journalistic renditions of history, contemporary affairs, behavioralnissues and artistic creativity time and again havenbecome multimillion dollar enterprises is a crucial question.nThe answer probably is: Because the greedy and unscrupulousnliberal publisher strikes an alliance with the liberal medianmanipulator, and together they set out to boost at any pricena conformist liberal critic, or a liberal intellectual bigot,nthereby forming the most formidable sociocultural devicenof our time. They all frequent the same leisure circuit; atntheir cocktail parties and carefully crafted cultural events,nthe gathering and inbreeding of mutual supportiveness isntaking place. Next morning, it passes into publishing andneditorial offices, or movie studios, and the warped liberalnideals get blended with journalistic hype and with a communicationnsystem that feeds and thrives on everything value-free,noffbeat, far-out. Opinion making for the mere sake of opinionnmaking has become a tremendous, all-encompassing industry.nIn such a climate, inversion and perversion of socioculturalnmeanings becomes both a basic instrument of “change”nand a source of unholy profits. The acting profession, for one,nthough certainly an artistic skill, was never held in highnesteem in refined civilizations: actors made their living bynimpersonating other people, somehow an offense to thenJudeo-Christian sense of God-given human properties.nAmong the ugly beautiful people, actors equal ancientnprophets. But not only has the actor’s role been blown outnof proportion, the entire mechanism of culture has beenncorrupted.nJ?or over six decades, Hollywood mirrored the characternand dreams of the nation. It did it in a garish way, and wasncalled the cradle of a vibrant and folksy art. Simple-mindednessnand tinsel, always Hollywood’s image, did not preventnit from capturing some essential truths about America,nwhich commanded the attention and sentiments of the worldnat large. During the ’60s, Hollywood was put on anotherncourse, hailed as “creative” and “introspective” by liberalnelites. Movies began to reflect the marginal rather thannthe essential, aberrations of reality rather than reality itself.nInstead of dreams, we were offered nightmares which werendeclared self-questioning insights. To claim that The Exorcist,nJaws or A Wedding represent anything but the sleazy peripherynof truth is not only a fraud, but also the main factor innHollywood’s degeneration to the repulsiveness of a jadednstripteaser whose only ambition is to shock and to makenmoney. This fundamental change in creative trends has hadnmany consequences: among them, some new ways have materializednfor the celebrity elites to live, love and influencenthe cultural aura of the country.nThe ugly beautifuls are on the uppermost end of the affluencenscale, but their political orientation is intensely radicalnand leftish. This has something to do with the presentnmarketability of leftism, radical chic, and other demonstrablencliches; it can be safely assumed that any political extremismnof any totalitarian brand would be warmly embraced by them,nprovided its meretriciousness would supply maximum visibility.nThe owner of a prosperous Manhattan disco, who obviouslynculls his astronomic income from pimpish instincts,ndeclared to awed reporters that he was “against Vietnam” andn”would never go.” The central ideological and theoreticalnorgan of the ugly beautifuls. Women’s Wear Daily, franticallynpromotes penthouse radicalism and overtly communist popnsingers and “poets,” goes into raptures at any modish cause,nrally, etc. It also attempts to rationalize its stance: normlessnessnand dissipation of values are presented in its pagesnas a fight against hypocrisy, constriction, convention. Anfabulously rich film director unveils his proclivity to stealingnand touts it as “moral” impulse: “I like robbers . . . theynare some of the finest people I ever met,” he crows, andnWWD reports it with pride.nIt has already become clear that, in spite of all liberal medianefforts, there’s an unbridgeable rift between the commonnpeople and the ugly beautiful people of America. In fact,nthe latter are the former’s openly declared enemy. Two kindsnof money earned by two kinds of people have obvious civilizationalnconsequences: those who provide food, electricitynand transportation are pitched against the producers of news,nentertainment, pop art and distorted liberal ideas. The uglynbeautiful people are the focus of contention: the first loathenthem, the second not only tolerate them but permit them tonact as their legitimate elite. The first still think that patriotismnand the Boy Scouts are good things; the second rejectnanticommunism, falsely present themselves as underdogsnfighting on the side of other underdogs from their BeverlynHills mansions, and serve cocaine at their parties in thenname of sacred solidarity with the oppressed. Being recklesslynpushed by the media as the paradigm of Americannsuccess, these ugly, mean, cynical, most often brainlessnpeople, who made it into the spotlight, ultimately ruin thencommon man’s social chance to live better. As the alliancenbetween the ugly beautifuls and the peddlers of Liberal Culturenperennially needs an enemy on whom it can prey andnstructure its power of vilification, the producer of energynand housing becomes its natural victim. He is unable toncreate a fashionable cultural image; deprived of culturalnweapons, his defenselessness becomes an easy source of moneynand fame for the liberal ugly beautiful predator. His intentionsnare smartly defamed, his preferences become the newnAmerican demonology. Cultural con men lavishly live offnhis denunciation. He has little social power and only somenvestiges of political power. (Nothing exemplifies thisnbetter than the recent “memoirs” of Margaret Trudeau;nwhen we realize that her lover during her marriage to thenprime minister of Canada was the owner of Club Mediter-nnncontinued on page 35nChronicles of Culturen