When the difference of opinion involves the minimization to the point of eradication of specific groups within society, most of which are predisposed to oppose the political views you hold, then there is No Other Term for it than Naziism.
Not everyone I disagree with is a nazi, but everyone who wants all queer people to stop being publicly visible, everyone who would rather immigrants, muslims, and jews to stop coming to the country or become invisible in daily life, anyone who would think about the problems that disabled people have and come to the 'solution' that they should not reproduce? They're Nazis. To call them anything else would do the memories of those already lost a disservice.
And those who buck at being called Nazis should genuinely detach and reexamine their views to see whether they resemble those of the Nazi party. If they don't, if the people calling them Nazis are simply being reactionary, then fine. But to ignore it without giving the most basic consideration to one's own views is deeply foolhardy at best.
Consider for yourself what you term as 'degenerate', and whether those things have any material impact on your life. Consider what solutions that are non-authoritarian for that degeneracy may look like. Is it offering better mental health services? Is it providing community that doesn't shun, but helps rehabilitate maladaptive practices? Is it allowing general differences of opinion on what counts and doesn't count as degenerate behavior? Is it minding your own goddamn business?
I think you're onto something, but you're missing a really key point of what makes a counterculture.
Consider the 'culture'. Whose side is the balance of power really behind? There are massive influences and money behind traditional christian and conservative values - they have a practical stranglehold on the politics of roughly half of America (by landmass). Is it really 'counter' the culture to embody those values in areas where they are the norm?
I think we don't have 'a' counterculture because we don't have 'a' culture, a unified one, in this country. Trad is as counterculture in California as radical queer/left ideology is in Alabama, and it gets muddier when you look at individual pockets of the opposite in rural areas or cities respectively.
If anything, this cultural split over core values would make anything else - 'radical centrism' for instance - a counterculture in and of itself; except, that tends to be the tack taken by a lot of media (NPR, Meet the Press, etc.). Can that be counterculture?
Alternatively, consider outside of mainstream politics. Co-op organizations, hacker/DIY circles, and protest movements are all certainly 'counter' the norm, but do they all have their own 'culture?' At best they have shared memes, no real ideological unity or even goddang clothing preferences.
Until the FCC declares AM broadcast illegal (and likely for some time after, as pirate radio stations will attempt to fill the dead air out of sheer contrarianism), there will always be users of the AM band. Hell, as popularity wanes, I'll bet that broadcasting expenses will go way down, so we could very well see a renaisseance in the next couple decades as community groups take to it as a new-old means of distribution.
The existence of simulcast doesn't make the AM broadcast any less real. It just broadens the listener scope.
Isn't the practice of interviewing full of fraud on the part of interviewers already? Things like the dreaded '10 years experience in a 2 year old language' in programmer listings? Why shouldn't interviewees use whatever means they can, especially largely untraceable ones like this example, to even the field?
Plus, if you've done any work for friends or other contacts in the meantime, you can just draw up an informal NDA after the fact and then it's not even a lie.