Editor’s Commentn”It’s most frequently in thenname of man’s natural goodnessnthat people have been slaughtered.”n—Anatole FrancenThe oldest conflict never abates. It never gets better ornworse, only more bizarre with each passing decade. It isnupdated in form and sound, never in essence. The AmericannCivil Liberties Union, a noble institution in name and intention,nthese days defends the Nazis’ right to march and speak,nand fights against Christmas carol singing in primary schools.nThe ACLU leaders declare themselves rationalists, but comenacross as possessed by scholastic frenzy: they discuss, withnlearned zeal, how many guardian angels of democracy shouldndance on the pinhead of the First Amendment. No one seemsnto care about the simple fact that Nazis preach hatred andnChristmas carols love. The arcane subtlety of interpretationnturns into legality, which consequently becomes rabid orthodoxynand paves the way for violence and evil.nX he oldest conflict always involves good sense, undernever-changing appellations. Not long ago, the Progressive,na journal from Madison, Wisconsin which is devoted tonfriendliness toward everyone who hates the American socialnsystem, decided to publish the blueprint for the hydrogennbomb. The editors contended that the technical data for itsnmanufacture would enlighten the public opinion and give itnnew moral and political perspectives. In their opinion, thendetails of construction could shape the state of public conscience.nNow, the conscience of a procommunist, leftist ornsocialist in America is quite a simple device: it tells him thatneverything that’s bad for America is a priori good in general.nThus, when Carter administration officials with impeccablenliberal credentials, like Secretary of State Vance and DefensenSecretary Brown (who is a nuclear scientist to boot), opposednthe publication of the Progressive’s atomic manualnfor national security reasons, they were accused of brutalncensorship by those who eagerly support regimes in the worldnthat muzzle the press and rule by censorship. An old anecdotencomes to mind: In the fifties, during the war games innByelorussia, an American military attache was surprised bynthe unexpected maneuverability of the Russian tanks, whichnhe had previously thought to be an American technical secret;nduring a break, he toasted a Russian officer, saying:n”You have excellent spy service!” The Russian lifted hisnvodka and replied: “No, you have excellent technologicalnmagazines.” The editors of the Progressive won’t ever believe,nmuch less give heed to the fact, that at the hub of everynintelligence unit at every Russian, Czech, Bulgarian, etc.nembassy and U.N. mission in America there is a room wherenmany people feverishly clip excerpts from American publications,nmostly of hobbies, crafts, specialized industries, andnChronicles of Culturennnhurriedly ship these precious scraps to their analytical centersninMoscow, Prague, Sofia, etc. One of my friends, askednafter several years in Russian labor camps what he had learnednthere about marxism, answered: “There is a strange logicnin this faith which makes a Utopian into an idiot and a torturernonce he enters reality.” Utopians always know better.nTrying to interfere in the oldest conflict is becoming increasinglyndifficult as diverse forces are at work denyingnits existence. The national debate on modern man and woman,ntheir moral, mental and emotional equipment, is ruthlesslynmonopolized by those who, a couple of decades ago,nwere busy discussing society and its mechanics, and did notngive a damn for the individual. What caused the switch.-*nWhat made them leap frantically into therapies, prescriptions,nsoul-engineering, rigidly imposed theories for how to livenand love? Perhaps the human being’s resistance to the liberalnideas of society, social schemes, models of life; maybe thenrecalcitrance and waywardness of human nature that resistsnpackaging and balks at barren formulas. Thus, instead ofndiscussing homo, his needs and frailties, the liberal autocratsnof culture promote permissive attitudes as a substitutenfor failed social solutions. It’s a form of the oldest conflictn—indomitable individualism is countered with the ideologynof indifference to social obligations.nX. hereby culture that can be justly termed “liberal” goesnfull circle in making Western man weaker and his civilizationnsleazier. How can we reclaim our values? Certainly notnthrough legislatures, administrations, communal assembliesn—in short: politics. That brings the fight into the rings andnstadiums of the evening news, fashionable poses, socialnmoods and sympathies, and TV sitcoms. Cultural influencesnand powers can be contested only by opposing cultural forces.nIt’s not easy. Our time sees no honor in fairness. Whennamorality, vulgarity and egocentrism of liberal life stylesnbegin to emanate an odor of rot, palpably endangering thenvery health of the society, those who did everything to infectnthe social body with decay refuse to bear their responsibility.nThis is where the oldest conflict becomes opaque: the sidenthat controls the media, as the liberals do, has nothing tonfear. The media, the cradle of programmatic amorality, operatenon a principle of fake innocence that can never be provennto be a fraud; they refuse to be held accountable for theirndeeds and for the putridity they inject into the nation. Theyndo not admit errors, regardless of their nature and dimension.nWielding an absolute power in the domain of culture throughnthe total submission of the ftpinion-making industry, andnmaking an effective critique of the liberal aberration impossible,nliberals enjoy a temporary edge in the oldest conflict.nThey do not notice that this state of affairs transforms themninto outright totalitarians—which is our historical chance,nfor being antiliberal increasingly means being antitotalitar-n