These are difficult questions, devoid of any common denominator.nGulf & Western is a mammoth corporation whichnshould stand for capitalism, profits and a free market. Yetnits subsidiaries—publishing houses, record companies. ParamountnPictures—publish books, sell albums and make moviesnwhich present capitalism as Satan’s invention and openlyndesire its instant demise. This is nothing extraordinary, asnGulf & Western is also a liberal conglomerate, whose leadersnbelieve in culture as a bazaar of ideas, where cultural andnmoral values should float freely and win or lose according tonthe laws of the market. Under these conditions, culturalncommodities earn money—and Gulf & Western is primarilyninterested in money. Since social conscience is the foremostnmoney-making proposition these days, economy and ethicsnhappily readjust one another in Gulf & Western’s boardroomnphilosophy, and no spiritual conflict threatens the minds ofnits top managers. Now, there are many corporate giantsnwhich are both utterly liberal and into culture. Togethernwith the liberal eminentos, they form the liberal culturalnestablishment which rules the liberal culture. Whether theirnopposite is either organized, traditional religion, or a particularnand solitary American who believes that culture (and itsnsway over daily life) should be value-oriented and relatednto the cultural riches of our heritage—the outcome of thenpower game is quite obvious. The liberal culture just engulfsnthe American culture.nWhich, of course, means suppression of the adversarynculture. Suppression.’ In democratic America, where everybodyncan, thanks to the First Amendment, express his views.’nNo one prohibits anybody from publishing a book, making anmovie, launching a TV station. That’s true, but in our complex,ntechnotronic social reality, an idea, a defense of a value,nor an alternate view is not a matter of expression but of visibility,naudibility, dissemination. The media are the modernnPhilosnfihv in Anuricun”O philosophy, thou guide of life, O thou explorer of virtuenand expeller of vice!”n— Cicero, 45 B. C.nA female pundit in the Village Voice, the ideologicalnorgan of those for whom a mattress and stereo set togethernform culture, reflects on the Pope, his visit andnthe larger horizons of human experience:n”.. . religion is the genitals of the mind . . . .”nWow! It beats Duns Scotus, Spinoza and Pascal! Youncan bet that Aquinas, that fascist, never thought ofnthat …. _npasskey to human consciousness and they are overwhelminglyndedicated to the liberal culture. That is—the media arencommitted body and soul to the idea of progress toward annendlessly inferior world. The liberals, proud of their nonconformism,nhave rebelled against hypocrisy over the centuries;nnow their rebellion has become an orthodoxy, saturatednwith hypocrisy, and anybody who now rebels againstntheir cant is branded a bigot and made the object of eithernridicule or stony silence. The liberal media will never beninterested in the puzzling circumstance of why the anti-ERAnmovement is a women’s movement. The liberal orthodoxynhas only malignant epithets for it instead of explanations.nJL he official stand of the liberal culture is that its adversarynis culturally inferior. The liberal worldview onlynis declared respectable, and the culture engendered by itnauspicious, wise, worthy of attention. But is that so.’ Evennif conservatives and traditionalists command the allegiancenof more minds and souls in America (and we don’t know ifnthat is the case, since the pollsters are reluctant to let conservativenscholars formulate their questionnaires), the medianwill always make it invisible: they know how to do it. Timenrefuses to print, in its “Letters to the Editor” column, anynintelligent rebuff of its liberal biases, favoring instead inarticulatenand doltish ones, giving them an instant yahoonimprint by innuendo. The media are masters of tokenism:nprominent among the exceptions are William Buckley (he’sna yachtsman, an author of spy novels and his wife is photographednin Women’s Wear Daily), some neoconservativesn(Kristol, for he was once a liberal, thus a black sheep),nEmmett Tyrrell (he sticks out his tongue at the liberals andnthey’ve just noticed it), Marabel Morgan and Anita Bryantn(because their unsophistication is so easy to mock), PhyllisnSchlafly (because she’s so difficult to refute that it’s easiernto badmouth her), William Safire (because he draws moneynfrom the New York Times, what a feat for a nonliberal).nBut to reduce the conservative cultural force to a handfulnis a fraud, particularly when Marabel and Anita are pushednas standard bearers, as they constantly are. The open liberalnhatred of the nonliberal substance makes them quickly banishnother names. Why does Time never quote Russell Kirk, annhistorian.’ Why doesn’t the Neiv York Times register thenexistence of Eric Voegelin, Gerhart Niemeyer, ThomasnMolnar—all eminent and prolific philosophers of culture,nwhose profundity of views equals if not surpasses the topnofficial theorists of the liberal culture.’ Why are RobertnNisbet and James Hitchcock—both incisive commentatorsnon modern culture and its trends, whose intellectual potentialncould energize universities —never asked for a comment bynNewsweek, the Washington Post and CBS, as Galbraith andnArthur Schlesinger, Jr. constantly are.’ Why do ABC andnThe New Republic never refer to Reed Irvine, one of the mostnnnIVovember/December 1979n