Editor^s CommentnToday, the ugly beautiful people have become an ideologicalnoccurrence. When Governor Brown semi-officially travelsnabroad with sexual service personnel in lieu of a spouse, thisnis not nonconformism but an ideological statement. It isncalculated to attract favor from trendsetters whom he deemsnmore important than ordinary constituents. A very privatenaide to a governor is nothing new in history or politics.nIntense publicity for less traditional proclivities of a politiciannis new. It takes into account that America is divided into twoncultures, each living by its own principles and styles. But onlynone is hailed by the monopolistic liberal media as progressivenand wholesome—the normless and amorphous ethos of thenA/Ianhattan-Malibu axis. And Governor Brown is banking onnits electoral power.nEvery society has an effluvium, but effluvia, even the mostnnoxious ones, rarely become socio-ethical problems. Theynhave in today’s America. The lumpen is now called an underclass,nseen as a source of morality; the canaille has gonenthrough a beatification process and now has its saints, likenGen^t, and pious apologists, like film director Robert Altman.nThe ugly beautiful people, the American effluvium, onceneven aimed at becoming an elite, but the sheer force of numbersn(a result of American affluence) has expanded them intonanother underclass.nHi Listorically, elites have always been formed through anconcentration of either political or financial power thatnrarefied itself into a social standing; attempts to form eHtesnon the basis of moral or civic virtues, sadly, have seldomnsucceeded. However, in the past, elites as a rule tried to worknout a virtuous image: the aristocratic ethics of honor andnprotectiveness, or the bourgeois morality of industriousnessnand economic plenty were socially and culturally functional.nRectitude was always a vital factor in their ideologies, evennif it had to be propounded at the price of hypocrisy. Thenlower classes —for whom love, family and personal honestynwere accessible moral values—had the official aristocraticnpropaganda of decorum and the bourgeois propaganda ofndecency for tangible supports in gathering the existentialnassets of life, work, traditions. Providing well-defined values,neven if they were not always implemented in practice, accountednfor the health and success of Western civilization.nIt determined its universal mission.nToday, the ugly beautiful people’s pretense of an elitenresults from the fusion of technology and culture. Deprivednof philosophy and faith, they use cultural bric-a-brac—lifestyles,nfashion, pop art—as their spiritual identification andndialectics. With their moral stimuli in a condition of atrophy,nthey couldn’t survive without the support of the press, electronicncommunications, movies, TV. In fact, their only recognizablentenet: “Fun Is Morality,” ethically and sociallynrepulsive as it is, serves as fuel for the sensationalist media.nChronicles of CulturennnTheir social bases are nonproductive professions that enrichnneither society nor culture, only decorate them. Eachncivilization in history had its milieu of drones, parasitesnand spongers, whose group rationale was the “embellishment”nof drab reality. In the past, those groups elicited littlenmore than amused contempt from their contemporaries. Inntoday’s America, this “embellishment” has become an irrationallynrespected and absurdly lucrative economic and socialnfunction, if not a profession. This makes the ugly beautifulnpeople thirsty for outright social power, which they actuallynare close to attaining through various interactions with andnfeedbacks from authentic elites.nXlivery profession contributes something to the overallnperformance of a highly specialized economy. However, thenproduction of entertainment, false eyelashes and necktiesnis not of the same contributory import as bread, coal andnlight bulbs. A free market economy is supposed to pay fornwhat’s in demand. Yet, at some point, generating an artificialndemand for shoddiness and trash, and pushing up financialnrewards for utterly reprehensible services, became thenmainstays of nonproductive professions. The overpayment forneffluvial “embellishment” is slowly emerging as the lethalnmistake of our civilization. A mood has been created, nondoubt detrimental to our interests as a whole, in which anfashion designer or rock impresario is anomalously entitlednto be better off than someone who produces knowledge ornenlightened attitudes, or an educator who exerts himselfnto improve human conduct. This juxtaposition of facts isnslowly turning into a social caricature. A successful entertainernis paid grotesquely more than a nurse, although thenlatter is infinitely more morally and socially worthy. In thenugly beautiful people’s dialectic this is explained by “talent”nas a marketable value, but a talent to entertain in healthiernsocieties was considered a private quality and usually dispensednfor free. It’s only been since technology began itsnwoeful interaction with the production of culture that thenbloodsucking careers of singing stars, literary agents, dopentheorists, professional freaks, acting hacks, publicity stuntmen,nhave invaded the parasitic fringe of the vocationalnidlers, turned them into an underclass, and with the helpnof the corrupted media promoted the ugly beautiful folkloreninto an all-American exemplar. The “embellishment” rationalizationnhas been expanded into a Weltanschauung, ugly,nmiscreated and foul as it is, but relentlessly promoted and—nwhat’s ominous—economically profitable. It subsists onnpsychoanalytical twaddle which makes platitudes into “wisdom”nthat legislates existences and emotions. It creates anpseudo-intellectual climate in which the pop-art mass magazinencritics, the current spiritual leadership, anoint “greatness”nand are paid out of all reasonable proportion to theirnsocial value. Why perfunctory and embarrassingly shallown