nuintlingAjneiica m;ikes little mentionnof the role education plays in assisting innmaking wise choices. This is probablynbecause the authors have little regard fornClaiming that the modern liberalnculture in America is undergoing thenprocess of sovietization may seem tonsome hysterical, to others the ultimate innniauvais ton. However, what do we callnthese practices, so closely associated withnthe official Soviet culture, of erasingnpolitically discredited personages fromnhistoriography, photographs, and films?nWe call it a totalitarian method of falsifyingnhistory and reality, an absolutistnattempt to suppress truth and superimposenlies for ideological profit, a manifestationnof tyrannical contempt for fi^mdamentalnfairness in public matters. If, in thenname of dogma, people and ideas arensentenced to non-being and are eradicatednfrom objective existence byncensors lacking even a shred of moralnincertitude, the democratic consciencenfalls prey to quasi-fascist or quasicommunistncultural politics. Equity andnobjectivity still seem to be perceived asnvirtues in owr cultural universe; most of usnstill tend to believe that differences ofnopinion form social values and that itnwould be inconceivable for the modemnAmerican liberal to take away votingnrights from those who wish to votenRepublican. But, oddly enough, thenmodern American liberal, especially innthe IVIanhattan publishing industry, seemsnto feel not a modicum of hesitation whennobliterating or obscuring the culturalnmerits of nonliberals.nHarper & Row, distinguished Manliattannpublishers, recently put on the marketnSOO-odd pages of something entitled20f/bnCentury CAiltiire and subtitled .4 BiographicalnCompanion. It contains somen2,000 names of people who—accordingnto the editors—defined and shaped then20th century through their works andnide;is. ‘Ihe entries were prepared b)’ 300nChronicles of Culttirenchoice. Edmund Burke once said thatn”the people never g^ve up their libertiesnbut under some delusion.” The greatnmirage of our times is that }-ou can havenotoblesnTivo Culturesnexperts and scholars, almost all of themnBritish, which, naturally, makes themnintroduce every British pharmacologistnas a pylon of culture. The whole wasnedited by Alan Bullock, former vicechancellornof Oxford University’, and R. B.nWoodings, another prominent Oxonian.nAnd it is here where the trouble, ornmalaise, begins.nOn the surface, a sort of detachednobjectivity in viewing people from Leninnand Einstein to Koyre (a Frenchnphilosopher) and the Roiling Stonesnseems to prevail. But a closer look revealsnmore. The leadership of Lord Bullock, anrespected scholar known for his salientlynleft-of-center sympathies, has acquirednpecuUar dimensions. Not that all the vocalncritics of the modern liberal mind andnethos are not there: some sure are—nOrwell, Koestler, Faulkner, C. S. Lewis,nWaugh, Santayana, Mencken, etc.—butnthey’re there ensconced in the glory ofntheir paramount achievements sealednforever by death. Many whose accomplishmentsnare of enormous influence,nbut too openly against what LordnBullock would prefer—for instance, LeonStrauss in philosophy, Richard Weaver innhistorj’ of culture—are not, though thenCompanion is brimming with theirncontemporar)’ detractors of liberal faith.nThings are getting much worse when wencome to literature. Where suchlikes asnMailer, Baldwin, evenBorrouglis, aboundnthere’s no room for O’Hara, Cozzens, ornWouk. And things are getting reallynobnoxious when we try to examine thenlists of thinkers and contributors to thencontemporary’ affairs. The entire scope ofnnonliberal American philosophers, historians,nand scholars in the humanitiesnwith a record of direct impact on thinkingnin modern America—Robert Nisbet, Irvingnnnliberty- and prosperity without risk ornpersonal responsibility. If we. as a nation,ncontinue to pursue our illusion, we’llnfind ourselves neither safe nor free. nnKristol, Russell Kirk, Whittaker Chambers,nRobert Nozick, Eric Voegelin,nJacques Barzun, to mention a few—nsimply do not exist for Lord Bullock. Henlists Ms. Kate Millett, attributing “scientific”nvalue to her work, but refuses, ofncourse, to mention Professors Moynihan,nGlaezer, Wilson, or Banfield, or Godnforbid, Phyllis Schlafly, someone whonrouted ideologically and socially Ms.nMillet’s ideas and influence. Lord Bullock’snpartisanship (sectarianism?) seemsnto take even more cruel forms whenntreating his own compatriots: neithernMuggeridge, Klngsiey Amis, nor PaulnJohnson exist in his summary, nor donrepresentatives of the group of scholarsnand writers associated with iJncowwternmagazine, perhaps the most brilliantnintellectual congregation in contemporarynEngland, among whom Lord BuUockncould have easily found some of hisncolleagues from his alma mater, people ofnno less respectable credentials than hisnown.nThe Western world is divided, in ourntime, into two cultures: the liberal culturenand the culture of those who questionnsome of the liberal values, their validity,nutility, and application to the ills of ournepoch. One of tliose coilmres is hegemonicnand^—of late—quite brutal in exercisingnthe principles and privileges of itsndomination. As it monopolizes thensources of information on almost everynintellectual, popular, and educative level,nnot all of those who wish to know,nactually, know much about the existencenof the other culture. Lord Bullock oncenagain has made deft use of this arrangement:nhis contribution to the uiiiformit)’nof what should be known according tonthe liberal orthodoxy is prodigious. [Jn