militancy be skillfully subdued.nBut these are trivial matters, as manynsuspect. The more unsettling suspicionnis that the media’s liberal commentatorsnhave embarked on a devious campaignnthat is designed to drive a wedge betweennthe drama and the message. Afternhis visit, most of the media complainednthat there was a queer contradiction betweenna pastor who was so charismatic,nso human and humane, so propeople,npropeace and antiviolence—and the factnthat he was embracing such obsoletenviews on principles, morals, existentialnconduct within and without the Church.nThe disconsolate writers at Time magazinenwondered how they could reconcilenthose immense crowds with the factnthat”… the U.S. is a pluralist, secular,nsexually permissive society, and in thenpast two decades Americans have comento view with suspicion all institutionsnand authority, social, political or religious.”nIt would be difficult to find a morenstriking example of the liberal press’ncynicism and prevarication than Time’snmixture of demi-intelligence and illnwill, ignorance and falsehood. There’snno conflict between American pluralismnand the Pope’s universalism: afternall, Catholic, which means universal,ndenotes an enlarged vision of pluralism,neven if the history of Catholicism containsnsome chapters of exclusionary fanaticism.nWhether America is secularncan be largely disputed; the separationnof church and state does not presume ansociety divorced from religion, as thenAmerican 19th century amply demonstrated.nOur sexually permissive societynwas brought about during the ’60s andn’70s by the enthusiastic accounts bynTime and its media confreres of everynkind of behavioral aberration. Besides,nwe do not truly know how much of thenAmerican society is sexually permissive,nsince Time, and its colleagues, lavishlynreport on Esalen, vaginal art, est, Studion54 and male stripteasers, but ignore anynexample of contrary mores; thus we donnot know what segment of this societynpractices Manhattan-Los Angeles-Sann40inChronicles of CulturenFrancisco manners, and how many arenavoiding defloration at twelve—thenlatter is not newsworthy and so becomesna part of the mass of suppressed truth.nThose polls which debunk Time’s imagenof this society are naturally playedndown, if not passed over in silence. Thensame technique applies to respected institutionsnand effective authority: Timendoes not like them, thus the yearningnfor them does not exist in the picturenof America which is officially prescribednby the liberal media establishment innNew York City.nThen the Pope comes and millionsnof people suddenly seem to crave authority,ninstitutions, coherence, normalcy,ntradition—and a leader whonwould be able to restore them to theirnnatural role in society. A Chicago Tribunencolumnist called it “magic,” withna sort of undigested bitterness. Butnisn’t it time that other people of goodnintentions notice these cravings.’ Isn’tnit time that an American, or a group ofnAmericans, should continue whatnWojtyla so propitiously initiated?n(COnThe BrigadenOver the last few months, plenty ofnpeople in the U.S. have agonized overnwhat to do with the Soviet combatnbrigade stationed in Cuba. Most wantnto do something about it, though no onenis absolutely positive about what shouldnbe done. A substantial amount of enlightened,npragmatic, sober, seasoned,nwell-informed, erudite, expert and liberalncolumnists, commentators, analysts,nKremlinologists, specialists, savants,nscholars, intellectuals and intellectualoidsnhave been firmly repeating that thenSoviet encampment is of little importance,nthat a Soviet military unit 90nmiles off Miami Beach does not posenany threat to our security, let alone tonthe luxury hotels along Collins Avenue.nThey just keep forgetting that in ourntime’s global strategy and tactical planning,nimage counts as much as fact, or,nperhaps, even more.nnnAn AnniversarynThe fortieth anniversary of the beginningnof World War II recently passednwithout much comment. The anniversarynof another event intimately relatednto that war passed almost totally unnoticed.nThe conclusion of the Nazi-nSoviet “nonaggression” pact, nominallyna “peace” agreement, but actually a dealnfor a German-Soviet partition of EasternnEurope, was the immediate trigger ofnthe world’s greatest war. It completednthe work of that other great “peace”nagreement, the Munich pact, though atnleast at Munich one party imagined thatnit was obtaining peace. Curiously,nMunich remains rather more vivid innrecollection.nIn 1938, the Red Army’s Director ofnMilitary Intelligence for WesternnEurope, General Walter Krivitsky, defectednto the West to escape Stalin’snslaughter of the Soviet officer corps. Innan article published in the Russian exilenjournal Socialist Courier, Krivitskynwarned that Stalin wanted to reach annagreement with Hitler, and had alreadynmade feelers for this through trade missionsnto Berlin. His story has since beennconfirmed by captured Nazi documents.nHis warning was greeted by the liberalncrooners in the Western press with thensame disgust as they now use to dismissnobjections to the unverifiability of thenSALT II agreements.nThe true story of the prelude to WorldnWar II is not just more interesting thannits fashionable versions, but it is perhapsnof considerable relevance to ournown time. After all, the West today, asnin the 1930s, is confronted by not one,nbut two totalitarian states which arenutterly hostile to it and which hate eachnother. And both of these states follownessentially Stalinist premises in theirnforeign policies, the Chinese openly andnproudly, the Soviets more quietly. (EvennKhrushchev never repudiated any importantnpart of Stalin’s foreign policy,nand his successors have partly rehabilitatednStalin.) Of course the situationntoday is quite different in its geographicn