultural dynamics does not play a huge role, if any, in that--educators, artisans, media etc. I will refer you to my earlier comments on all that as I really REALLY don't want to have to type all that out again.

As far as typing that all out again, I presume you are referring to post #122 and prior similar ones. Yes I agree, culture in that sense has changed (disintegrated in most cases). Some people are living in a culture shock. The term is used when a person moves to a radically different country or society. But my problem as described by Alvin Toffler is Future Shock. This is where your own country radically changes faster than you can assimilate the change. It seems each new generation incrementally changes our culture a bit, but the cumulative affect on older people like me actually is a shock.

I was at the forefront of artificial intelligence and automation in the 80's and 90's, but the technology I helped develop has so changed our culture that it is alien to me. I don't use a cell phone. I don't use FaceBook or Twitter, and much of the music of today is almost white noise to me. I do use Amazon because the big box stores often don't have the things I need, and are disappearing anyway. The Millennials are setting the pace now, not my generation. When they reach retirement age, no doubt they will be in future shock.

Post #122 was not mine. But I was not referring to Post #121 which was mine but rather posts earlier in the thread describing my opinion/evaluation of noticeable shifts in the cultural paradigms..

I honestly don't think the millenials are setting the pace. Certainly they are influencing music and other entertainment as the young always have, they strongly influence fashion trends, and they are a primary market for the new technology and innovations coming out. And yes, each new generation does leave its mark on the culture of a people, sometimes for the good, sometimes not so good, but each generation adds something new and different to the mix.

But the millenials don't hold the power that is still firmly within the grasp of the protege's of our cultural revolution beginning in the 1960's. And except for a few ambitious souls now and then--a few such people have always existed within each demographic--the millenials don't seem to want power. They just want to enjoy the best that life has to offer and many, maybe most do look mostly to government to provide them that even as they leave their own mark on the world.

Gradual change is the norm and is to be expected. Complete cultural upheaval is not.

The Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 was not just cultural progression but a complete overthrow of the existing social and political systems. It was mostly factions made up of visionary, idealist young people (millenials?) within the urban populations who supported Lenin. At least 3/4th of the Russian people, including essentially all of rural Russia, rejected the sociopolitical shift, but did not realize the danger until they were not strong enough to resist those few who demanded it. And now we know that the devil they knew in the heavy handed tzars was mild compared to the devil they got with the communistic order ushered in by Lenin.

Our own cultural shift has happened less dramatically with the hippies and flower children of the 1960's being the first generation to completely reject all the values of their parents and generations preceding them. And again it was those people, believing the old world to be wrong and sometimes evil, maturing and entering into our most influential institutions that has drastically changed our culture. And among them are those who seek total power and are as ruthless as they dare in achieving it.

The change has been much slower and less dramatic than the Russian revolution and resulting coup, but is obvious just the same. Our Constitution has so far protected us from the ambitious seizing all the power politically, but there are definitely those who are trying to circumvent it or change it or reinterpret it to the point that they can prevail in such ambitions.

My post #121 was intended to be one example of the manifestation of that ambition to overthrow the culture. To recap, it illustrated one way out of many in which those seeking power by creating a massive cultural shift have been systematically and methodically eroding and when possible removing religious buffers between the people and the ambitions of the power seekers. That was one of many ways Lenin and the Bolsheviks used to attain power and control the people in their day.

It was one example of many that I could have used.

 

[Wuwei]

The origin of that was your, "maybe take a path like Olde Europe said -- what are the commonalities and differences. Exactly why do we at the opposite ends feel the way we do." And that didn't seem to refer to something (merely) individual, but the societal "opposite ends", societal "commonalities and differences", and how those at the opposite ends feel about shifting paradigms and political / societal goings-on.

Whatever... nice to find some agreement occasionally.

In the end, I find it doesn't really matter. We all live through these times, and it would actually be surprising if those posting here all were radically different from those who do not.

I keep coming back to Foxfyre's posting #122, where she laid out not so much an undated reality (I suspect these were the 1950s and early 1960s), but the cultural paradigm at the time. Pointedly put, these were quiet, peaceful, well-ordered and Christian days when Händel's Messiah was performed at school, celebrating Christmas. Then atheists took over, families broke apart, and all hell broke loose. (Has anything like that actually happened? Händel's Messiah was ditched because its performance violated the Establishment Clause?) All that following a jeremiad about liberal educational malpractice, distorting science and deluding the youth. The charge of spoiling the youth is almost as old as humankind, as it was the allegation that led to Socrates meeting an untimely end about two-and-a-half millennia ago. Some things never really change.

Of course, these were also the times (if I dated it correctly) when segregation was the law, these same Christians had just abandoned cheerfully to attend lynching parties, when black men worked for pennies on the White man's dollar, women were little more than chattel, Blacks were near-universally prohibited from voting and excluded from Social Security and other Whites-only benefits like housing subsidies, and White Terror in the South was still not eradicated.

The missing parts of that "reality", of course, open a window into assessing the societal and cultural changes through which we are actually living, to this very day. They have, I hold, very little to do with pushing Christianity out (even though a monument depicting the ten commandments at a courthouse was actually removed), and very much to do with "all born equal" finally, finally being implemented, imperfectly, but still. The resulting White man's grievance (over the loss of supremacy) was instrumental in getting Trump the job he now holds, and the differences are less about "Christian or atheist", but about dividing the electorate along race and rural / urban lines for electoral gains.

Yes, I think the posters here are a representative microcosm of the general populace - unfortunately.

I remember the times FoxFyre was referring to. It was in the 1940's for me. Mom sent her sons to Sunday school until our protests got too annoying. My feeling was it was a vast incomprehensible trivia that was decidedly uninteresting. I later found out that she always was an atheist. Even then, when we only kept X in Xmas, it was a magical time of lights, Christmas trees, cousins, and most of all Santa Claus. Easter was great too. We celebrated the Easter Bunny and colored eggs. I have to admit that Christianity brought these wonders to us, but not the Christianity itself. Thanksgiving back then was special, but nobody ever said grace. Today it's name should be changed to “Black Friday Eve.”

So I don't think those Christian times were religious for virtually everybody. It just seemed that way. I was disappointed when the word "under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance that we said everyday. That phrase was a digression from America and didn't add anything. Even as a kid I felt it spoiled the cadence.

Then there is the dark side as you say. Mom continually used the “n” word, but never in a derogatory way. It was just a word for certain people that I very seldom saw. They lived in a different part of Detroit. I dismissed the hatred of n***r jokes and often didn't understand why they were funny. I never directly experienced that dark side. I even in the later 1950's when I was sophisticated enough to start reading newspapers lynching or other atrocities seemed to be some distant problem that probably didn't happen that often. Fortunately my naiveté had changed rather early in the 1960's and on.

 

[Wuwei]

Post #122 was not mine. But I was not referring to Post #121 which was mine but rather posts earlier in the thread describing my opinion/evaluation of noticeable shifts in the cultural paradigms..

I honestly don't think the millenials are setting the pace. Certainly they are influencing music and other entertainment as the young always have, they strongly influence fashion trends, and they are a primary market for the new technology and innovations coming out. And yes, each new generation does leave its mark on the culture of a people, sometimes for the good, sometimes not so good, but each generation adds something new and different to the mix.

But the millenials don't hold the power that is still firmly within the grasp of the protege's of our cultural revolution beginning in the 1960's. And except for a few ambitious souls now and then--a few such people have always existed within each demographic--the millenials don't seem to want power. They just want to enjoy the best that life has to offer and many, maybe most do look mostly to government to provide them that even as they leave their own mark on the world.

Gradual change is the norm and is to be expected. Complete cultural upheaval is not.

The Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 was not just cultural progression but a complete overthrow of the existing social and political systems. It was mostly factions made up of visionary, idealist young people (millenials?) within the urban populations who supported Lenin. At least 3/4th of the Russian people, including essentially all of rural Russia, rejected the sociopolitical shift, but did not realize the danger until they were not strong enough to resist those few who demanded it. And now we know that the devil they knew in the heavy handed tzars was mild compared to the devil they got with the communistic order ushered in by Lenin.

Our own cultural shift has happened less dramatically with the hippies and flower children of the 1960's being the first generation to completely reject all the values of their parents and generations preceding them. And again it was those people, believing the old world to be wrong and sometimes evil, maturing and entering into our most influential institutions that has drastically changed our culture. And among them are those who seek total power and are as ruthless as they dare in achieving it.

The change has been much slower and less dramatic than the Russian revolution and resulting coup, but is obvious just the same. Our Constitution has so far protected us from the ambitious seizing all the power politically, but there are definitely those who are trying to circumvent it or change it or reinterpret it to the point that they can prevail in such ambitions.

My post #121 was intended to be one example of the manifestation of that ambition to overthrow the culture. To recap, it illustrated one way out of many in which those seeking power by creating a massive cultural shift have been systematically and methodically eroding and when possible removing religious buffers between the people and the ambitions of the power seekers. That was one of many ways Lenin and the Bolsheviks used to attain power and control the people in their day.

It was one example of many that I could have used.

You seem to have a grim vision of an impending dystopia all caused by the liberals. I have a different vision of a plutocratic dystopia. What you are thinking could possibly happen with unintended consequences by the current legacy of the 1960s. But my feeling is that today's liberals want a democracy leaning toward a government with a few supported programs such as health care and attempts to help lift the impoverished to a better life. That can still be done and be totally consistent with the constitution, although with mildly different interpretations. That is not a revolution nor communism.

As far as the plutocracy the rich are well entrenched in government and have a popular following as large as the progressives. Right now the conservative/liberal dichotomy is in a shaky balance. Which will win? Big money and the new Supreme Court? Or un-gerrymandering and new waves of enfranchised liberals?

Your posts have touched some history of the pre-hippy era up to the ensuing liberalism of today and general areas of where you think it might go, but specifically what are your biggest fears of what might happen to our culture if the liberals gain tight control?

 

[Olde Europe]

Your posts have touched some history of the pre-hippy era up to the ensuing liberalism of today and general areas of where you think it might go, but specifically what are your biggest fears of what might happen to our culture if the liberals gain tight control?

Good question, and, hopefully, Foxfyre will find the time to answer it.

Let me provide some information about cultural change that was pretty much caused, at least nudged on by, demographic change:

Yesterday, it's been 40 years since Harvey Milk was murdered, and on that occasion I looked back and brushed up on what happened back then in the years up to 1978. It's been a time when the gay community by the hundreds and thousands fled rural Alabama (just to name an example) and flocked to San Francisco. It's also been a time when gay rights measures suffered resounding defeats in Florida and elsewhere, and in San Fran. gay business owners were discriminated against and the police harassed and brutalized the gay community. In eff'n San Fran.

After Milk's murderer was acquitted of murder (merely convicted for manslaughter) there was a riot. Thereafter, San Fran. police in two cars arrived at a gay bar and they beat up whoever they could get a hand on.

That's 1978 San Francisco, and it denotes how far the country had to travel until gay marriage was finally on the books, no thanks to a legislature but to the Supreme Court. What the Kavanaugh court will do to it remains to be seen, as the reactionary backlash is under way.

Now, San Francisco did change, and demographics, gays moving there and finally tilting the vote toward tolerance, set an example for the nation to follow, slowly, but...

For Foxfyre, I trust, this is just more evidence for an abandoned and sidelined Christianity and the downward spiral the nation took and takes because of it (she'll correct me if I got that wrong). In a thread on Milk's murder a poster declared that Milk just got what he deserved. That was yesterday. In 1978, it was the common stance of the San Fran. police.

Now, that's all quite interesting, but far more salient is what is being made of all that. As you may have guessed, the narratives from both sides have very little to do with reality. The conservatives still decry Milk as a pedophile (he wasn't), and the cultural and legal change amounts to the destruction of marriage, though it is not. On the liberal side, Milk is being made into a hero as a life-long civil rights campaigner, when he was clearly not. Rather, he had to travel from deeply conservative roots, closeted for most of his life and most of all while in the U.S. Navy, to somewhat laid-back hippie, and then had to morph into a grossly disorganized campaigner late in his life, realizing that in order to avert the harassment he and the gay community suffered, he had to stand up and do something. And yes, to do so in 1978 as an openly gay man took a lot of courage, and he paid the ultimate price for that courageous public advocacy, as did MLK a decade earlier.

I maintain, again: The divisions overwhelmingly are not about reality. Rather, they are about the grossly differing narratives, faintly resembling reality, and purposely created for political gains.

Of course, I am convinced that the reality content of liberal narratives - from climate change and immigration to gun laws and abortion - far exceeds that of conservative narratives, but in the end the conclusion remains the same: In rare instances, demographics do change the cultural paradigm, but that's rare, and mostly a figment of overwrought conservative fantasies regarding immigration, and that was a staple of nativist story-telling for at least 150 years. What would change the cultural paradigm for the better, and also result in subsiding divisions, would be narratives (mostly on the conservative side) to adjust to reality.

 

[Wuwei]

Yesterday, it's been 40 years since Harvey Milk was murdered, and on that occasion I looked back and brushed up on what happened back then in the years up to 1978.

I must confess that I don't remember that time of Harvey Milk. The 1960's to the 1990's was a time when I was often spending over 80 hours a week on science and technology. I missed out on the popular music, social trends, and much of the outside culture.

But, yes it seems, especially now, that there are often two bogus realities with the conservative media by far exhibiting the bulk of the bogusness, (if that's a noun.) Nowadays I'm more reflective and in tune with politics. What you are saying was brilliantly(?) encapsulated on the conservative side when Giuliani said, “Truth isn't truth.”

.

 

[Olde Europe]

But, yes it seems, especially now, that there are often two bogus realities with the conservative media by far exhibiting the bulk of the bogusness, (if that's a noun.) Nowadays I'm more reflective and in tune with politics. What you are saying was brilliantly(?) encapsulated on the conservative side when Giuliani said, “Truth isn't truth.”

.

I resent calling what is being peddled (mostly) by the right-wing media "reality". It patently isn't, and we should, or so I think, reserve the term for that which it actually denotes. "Narrative(s)" would be the apt term.

I've never been able to figure out what it was Giuliani meant. Truth (1) - as in the facts of the matter, as compared to truth (2), what one can actually prove in a court of law, or compared to truth (3 .. 99), what one can make the public, or the respective subgroups within, believe. No matter, though, for once the man had a point. Must I specifically mention how much I resent seeing truth (3 .. 99) called "truth"?

 

[Wuwei]

I resent calling what is being peddled (mostly) by the right-wing media "reality". It patently isn't, and we should, or so I think, reserve the term for that which it actually denotes. "Narrative(s)" would be the apt term.

I've never been able to figure out what it was Giuliani meant. Truth (1) - as in the facts of the matter, as compared to truth (2), what one can actually prove in a court of law, or compared to truth (3 .. 99), what one can make the public, or the respective subgroups within, believe. No matter, though, for once the man had a point. Must I specifically mention how much I resent seeing truth (3 .. 99) called "truth"?

Yes, "reality" doesn't cut it. I was thinking from the POV of the speaker.
We can call a narrative BS, but we can't call reality BS since there is one reality and multiple narratives.

Since I was always dumbfounded by Giuliani's thinking(?), I looked a little deeper and found this on Politico:

On CNN, he rejected Chris Cuomo’s assertion that “facts are not in the eye of the beholder."

"Yes, they are," Giuliani said. "Nowadays they are."

In May, the former New York mayor pursued a similar line of thought in an interview with The Washington Post about the Mueller investigation: “They may have a different version of the truth than we do.”

The statement also recalled Kellyanne Conway’s statement in January 2017 referring to “alternative facts” offered by the White House about crowd sizes at Trump’s inauguration.​

I don't think any of those statements clarify anything. The current administration successfully redefined "fake news" for Trumps base. They may be trying to do the same for "truth" and "facts".

.

 

[Olde Europe]

The current administration successfully redefined "fake news" for Trumps base. They may be trying to do the same for "truth" and "facts".

Yes, certainly. And Trump's 6,000 or so lies and misleading statements during his reign speak to the fact that the latter effort is well on its way.

But, why is this important? First, of course, because truth and truthfulness are being defined out of the cultural paradigm. If lying becomes so ubiquitous as to be the norm, truth itself is rendered redundant. That is so because the stereotypical "they all do it" is always there to spread the blame. So, yes, they are destroying the truth, and with it all the pursuits that usually uncover it, like science or courts of law.

Second, if truth becomes less and less relevant, and so do science and courts of law, that removes two of the biggest obstacles to autocratic rule at the Dear Leader's whim: Science as the societal force meant to tell lawmakers and the Executive what works, and what doesn't, and courts of law as the societal force that imposes rules on governance.

All in all, Trump, the megalomaniac and wannabe autocrat, is on a mission, and it should be clear to all what's going on. Trump's fawning over Putin, Duterte, Xi Jinping, or Kim, is no accident. That is what a paradigm shift really looks like, and few seem to get the whole picture.

 

[Foxfyre]

But, yes it seems, especially now, that there are often two bogus realities with the conservative media by far exhibiting the bulk of the bogusness, (if that's a noun.) Nowadays I'm more reflective and in tune with politics. What you are saying was brilliantly(?) encapsulated on the conservative side when Giuliani said, “Truth isn't truth.”

.

I resent calling what is being peddled (mostly) by the right-wing media "reality". It patently isn't, and we should, or so I think, reserve the term for that which it actually denotes. "Narrative(s)" would be the apt term.

I've never been able to figure out what it was Giuliani meant. Truth (1) - as in the facts of the matter, as compared to truth (2), what one can actually prove in a court of law, or compared to truth (3 .. 99), what one can make the public, or the respective subgroups within, believe. No matter, though, for once the man had a point. Must I specifically mention how much I resent seeing truth (3 .. 99) called "truth"?

As a journalist I know very well the difference between 'the facts' and 'truth'. As somebody who has followed legal minds with intense interests, I know very well the difference between 'the facts' and 'truth.' As somebody who was immersed in the medical field for many years, I know very well the difference between 'the facts' and 'truth'.

Example:

Amidst Hillary's accusations of Trump colluding with the Russians during the campaign, Trump mentioned her 30,000 missing emails and that nobody was able to find them. And he joked that maybe the Russians could find them closing that very brief segment with: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Fact: He said it. And the media made a huge deal out of it taking him 100% literally and the Trump haters on social media and message boards still throw that in every opportunity they get.

Truth: He was clearly joking and, as all humor has an element of truth, in this case if the Russians were as good and clever as Hillary was inferring, maybe they could find the missing emails. He was clearly not instructing or encouraging Russia to hack our email systems, but that is how the media and Trump haters played it and are playing it to this day. Had there been similar circumstances in the 2008 campaign and Obama had made the same quip, everybody would have applauded his wit and humor.

And I do NOT want to rehash that particular issue now. I offer this as an illustration for the point I am making a point about the difference between 'fact' and 'truth.

It is fact that somebody reports a billfold is missing. It may or may not be truth that it was stolen.

It is a fact that three witnesses reported their honest but very different recollection of what happened. None were lying but only one, if even that one, is telling the truth.

It is a fact that the diagnosis was dementia but the truth was a small but operable tumor lodged in the patient's brain.

And bringing it back to the OP of this thread, it is a fact that we have seen a dramatic and unprecedented cultural shifts over the last half century or so. But the truth of how and why those shifts have occurred is what we are discussing. Or some of us are. Others are angry and more intent on attacking the person offering points of discussion or troll the thread by using it to spew more of their hatred for the President. Which of course is a result of those cultural shifts.

 

[Foxfyre]

Post #122 was not mine. But I was not referring to Post #121 which was mine but rather posts earlier in the thread describing my opinion/evaluation of noticeable shifts in the cultural paradigms..

I honestly don't think the millenials are setting the pace. Certainly they are influencing music and other entertainment as the young always have, they strongly influence fashion trends, and they are a primary market for the new technology and innovations coming out. And yes, each new generation does leave its mark on the culture of a people, sometimes for the good, sometimes not so good, but each generation adds something new and different to the mix.

But the millenials don't hold the power that is still firmly within the grasp of the protege's of our cultural revolution beginning in the 1960's. And except for a few ambitious souls now and then--a few such people have always existed within each demographic--the millenials don't seem to want power. They just want to enjoy the best that life has to offer and many, maybe most do look mostly to government to provide them that even as they leave their own mark on the world.

Gradual change is the norm and is to be expected. Complete cultural upheaval is not.

The Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 was not just cultural progression but a complete overthrow of the existing social and political systems. It was mostly factions made up of visionary, idealist young people (millenials?) within the urban populations who supported Lenin. At least 3/4th of the Russian people, including essentially all of rural Russia, rejected the sociopolitical shift, but did not realize the danger until they were not strong enough to resist those few who demanded it. And now we know that the devil they knew in the heavy handed tzars was mild compared to the devil they got with the communistic order ushered in by Lenin.

Our own cultural shift has happened less dramatically with the hippies and flower children of the 1960's being the first generation to completely reject all the values of their parents and generations preceding them. And again it was those people, believing the old world to be wrong and sometimes evil, maturing and entering into our most influential institutions that has drastically changed our culture. And among them are those who seek total power and are as ruthless as they dare in achieving it.

The change has been much slower and less dramatic than the Russian revolution and resulting coup, but is obvious just the same. Our Constitution has so far protected us from the ambitious seizing all the power politically, but there are definitely those who are trying to circumvent it or change it or reinterpret it to the point that they can prevail in such ambitions.

My post #121 was intended to be one example of the manifestation of that ambition to overthrow the culture. To recap, it illustrated one way out of many in which those seeking power by creating a massive cultural shift have been systematically and methodically eroding and when possible removing religious buffers between the people and the ambitions of the power seekers. That was one of many ways Lenin and the Bolsheviks used to attain power and control the people in their day.

It was one example of many that I could have used.

You seem to have a grim vision of an impending dystopia all caused by the liberals. I have a different vision of a plutocratic dystopia. What you are thinking could possibly happen with unintended consequences by the current legacy of the 1960s. But my feeling is that today's liberals want a democracy leaning toward a government with a few supported programs such as health care and attempts to help lift the impoverished to a better life. That can still be done and be totally consistent with the constitution, although with mildly different interpretations. That is not a revolution nor communism.

As far as the plutocracy the rich are well entrenched in government and have a popular following as large as the progressives. Right now the conservative/liberal dichotomy is in a shaky balance. Which will win? Big money and the new Supreme Court? Or un-gerrymandering and new waves of enfranchised liberals?

Your posts have touched some history of the pre-hippy era up to the ensuing liberalism of today and general areas of where you think it might go, but specifically what are your biggest fears of what might happen to our culture if the liberals gain tight control?

Please rephrase that by addressing the points I have made. When you start your comments accusing me of a 'grim vision of an impending dystopia', I have a very hard time taking you at all seriously that you are in any way interested in having a civil discussion.

For example: You say "But my feeling is that today's liberals want a democracy leaning toward a government with a few supported programs such as health care and attempts to help lift the impoverished to a better life."

Let's review what the liberals have campaigned on:
The 1918 Democrat Party platform:
Party Platform - Democrats

A long laundry list of how GOVERNMENT will create Utopia under the liberal/progressive/leftists/statist agenda. There is nothing in the entire platform suggesting that ANYTHING is beyond the interest or scope of government policy and activity. Of course they won't do it--at least they never have--but it is targeted at getting votes (and campaign contributions) from those who want government to have the power to create that Utopia and want to be relieved of the responsibility themselves..

The Republicans aren't a hell of a lot better. Their laundry list just focused on a different constituency of people who want government to empower THEM with the right and ability to chart their own futures and who want government off their backs except where they wanted government to exercise its power.

President Trump, being neither ideologue nor partisan nor politically correct nor politically motivated pretty much ignored both platforms which is how he beat out 16 very well qualified, well known Republicans in the primary and then beat the Democrat candidate that pretty much the entire media and all the experts said could not lose.

His platform:
--Reform onerous taxes and regulations that were crippling the American economy. (That including revoking and replacing Obamacare.)

--Reform trade and other policies that were draining American jobs and resources and thereby reverse that trend.

--Strengthen the military so that no nation will dare rise up against us or our allies and we hopefully won't need to use it.

--Border security and immigration reform that makes sense.

--Reform the court system by placing judges that respect the law and the Constitution rather than see their role as cirumventing or rewriting both.

--Reforming foreign policy so that America does not always get the short end of the stick.

He has done his very best to accomplish his objectives and goals as no other President in my lifetime has done. And there isn't a single thing on his list that suggests it is government's job to make America great again but it is the role of government to make it possible for Americans to be who they are and make America great again.

I support him in pretty much all of his vision and purpose so I can overlook his occasional gaffes, when he is sometimes wrong, those cringeworthy tweets now and then, etc. I didn't elect somebody I could fawn over and admire. I elected somebody who shared my vision and goals and if he is at times unlovable, so be it.

But the cultural shift in political dynamics has created a poisonous environment where the left doesn't see it as enough to oppose his policies. They see it as their mandate to destroy him in every aspect of his life no matter who gets hurt in the process. And they turn their venom on anybody--people like me--who supports anything he says or does.

That sociopolitical venom is being directed at anybody who strays from the sociopolitical point of view of the left. It is no longer debating policy toward arriving at agreement or compromise. It is a matter of destruction of any who dissent and there are no barriers to how that will be accomplished no matter how cruel, unfair, unkind, or unjustifiable.

You are more sensible than most and I have appreciated that. But even you, being more left of center than right, couldn't resist taking a shot at me and my point of view in your very first sentence of your post.

 

[Wuwei]

Please rephrase that by addressing the points I have made. When you start your comments accusing me of a 'grim vision of an impending dystopia', I have a very hard time taking you at all seriously that you are in any way interested in having a civil discussion.

For example: You say "But my feeling is that today's liberals want a democracy leaning toward a government with a few supported programs such as health care and attempts to help lift the impoverished to a better life."

Let's review what the liberals have campaigned on:
The 1918 Democrat Party platform:
Party Platform - Democrats

A long laundry list of how GOVERNMENT will create Utopia under the liberal/progressive/leftists/statist agenda. There is nothing in the entire platform suggesting that ANYTHING is beyond the interest or scope of government policy and activity. Of course they won't do it--at least they never have--but it is targeted at getting votes (and campaign contributions) from those who want government to have the power to create that Utopia and want to be relieved of the responsibility themselves..

The Republicans aren't a hell of a lot better. Their laundry list just focused on a different constituency of people who want government to empower THEM with the right and ability to chart their own futures and who want government off their backs except where they wanted government to exercise its power.

President Trump, being neither ideologue nor partisan nor politically correct nor politically motivated pretty much ignored both platforms which is how he beat out 16 very well qualified, well known Republicans in the primary and then beat the Democrat candidate that pretty much the entire media and all the experts said could not lose.

His platform:
--Reform onerous taxes and regulations that were crippling the American economy. (That including revoking and replacing Obamacare.)

--Reform trade and other policies that were draining American jobs and resources and thereby reverse that trend.

--Strengthen the military so that no nation will dare rise up against us or our allies and we hopefully won't need to use it.

--Border security and immigration reform that makes sense.

--Reform the court system by placing judges that respect the law and the Constitution rather than see their role as cirumventing or rewriting both.

--Reforming foreign policy so that America does not always get the short end of the stick.

He has done his very best to accomplish his objectives and goals as no other President in my lifetime has done. And there isn't a single thing on his list that suggests it is government's job to make America great again but it is the role of government to make it possible for Americans to be who they are and make America great again.

I support him in pretty much all of his vision and purpose so I can overlook his occasional gaffes, when he is sometimes wrong, those cringeworthy tweets now and then, etc. I didn't elect somebody I could fawn over and admire. I elected somebody who shared my vision and goals and if he is at times unlovable, so be it.

But the cultural shift in political dynamics has created a poisonous environment where the left doesn't see it as enough to oppose his policies. They see it as their mandate to destroy him in every aspect of his life no matter who gets hurt in the process. And they turn their venom on anybody--people like me--who supports anything he says or does.

That sociopolitical venom is being directed at anybody who strays from the sociopolitical point of view of the left. It is no longer debating policy toward arriving at agreement or compromise. It is a matter of destruction of any who dissent and there are no barriers to how that will be accomplished no matter how cruel, unfair, unkind, or unjustifiable.

You are more sensible than most and I have appreciated that. But even you, being more left of center than right, couldn't resist taking a shot at me and my point of view in your very first sentence of your post.

Please rephrase that by addressing the points I have made. When you start your comments accusing me of a 'grim vision of an impending dystopia', I have a very hard time taking you at all seriously that you are in any way interested in having a civil discussion.

For example: You say "But my feeling is that today's liberals want a democracy leaning toward a government with a few supported programs such as health care and attempts to help lift the impoverished to a better life."

Let's review what the liberals have campaigned on:
The 1918 Democrat Party platform:
Party Platform - Democrats

A long laundry list of how GOVERNMENT will create Utopia under the liberal/progressive/leftists/statist agenda. There is nothing in the entire platform suggesting that ANYTHING is beyond the interest or scope of government policy and activity. Of course they won't do it--at least they never have--but it is targeted at getting votes (and campaign contributions) from those who want government to have the power to create that Utopia and want to be relieved of the responsibility themselves..

The Republicans aren't a hell of a lot better. Their laundry list just focused on a different constituency of people who want government to empower THEM with the right and ability to chart their own futures and who want government off their backs except where they wanted government to exercise its power.

President Trump, being neither ideologue nor partisan nor politically correct nor politically motivated pretty much ignored both platforms which is how he beat out 16 very well qualified, well known Republicans in the primary and then beat the Democrat candidate that pretty much the entire media and all the experts said could not lose.

His platform:
--Reform onerous taxes and regulations that were crippling the American economy. (That including revoking and replacing Obamacare.)

--Reform trade and other policies that were draining American jobs and resources and thereby reverse that trend.

--Strengthen the military so that no nation will dare rise up against us or our allies and we hopefully won't need to use it.

--Border security and immigration reform that makes sense.

--Reform the court system by placing judges that respect the law and the Constitution rather than see their role as cirumventing or rewriting both.

--Reforming foreign policy so that America does not always get the short end of the stick.

He has done his very best to accomplish his objectives and goals as no other President in my lifetime has done. And there isn't a single thing on his list that suggests it is government's job to make America great again but it is the role of government to make it possible for Americans to be who they are and make America great again.

I support him in pretty much all of his vision and purpose so I can overlook his occasional gaffes, when he is sometimes wrong, those cringeworthy tweets now and then, etc. I didn't elect somebody I could fawn over and admire. I elected somebody who shared my vision and goals and if he is at times unlovable, so be it.

But the cultural shift in political dynamics has created a poisonous environment where the left doesn't see it as enough to oppose his policies. They see it as their mandate to destroy him in every aspect of his life no matter who gets hurt in the process. And they turn their venom on anybody--people like me--who supports anything he says or does.

That sociopolitical venom is being directed at anybody who strays from the sociopolitical point of view of the left. It is no longer debating policy toward arriving at agreement or compromise. It is a matter of destruction of any who dissent and there are no barriers to how that will be accomplished no matter how cruel, unfair, unkind, or unjustifiable.

You are more sensible than most and I have appreciated that. But even you, being more left of center than right, couldn't resist taking a shot at me and my point of view in your very first sentence of your post.

I apologize for misreading you viewing an impending dystopia. When I see a discussion of the Bolshevik Revolution mixed in with American liberal politics in any context, I have a tendency jump to conclusions on the nature of the poster. In this case I will take your word for it that I misread you.

I have never read the Democratic Party platform, and I now see it certainly looks ambitious, to put it mildly. Truthfully, I don't think very highly of many current Democratic politicians in congress and I think much much less of the Republicans with a few exceptions that are obvious.

I agree that Trump has done “his best” to accomplish his objectives. But I also believe that he did a very miserable job at most of it. He did not drain the swamp but created a different swamp of many with obvious self interests. I think Hillary was a bit “swampish” but to a liberal she's by far the lesser of two evils.

As far as your observation of the left destroying Trump. It indirectly results from McConnell's stated effort to stagnate Obama's administrative efforts, and Trump's follow-on effort to destroy what accomplishments he did muster. The two parties seem to want to destroy each other. Suffice to say I disagree with you as far as Trump. This, like almost any thread has turned too political. I'm sorry for my part in that.

But back to the theme of this thread. The story so far from my POV:
There is a major cultural American paradigm shift, and the reality of that shift is, and will be, unknown for most. There will be multiple versions of the narrative of that shift. I think the culture will change in directions that are hard to predict, and the rate of change will be faster than we can adequately assimilate it.

.