perhaps even Soviet agents—came tonthe ingenious conclusion that insteadnof penetrating the agency to render itnineffectual and transfer its secrets tonMoscow, it would be more useful tondestroy it in full public view throughnlies, fashionable accusations, fantasmagoricnvilification, in other words, bynlaunching an anti-CIA witch-huntnwhich would destroy the very idea ofnintelligence and counterespionage innAmerica. Both ilks have succeeded beyondnall expectation by enlisting thencooperation of the liberal press, of whichnTime is one of the most prominent fixtures.nThe books of the “revealers”-n”reformers” were eagerly published bynliberal publishers and touted in thenpages of, among others. Time magazine,nrewarding the authors with moneynand popularity. The disclosures of thenfellow-travelers, which were disseminatednwith all the American press’ talentnfor overexposure, have made thenCIA’s enemies in the KGB think delightedlynof a leisurely retirement: afternall, what they could never achieve, thenAmerican media did for them gratis.nIt has occasionally been rationalized bynvarious columnists that this “openness”nwas a strengthening process, democracynat work, a salutary effort by the pressnto “correct” past errors and corruption,nand “improve” both the agency and itsnstanding in our demo-liberal society.nBut the heinous lies and fabricationsnof both con men and traitors were nevernpublicly verified or rebutted.nSo, America is “improved” and “corrected”nto the point where its survivalnis put into question. According to thenpresslords in Time, CBS, the New YorknTimes, the Washington Post, etc., thenmedia may occasionally err, but evenntheir mistakes have a purifying and beneficialnimpact on the American reality.nThis is cant which may cost Americana lot, and soon. Time, an eager rider innthe anti-CIA posse, now laments: “Unlessnsuch a change is made, the damagenthat has been done by crippling the CIAnmay far outweigh the damage caused bynthe excesses of the agency when it wasnriding high and unchallenged,” and at by us all as a pillar of democratic dethensame time, wishes to be regarded cency and wisdom. DnProgress and ReactionnWhat’s a progressive.-*nIt’s someone who assumes thatnchange as a result of man’s inquiry intonreality brings improvement. A progressivenbelieves in the ideology of progress,nwhich proclaims that moving from onenform of existence to another by socialnor technological means is a blessing tonhumanity.nFrom the dawn of mankind, manynhave distrusted progress, in both ideanand practice. Religions pointed out thatnonly spiritual growth toward God, annunchangeable value, made sense. Philosophersnof various schools perceivednprogress as illusion. Those who toldnthe progressives that concepts and proceduresnwell-tested by time could benmore valuable than hasty changes werencalled conservatives.nFor five thousand years there wasnmuch evidence that the progressives’nclaims were valid. No one would quarrelnwith the progression of the human communitynfrom the tribe to the constitutionalnrepublic, or from stoning thensuspect to the court of law, or from theninvention of the wheel to the harnessingnof electricity. But by the middle of ourncentury, some mighty doubts had arisen.nOur civilization, having so long andnarduously perfected the notions of humanness,nmercy, compassion andnhuman rights, wound up with Hitler,nStalin, Auschwitz and the Gulag. Ournsociety, having relieved man from obligationsnand restrictions, became thenhelpless prey of random violence, senselessncrime, vandalism, barbarism andnmass neuroses. The progress of science,nimposing as it was, brought pollution ofnair and earth, depletion of nature andnoverpopulation. And—nuclear energy.nnnV ^-i^ to”nxib#-ai cm^tf::nAt this point, the progressive’s mind,nemotions and impulses became hopelesslynmuddled. He still swore by hisnfaith in progress, but he was up in armsnto smash the nuclear reactors, the ultimatenin technological progress. Today’snprogressive has decided to murder hisnown credo.nThe irony is that a cause he wouldnhave defended in the past is currentlynbeing defended by the same old conservativenskeptic who always preferred rationalitynto starry-eyed rapture but isnnow attempting to rescue mankind fromnthe fiery utopianism of the progressive.nHe is doing it because he is aware, asnis so frequently true, that behind thennoble and altruistic slogans of the nongrowthnzealots there is more often plainnhatred and militant doctrinairism thannnoble altruism and concern for man’snwelfare. As of today, the progressivenis the one who would put Galileo onntrial and Professor Teller on the rack.nA curious inversion has taken place:nthe conservatives are demanding thenfree exploration of the human genius;nthe progressives have begun a modernnInquisition.nThe outcome of the fight seems tonbe a foregone conclusion: no one couldnstop Galileo. Luddites never win. Scientificnand technological progress, ofnwhich nuclear energy is a part, is anprovince of the creative elan of thenhuman mind and cannot be sociallynsuppressed.nRene Barjavel, a French writer reactionarynto the core, wrote a novelnbefore World War II in which he depictednthe demise of mankind in a cataclysmninduced by scientific progress.nTwo survivors, the latter-day Adam andnEve, start everything anew, though thenfounder, conscious of what had causedn• H H H H M H B H 3 SnChronicles of Culturen