I very much appreciate your response here. In conversations I have had with others on the questions I raised, I have began to come to a similar conclusion---the dominant culture is strong precisely because of an almost chameleonic ability to adapt and be flexible, and to present many faces before the masses---some which overlap in content and some which seem to contradict---but all of which basically remain loyal opposition rather than radical adversaries of the dominant culture. This appears to serve as a way to move men, women and children from vastly different real world experiences into accepting certain standards---such as a standard of what is beautiful, what is evil, what is the right way to behave in public, what political forces should receive mass attention and support, what is the right entertainment to enjoy and what should they use their money to purchase. The dominant cultural influencers have a capitol---Hollywood. Or to paraphrase Jon Steward, 'There are two capitals in America-one in Washington and one in Hollywood. One runs the country, and one only believes it does." There may be quite a bit of truth to this statement, it seems to me, in that the leading influencers were not elected by ballot but by the masses' partipaction in their Hollywood's cultural paradigms and by the handing over of their cold cash for doses of Hollywood's products. Does this really mean, then, that to greatly influence the American herd in general, one must get the reigns of Hollywood in his or her hands?
I am dismayed not so much with the herd (they are always goi