Thanks for writing, I'll mull it over.
Cheers!
Thanks for the compliment--my idea is that the ideology of U.S. weakness in war being *good*, is championed by many of the same folk who were behind the sexual revolution, gay rights, what have you.
The 1968-69 slogan "make love, not war" failed on both fronts.
The fall of Saigon was proof that we lost the Viet Nam war.
The rise of AIDS was proof that we lost the sexual revolution.
In both cases, mankind was far worse off than when we started. Viet Nam cost us 50,000 lives and millions of Vietnamese lives both before and after the war ended. The sexual revolution has cost many (I hesitate to say millions) of lives. In both cases, our society had been forced or has chosen to modify it behavior.
Well, those who espoused this slogan eventually got their way (their *surface* goals) on both points.
As you point out in your next two sentences, the larger, longer term consequences of those folks getting their way were...disastrous.
Whether these larger effects were part of the design (Gramscian, Pandora's box, or diabolical) is another question.
Perhaps your "culture shift" is rooted in failure.
I'm not following this part, could you elaborate?
Cheers!