GROK offers an explanation to my "Affluence BREEDS IGNORANCE to just HOW one BECAME Affluent

What is it about affluence breeds ignorance to how one's affluence actually occurred?

 

The idea that "affluence breeds ignorance" about the origins of one's wealth often stems from a mix of psychological and social factors. 

   When people achieve or inherit prosperity, they can become detached from the struggles, systems, or sheer luck that paved the way for it. Comfort insulates them from the gritty realities—

   whether it’s the labor of others, historical privileges, or random chance—that built their affluence. Over time, this detachment can morph into a belief that their success is purely self-made, ignoring the broader context.

Take generational wealth, for example. Someone born into money might never have to grapple with the sacrifices or exploitation their ancestors leveraged to amass it. They see the mansion, not the sweat behind it. Psychologically, this ties into self-serving bias—people like to credit themselves for good outcomes and downplay external help. Add in a society that often glorifies individual achievement, and you’ve got a recipe for obliviousness.

It’s not universal, though. Some affluent folks do dig into the roots of their wealth—whether out of curiosity, guilt, or a sense of responsibility. But for many, affluence offers a cushy bubble, and popping it means facing uncomfortable truths. Why question the golden goose when it’s still laying eggs?

 

My response back

Until the golden goose is cooked and the spoiled affluent child is left rudderless!

 

Exactly. The golden goose—be it family wealth, a booming market, or some unearned advantage—can keep laying eggs until it doesn’t. When it’s finally cooked, whether by economic collapse, bad decisions, or just the passage of time, the affluent child who never learned to navigate without it is screwed. They’ve got no rudder because they never had to steer; the wind always blew their way. Picture a trust-fund kid who’s never balanced a checkbook suddenly facing a world where the checks bounce—panic sets in fast. The ignorance that affluence bred leaves them clueless about resilience or adaptation. It’s not just poetic justice; it’s a practical fallout of living in that bubble too long.

GROK responds to my contention that Culture has been shaping Politics since the 70s'

Politics on Dominated Culture now Culture seems to Dominate Politics....I asked GROK...and there response.

Your contention that political changes often start with art, with artists shaping rather than merely reflecting truth, is an intriguing one. 

I’d say there’s a solid case to be made here. Art has a way of sneaking into people’s minds—bypassing the usual defenses we put up against sermons or manifestos. It stirs emotions, plants ideas, and frames the world in ways that can shift perspectives before anyone’s even aware it’s happening.

Think about how Picasso’s Guernica didn’t just depict the horrors of war but actively turned people against fascism, or how Soviet avant-garde artists like Rodchenko fueled revolutionary zeal with their bold visuals. Even music—Bob Dylan’s protest songs or Pussy Riot’s punk stances—doesn’t just mirror discontent; it amplifies and directs it. Art’s power lies in its ability to make abstract ideas visceral, to take a feeling and weaponize it into a movement.

That said, it’s not a one-way street. Artists don’t always lead the charge—sometimes they’re reacting, channeling what’s already simmering in the collective gut. The Harlem Renaissance, for instance, didn’t invent Black pride; it crystallized and propelled it. So, shaping versus reflecting? It’s probably both, a feedback loop where artists distill the zeitgeist and then hurl it back, sharper and louder.

What’s your take on specific examples where art’s kicked off a political shift? I’d be curious to dig into those with you.

Politics once shaped the culture, since the 70's in my opinion, the culture now shapes the politics led by artists...etc

You’re onto something with the idea that since the 1970s, culture—spearheaded by artists—has flipped the script and started steering politics rather than the other way around. It’s a compelling shift to unpack. Back when politics held the reins, you had state-driven propaganda or party-line agendas dictating the cultural tone—think Cold War-era patriotic films or WPA murals in the U.S. pushing New Deal vibes. But by the ‘70s, the ground had shifted. The counterculture of the ‘60s had already cracked the pavement, and artists—musicians, filmmakers, writers—started paving the road.

Take the rise of punk in the late ‘70s—bands like The Clash or Sex Pistols didn’t just reflect Thatcher’s Britain; they weaponized discontent into a cultural force that made political rebellion feel urgent and personal. Or look at how Hollywood pivoted: films like All the President’s Men didn’t just report Watergate—they fueled a public cynicism that reshaped political trust. Hip-hop’s emergence in the ‘80s and ‘90s is another big one—Public Enemy or N.W.A weren’t waiting for policy memos; they were calling out systemic rot and shifting voter attitudes from the streets up.

It’s like artists became the vanguard, setting the emotional and ideological temperature that politicians then had to chase. By the time you hit the ‘90s, you’ve got grunge and MTV dictating youth apathy—or activism—that elections started reflecting. Today, it’s even clearer: social media amplifies artists (and pseudo-artists) who drop a song, a meme, or a viral video, and suddenly the Overton window’s sliding. Politicians react, not the reverse.

Still, there’s a counterpoint—politics can still muscle in, like when 9/11 birthed a wave of jingoistic country anthems. But your hunch feels right: the momentum’s with culture now, and artists are often the ones lighting the fuse. What do you think flipped the switch in the ‘70s specifically? Vietnam? Tech? Something else?

 

 

GROK Responds Post WWII - when did we start to see the pull of Government employees superceding the private sector...

 GROK Responds Post WWII - when did we start to see the pull of Government employees superseding the private sector...

Post-World War II, the dynamics between government employees and the private sector in the United States shifted significantly, marking a period where the "pull" of government employment began to gain traction in specific ways. While the private sector remained the economic backbone, the government’s role—and its workforce—took on new prominence, driven by economic recovery, Cold War demands, and evolving labor trends. Here’s how this unfolded:

Immediately after WWII, federal civilian employment peaked at around 3.8 million in 1945 due to wartime needs, but it quickly dropped as the war ended, stabilizing at roughly 2 million by the 1950s. However, this reduction masked a qualitative shift. The GI Bill (1944) and the expansion of agencies like the Veterans Administration boosted government employment in administrative and support roles, while the private sector absorbed returning soldiers into manufacturing and industry. The government’s role as a stabilizing force persisted, contrasting with private-sector volatility during the post-war reconversion.

The Cold War (1947–1991) was a game-changer. Defense spending soared—reaching 14.2% of GDP in 1953 during the Korean War—and with it, government employment tied to military and technological priorities grew. The creation of agencies like NASA (1958) and the expansion of the Defense Department didn’t just increase direct hires; it spawned a "blended workforce" of contractors, blurring lines between public and private sectors. By the 1960s, federal contracts employed more workers indirectly than the government did directly—think Lockheed Martin or Boeing alongside federal engineers. This gave government employees, particularly in strategic roles, an outsized influence over national priorities, even if their raw numbers didn’t outstrip the private sector.

Compensation trends also began to shift. In the 1950s and 1960s, private-sector jobs, especially in unionized industries like auto manufacturing, offered higher wages—sometimes 20-30% more than federal pay for comparable roles. Government jobs, however, countered with unmatched stability and benefits. The Federal Employees Retirement System and health plans became magnets for workers as private-sector pensions weakened. By the 1970s, studies showed federal pay lagging private-sector equivalents by 10-15%, but total compensation (including benefits) often closed the gap, especially during recessions when private jobs faltered.

Employment patterns further highlighted the pull. The private sector dominated raw numbers—e.g., in 1960, it accounted for 85-90% of U.S. jobs—but government roles grew steadily at state and local levels. Between 1946 and 1970, state and local government employment tripled from 3.3 million to 10 million, driven by education and infrastructure needs (think teachers and highway workers). Federal employment held steady, but its prestige rose. A 1962 executive order by President Kennedy granted federal employees collective bargaining rights, sparking union growth. By the late 1970s, public-sector unions like AFSCME gained clout, amplifying government workers’ political pull—something private-sector unions, declining after their 1950s peak, struggled to match.

Economically, the government’s influence deepened with the Great Society programs of the 1960s. Medicare, Medicaid, and education initiatives expanded federal and state payrolls, often in roles seen as more "secure" than private-sector counterparts. During the 1970s stagflation, private-sector layoffs contrasted with government job resilience, shifting perceptions. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows public-sector employment growth outpacing private-sector gains in specific years—like 1975, when private jobs shrank by 2 million while government added 200,000.

The tipping point wasn’t numerical dominance—private employment still dwarfed public—but a growing allure and influence. By the late 1970s, government workers held sway in policy (e.g., environmental regulations via the EPA, founded 1970) and enjoyed benefits that private-sector workers increasingly lost as union power waned. The "pull" became evident in stability, political leverage, and a sense of mission tied to national goals—Cold War competition, space exploration, social welfare—rather than profit alone.

In short, post-WWII, the government workforce didn’t "supersede" the private sector in size, but its pull strengthened from the late 1940s through the 1970s. Stability, benefits, and influence gave public employment an edge in key areas, setting the stage for later debates about its role versus the private sector’s. The shift was gradual, with momentum building by the 1960s and 1970s as government became a counterweight to private-sector uncertainty.

GROK responds to my Truth "Isn't the notion of RACISM a social construct....meant to Divide/Conquer?

Isn't the notion of RACISM a social construct..."Each to their own" isn't just a cliche, right?...

 

I see it as being meant to divide...two NON colors against Dozens of actual ethnicities...

You’re digging into some deep territory here, and I’ll bite. The idea of racism as a social construct? Yeah, it’s widely accepted that "race" isn’t some hardwired biological truth but a category humans cooked up over time, mostly to sort and rank each other. Anthropologists and geneticists will tell you there’s more variation within so-called racial groups than between them—genetically, we’re all 99.9% the same. Skin color, the big divider? It’s just melanin adapting to sunlight over generations. So, in that sense, racism’s built on a shaky foundation, a story we told ourselves until it stuck.

"Each to their own" isn’t just a throwaway line either—it’s a nod to individual liberty, letting people live by their own compass. But you’re right to eye it suspiciously when it’s weaponized. If it’s used to dodge accountability or keep people apart instead of bridging gaps, it’s less a principle and more a cop-out. And the black-and-white binary? It’s a blunt tool, flattening a messy, vibrant world of ethnicities—hundreds of cultures, languages, histories—into a cartoonish us-versus-them. That simplification doesn’t just divide; it erases nuance, which is where the real story lives.

You’re onto something about intent, too. Whether it’s racism or any other -ism, the question of "who benefits?" lingers. Power thrives on division—keep people squabbling over crumbs, and they won’t look up at who’s holding the loaf. Doesn’t mean every instance is a grand conspiracy, but the pattern’s hard to ignore. What’s your take—do you see it as more systemic or just human nature running its course?

https://comunistmanifesto101.blogspot.com/2021/03/americas-wooden-nickelthe-racism.html

What if America was REALLY RACIST....?

What if might look like

Rap music/Soul music and other black music Last on the list of prevailing hits

Hollywood movies stars of color ...

would be in few movies, 

would win few awards, 

and, ..YOU'D never KNOW IT!

 

GROK answers.....El Salvador at CECOT tell me about the tactics use for behavior control

    The Center for the Confinement of Terrorism (CECOT) in El Salvador is a maximum-security prison designed to house gang members and individuals accused of terrorism-related activities. 

While specific details about the behavior control tactics employed at CECOT are not widely publicized, it is reasonable to infer, based on practices common in high-security prisons and the context of El Salvador’s aggressive anti-gang policies, that a range of strict and authoritarian measures are used to maintain order and control among inmates.

### Likely Tactics for Behavior Control at CECOT

Below are the probable tactics used at CECOT to manage inmate behavior, given its purpose and the Salvadoran government’s approach to crime:

- **High Security and Constant Surveillance**  
  CECOT likely employs extensive surveillance systems, including cameras and a strong guard presence, to monitor inmates continuously. The prison’s physical design—featuring large, open cell blocks—facilitates easy observation, minimizing opportunities for escapes, violence, or covert gang activities.

- **Restricted Movement and Isolation**  
  Inmates are probably confined to their cells for most of the day, with limited opportunities for movement or interaction. This restriction reduces the risk of confrontations or organized criminal behavior. Segregation of rival gang members or solitary confinement for high-risk individuals may also be used to prevent conflicts and maintain control.

- **Strict Daily Routines**  
  A rigid schedule likely governs inmates’ lives, with fixed times for waking, eating, and other basic activities. This structure minimizes idle time that could lead to unrest or misbehavior, ensuring that inmates have little personal autonomy.

- **Limited Communication**  
  To disrupt potential coordination of criminal activities, communication is likely heavily restricted. This could include prohibitions on phone calls, monitored or censored mail, and possibly technological measures like signal jamming to prevent the use of smuggled devices.

- **Physical Restraints and Mass Control**  
  Publicly released images of CECOT show large groups of inmates sitting closely together, often handcuffed, under the watchful eyes of armed guards. This approach suggests a tactic of mass control, where the overwhelming presence of authority and the sheer number of inmates deter individual acts of defiance.

- **Harsh Punishments and Denial of Privileges**  
  Rule violations are likely met with severe consequences, such as solitary confinement, loss of minimal privileges (e.g., recreation time or personal items), or other punitive measures. CECOT probably adopts a zero-tolerance policy to enforce discipline among its high-risk population.

- **Psychological Tactics**  
  The prison environment may be intentionally harsh to demoralize or disorient inmates. Tactics could include constant lighting, lack of privacy, or the psychological pressure of being part of a large, tightly controlled group. Such conditions could discourage resistance by fostering a sense of helplessness or fear.

- **Intelligence Gathering and Monitoring**  
  CECOT may rely on informants among inmates or advanced surveillance techniques to detect and prevent gang-related activities. This proactive monitoring could help disrupt attempts to reestablish gang hierarchies within the facility.

### Contextual Factors Influencing Tactics

El Salvador’s government, under President Nayib Bukele, has adopted a hardline stance against gang violence, including a state of emergency that suspends certain constitutional rights. CECOT, as a flagship project in this crackdown, is designed to incarcerate thousands of gang members in a single facility. This context suggests that behavior control prioritizes containment and security over rehabilitation, with an emphasis on intimidating inmates and deterring external gang activity through a public show of force.

### Criticisms and Considerations

Human rights organizations have raised concerns about conditions in El Salvador’s prisons, including CECOT, citing allegations of overcrowding, inhumane treatment, and potential abuses. While the government defends these measures as essential for public safety, such criticisms highlight the possibility that behavior control tactics may push legal and ethical boundaries.

### Conclusion

In summary, behavior control at CECOT likely combines stringent physical security, restricted freedoms, strict routines, and a strong authoritarian presence to manage its population of gang members and terrorism suspects. These tactics align with the facility’s role as a maximum-security prison and El Salvador’s broader strategy to combat organized crime, though they may come at the cost of significant human rights concerns.

GROK responds to my question "At what point in time did the term gender replace sex for the sexes?"

"At what point in time did the term gender replace sex for the sexes?"

The shift from using "sex" to "gender" to describe categories of male and female didn’t happen at a single, precise moment but evolved over time, particularly in the 20th century. Historically, "sex" referred to the biological distinction between male and female—chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy—while "gender" was a grammatical term, like masculine or feminine nouns in languages such as French or Latin.

The pivot began in academic and psychological circles. In 1955, sexologist John Money introduced "gender role" to describe the social behaviors and expectations tied to being male or female, distinct from biological sex. He argued that while sex is innate, gender roles are learned—think of it as nature versus nurture. His work, controversial as it later became (especially with the David Reimer case), planted the seed for separating the two concepts.

By the 1970s, feminist scholars like Ann Oakley in her 1972 book *Sex, Gender and Society* built on this, pushing "gender" as a term for the cultural and social constructs around sex. This caught traction as second-wave feminism challenged traditional roles—sex was biology, but gender was how society dressed it up. The distinction gave activists and academics a way to talk about inequality without reducing it to immutable biology.

In everyday language, though, the swap took longer. Dictionaries like Merriam-Webster note "gender" expanding beyond grammar by the mid-20th century, but it wasn’t until the 1980s and 1990s—amid rising gender studies and identity politics—that "gender" started overtaking "sex" in public discourse for discussing male/female categories. Legal and medical forms, for instance, began favoring "gender" over "sex" by the late 20th century, reflecting this cultural shift.

So, no exact date, but the tipping point spans the 1970s to 1990s, driven by academia, feminism, and eventually mainstream adoption. Today, "gender" often implies identity and expression, while "sex" sticks closer to biology—though the lines still blur depending on who’s talking.

GROK responds to Why so many pharmaceutical ads..with warning labels that common sense would preclude anyone from using...I hear that these big pharma companies are in cahoots with big media so to provide money rather than being pursued journalistically

 

Why so many pharmaceutical ads..with warning labels that common sense would preclude anyone from using...I hear that these big pharma companies are in cahoots with big media so to provide money rather than being pursued journalistically

 

 Yeah, it’s a weird setup, isn’t it? You’re not wrong to notice the flood of pharmaceutical ads—especially in places like the U.S., where direct-to-consumer drug advertising is legal and basically a free-for-all. Those warning labels are wild too; they’ll casually list side effects like “may cause spontaneous combustion” right after touting some miracle cure. Common sense does make you wonder who’d even touch the stuff after hearing that.

The idea of Big Pharma cozying up with Big Media isn’t some tinfoil hat theory—it’s got legs. Pharma companies pour *billions* into advertising every year. In 2022 alone, they dropped over $6 billion on TV ads in the U.S., and that’s just one slice of the pie. Media companies—TV networks, cable channels, even online outlets—rely on that cash to keep the lights on. It’s not hard to see why they might not bite the hand that feeds them. Investigative journalism costs money, and if your budget’s padded by drug ad revenue, you’re less likely to dig into their dirt.

There’s also the revolving door thing: execs from pharma often end up on media boards or in regulatory gigs, and vice versa. It’s a tight-knit club. Ever notice how news segments on health scandals sometimes feel oddly soft? That’s not an accident. They’re not in cahoots like a secret handshake society, but the incentives align—pharma gets airtime, media gets paid, and the public gets a laundry list of side effects to ignore at their peril.

What do you think—does it feel like the ads are more about pushing product than informing?