The United States no longer prides itself on exporting ministersrnof the Gospel of Jesus Christ; instead, as Ining Kristol hasrnput it, “our missionaries live in HolK’wood” —missionaries notrnof Christ, as John Adams had hoped, but of “a dominant secularrnhedonistic ethos. It is an imperium with a minimum ofrnmoral substance.” As is true of our domestic policy, our globalistrnforeign policy reflects the values of a ruling pseudo-elite thatrnis estranged not only from our country’s Christian heritage butrnfrom the inarticulate and half-forgotten residue of that heritagernamong ordinary Americans. That is, the moral plunge of ourrninternational agenda from exporting the Gospel to exportingrncash and condoms for the cooperative, sanctions and bombs forrnthe recalcitrant, is inseparable from the progressive dc-Chri.stianizationrnof American society and of the larger European civilizationrnwhich gave it birth.rnRecently, someone asked the not entireh’ rhetorical questionrnin reference to what has long been called the “American experiment”rnin republican, “pluralistic” self-go ernment: Wlien canrnwe sa’ an experiment has failed? To answer that question, it isrnnecessar)’ to recall that in the long history of Christendom, republicanismrnhas been the rare exception—and “pluralism,” arnmodern marketing term for de-Christianization, was unknown.rnThat a public religious establishment can exist while allowingrna reasonable degree of toleration of private dissent was obviousrnto the premodern mind; Swift, speaking through the giant kingrnof Brobdingnag, gave the classic justification for limited forbearance:rn”A man may be allowed to keep poisons in his closet,rnbut not to vend them about for cordials.”rnIt should be remembered that in the Roman Empire, the legalizationrnof Christianity under Constantine after three centuriesrnof persecution and the establishment of Christianity asrnthe official religion under Theodosius the Great coincidedrnwith the culmination of the progressive evolution of the officernof the emperor—originally, in theory, just the “first citizen”rn{princeps) of the Republic —into a true monarch. By the beginningrnof the fifth century, in both Rome and Constantinoplernthe emperor was a visible icon of Christian thearchy, the divinelyrnanointed successor of David and Solomon, ruler of thernNew Israel: in a word, king (basileus). The indissoluble symphonyrnbetween crown and cross, state and church, imperiumrnand sacerdotium was in turn adopted by the sub-Roman successorrnstates established by the barbarians, as new peoples—Celt,rnGerman, Slav—adopted the Faith, along with many aspects ofrnclassical Greco-Roman culture, under the command of a Clovisrnor an Ethelbert, an Olaf or a Vladimir. (In keeping withrnEphesians 3:14-15 and 5:20-33, the same derivative understandingrnsanctified authority on the family level in the form ofrnpatriarchy; as late as the 18th century, wives in England whornkilled their husbands suffered not hanging but burning, thernpenalt}- for traitors, since their crime was not just murder butrn”petty treason.”)rnIn sum, the growth and consolidation of European Christianrncivilization took place in a context in which Christianity—inrnthe form of an established church—was the exclusive publicrncreed of states ruled by autocratic monarchs (invariably styledrn”defender of the faith”) in consultation witii-but not underrnthe command of—such councils, senates, and so forth as traditionrnprovided. It is during this millennium and a half beforernthe ironically misnamed “Enlightenment” that the true Light,rnthe Word Incarnate, became implanted in tiie European heart:rnthe vestigial Christian consciousness in modern America andrnEurope is nothing less (and alas, nothing more) than the smallrnchange in copper left over from the moral gold bullion amassedrnduring that time.rnIn contrast, modernity might best be defined as a rejection ofrndivincK’ anointed, legitimate authorities in the world in favorrnof the moral nihilism that became intellectually respectablernduring the 18th century, received its fullest elaboration in thern19th, and achieved political dominance in the 2()th. Today,rnnot a single historically Christian country can truthfully claimrnto be a functional Christian society. On the state level, no government,rnwhether nominally a republic or a monarchy (the latterrnbeing, in practice, a republic in ermine drag, where notrneven the monarch would claim that “the people” are notrnsovereign), would stake its legitimacy on the cross on its flag orrnwould claim Christ as its ruler. The ideological assault onrnmonarch —first by democracy (vox populi, vox dei), then by socialismrn—is inextricably linked to the notion that God nornlonger rules the world, if He exists at all. (It is significant thatrnthe great revolutions of modern European history—English,rnFrench, Russian —each culminated in regicide, the nationalrnanalog of deicide and patricide, an antisacrament, a blood sacrificernupon the altar of human self-will.) In due course, havingrnkilled, deposed, or emasculated our kings, and having intellectuallyrnexpelled the Creator from His creation under the tutelagernof Darwin, Marx, and Freud, it is hardly surprising that inrnrecent decades our rebellion has now worked its way down tornthe family in the destruction of fatherhood: feminism as moralrnpatricide.rnAChristian foreign policy wouldrnmean the end of foreign aidrnand, in general, the end of mostrnofficially approved meddling in otherrnnations’ business.rnAmerica, despite the best intentions and emphatic Christianrnaspirations of the Founders, has not been immune from thisrnprogression and in some respects has been its showcase. Perhapsrnthe most experimental thing about the American experimentrnwas the apparentiy unexamined assumption that a stable.rnChristian social order that reflected 14 centuries of Christianrnmonarchy and church/state cooperation could be preservedrnand even strengthened under a political order explicitly basedrnon then-current fantasies about the idealized civic virtues ofrnpagan Greece and Rome. We thought we could declare everyrnman to be his own king as well as his own pope, while under thernguidance of a “natural aristocracy,” the inherited moral and socialrnorder would not suffer. We were wrong. The progressiverndegeneration over the years from a confederal republic, to arnfederal democracy, to our current demagogic unitan,- state canrnbe traced in the decline from Jefferson’s apologetics for sansculotticrnobscenities in France, to the rule of King Mob underrnDECEMBER 1997/13rnrnrn