the political totalitarianism of the left, they somehow, oddly,nsee in it not evil, but aberration. But they do perceive wickednessnand horror in the totalitarian movements of the right.nWe do not quarrel with that, but we must vehemently rejectnthe special moral tariff accorded the ideological thugs andnhoodlums whom the marxian sacraments exempt, in the eyesnof a liberal, from moral proscription. However, if politicsnand economy still serve as a meeting ground where our rejectionnhas a chance to hold its own against their negation—innculture, the liberal has become a menace. He operates withnimpunity as an unmasked totalitarian and a supra-negativist,none who has managed, in the space of two decades, to destroynthe entire universe of ethical restraints and behavioral conventionsnby which the Western civilization has lived andnthrived for two millenia. But the liberal not only eliminatesnrationality and rectitude from the cultural ebb and tide, henalso insists that accentuating the negative has a salutarynand auspicious value. Value-free mass culture, the LiberalnCulture’s end goal, like value-free pop culture, mass educationnand mass art, is a contradiction in terms. Value-free art hasnalways existed, but by definition it must be exclusive andnhermetic, an ivory tower probe into artistic dimensions devoidnof social significance. Once this principle is transgressed,nhavoc is wrought upon individual lives and societies. What’snpopular must be value-oriented not only to be art, but chieflynto perform the one and only acceptable social function ofnart, culture, education. This, a liberal negates, and we mostnsolemnly negate his negation.nWe have also been chided by some readers for our preoccupationnwith what we call the liberal establishment, and tonwhich we ascribe a lot of nasty habits. But we stand by ournnotion, and here it is fitting to say that it is exactly thatnSomeone by the name of W. W. Bartley,nIII, whose publisher calls him an”noted philosopher,” and whom anPrinceton professor of philosophy callsna “historian of ideas,” wrote a biographynof Werner Erhard—a human potentialnmovement entrepreneur and a notablenpsychotherapeutical operator. Mr. Erhard,na practitioner of drillmaster psychology,nwhose demands on his disciplesnmake a Marine sergeant look like anneffete Hamlet, is also considered a philosophernby Mr. Dick Gregory, a comedian,nJohn Denver, a rock singer. Dr.nLilly, from the Human/Dolphin Foun­nPhilosophy in Americanliberal establishment which enforces the circumstances describednabove, and imposes them on America. Let’s try tonclarify this ‘ur critics maintain that by speaking of an establishmentnwe imply a sort of conspiracy, which is a construct ofnour imagination. But is it really so.-* When we speak of annestablishment, we imply the existence of others, for only inndemocracies do they exist; in a totalitarian country, there’snonly one establishment, and that’s it. In America, we havenmany establishments, among them the liberal establishmentnthat rules the culture. However, when the banking establishmentnis attacked, the attackers rarely suggest conspiracy;nthe alleged sins of bankers are too visible for their detractorsnto sniff a plot. Neither do we suggest that the liberalnestablishment runs the American culture by means of conspiratorialncabals and tricks, by tight organizational methodsnand orders issued from an anonymous center of decision.nWe recognize that the liberal establishment is simply usingnthe oldest, most reliable and lethal tool of oppression whichnhas always been used by reigning establishments to operatenthe mechanism of control—namely fashion. It’s the terrorismnof fashionable ideas that gives the liberal establishmentnits power. We most forcefully negate this sway and will donwhatever we can to assist our readers in comprehending thisnestablishment and join in its condemnation. As long as liberalsnmake careers of negating what is good and propitious,nfor that long will we be negating their negativism in ordernto bring about a new sense of affirmation.n”O philosophy, thou guide of life, O thou explorer of virtue and expeller of vice!”n-Cicero, 45 B.C.ndation, Valerie Harper of Rhoda, TV’snfountain of intelligence, and, first andnforemost, by himself. Time, excerptingnone of his speeches, brings proof to it:n”Nothing is going to enlighten you.nWhat will enlighten you is nothingn…”n”When you’re willing to take the circumstancesnyou’ve got and come fromnthat, then you’re enlightened. Youncome from enlightenment. Enlightenmentnisn’t a process. It happensnoutside of time. The process happensnin time. In fact, it might be time. Enlightenmentnhappens.”nnn—Leopold TyrmandnMr. Erhard has shed his good namenof Rosenberg in exchange for his crispnTeutonic sobriquet; he apparentlynwished to stress his solidarity withnthe military style of dealing with humannpersonality. Which has somethingnto do with ethics, a part of philosophynsince the time of the Greeks, a termnMr. Erhard might have heard, althoughnthere is little evidence that he has.nBesides, how can anything but a Prussianndrill instill such philosophicalnsubtleties in human brains, even thosenso softened, docile and mushy as thosenof Manhattan libcultists. DnChronicles of Culturen