tliat American democracy was thernfreest form of government in thernworld, by which he also meant thernmost libertine; so free, in fact, thatrnAmerican societ}’ would haverncome apart had it not been for therninternal discipline of the Americanrnpeople. This internal discipline,rnhe said, was rooted in their profoundrndevotion to religion. Wliatrnwe are now seeing is the earnest rejectionrnof the constraints of religionrnin the second half of the 20thrncenturv; not just the rules of moralih’rnbut even simple rules of conductrnand ethics. . . .rnYou [the American militar] arerngoing to find yourselves required tornbe sentinels at the bacchanal. Yournare going to find yourself requiredrnto stand guard at the Lucullan feastrnagainst the Huns approachingrnfrom outside. You will have to bernarmed monks at the org}-.rnIf I use religious terminolog)’, Irnuse it on purpose. One of the mostrnfamous addresses ever delivered inrnthis centurv by an American wasrnthe address on 12 May 1962, byrnDouglas MacArthur at West Point,rnin which he enunciated the watchwordsrnof dut)’, honor, and countr,’.rn. . . He said that the soldier, abovernall otiier men, is expected to practicernthe greatest act of religion: sacrifice.rnBut these Huns “approaching from outside”rnare also approaching from “within.”rnWhat Whittaker Chambers oncernsaid in Cold Friday (1964) about communism’srndialectical and historical materialism,rnwe should say today about therncontinuing Long March of Freudian-rnMarxist “Critical Theory” through ourrncultural institutions:rnIt seeks a molecular re-arrangementrnof die human mind. It promotesrnnot only a new world. Itrnpromotes a new- kind of man [i.e..rnHie “reolutionar’, democratic personalitv,”rnnot the “authoritarianrnpersonalit”|. The physical re’olutionsrnwhich it once incited andrnnow imposes, and which largelyrndistract our attention, are secondaiyrnto this internal revolution whichrnchallenges each man in his mindrnand spiritrnSince manv varieties of “religious libertv”rnalso now promote this “internal revolution,”rnwhat criteria and standardsrndoes natural law, rooted in reason, providernfor our deeper discernment and patientrnprudence? I leave vou with thisrnchallenge, and with these suggestive reflections,rnlest the order and myster’ of religionrnitself, and the sacred, become arnser”ant of disorder and anarchy.rnIn his 1990 book. Myths of ModernrnArt, Alberto Boixados, an Argentine professorrnof literature, quotes from Augustorndel Noce’s 1976 interview with a Madridrnnewspaper. The topic was Cramscianrneiuocommunism, and other indirectrnvariants of cultural subversion. Introducingrnthe words of del Noce, mv enerablernfriend says:rnThe conquest of power can nornlonger be achieved by traditionalrnrevolutionary means. Civil societyrnmust first be conquered, and thenrnthe state will collapse.rnAnd how will the conquest ofrnculture come about? “By means ofrnan alliance with middle-class intellectuals,rnwith radical movements,rnwith Catholic progressi es and,rnmost especially, with all die trendsrnof modern Catholic theolog}.”rn”In Italy,” Professor del Nocerncontinues, “all the essentials arernunder control: the publishingrnhouses, the schools, quite a fewrnuniversities, the judiciar’.” Thernconfrontation in the fight to dominaternthe sources of cidture is notrnbetween “the proletariat and thernbourgeoisie” but between “traditionrnand modernit}’.”rnA new cidturc and a new sstemrnof values are created precisclv sornthat the freedom of ideas [about religion,rnas well] may be redefined.rnGramsci also understood that thernonly hope of eliminating thernCatholic Church was to underminernher and destroy her fromrnvithin. Today’s neo-modernistrnand demvthofied theology wasrnforeshadowed in Granisci’srnthoughts at the beginning of therncentury. Knowing that Marxismrnand Catholicism are incompatible,rnhe sought a compromise becausernhe knew that the appeasers wouldrnend up in apostasy.rnTo what extent will appeasers of unlimitedrnor unconditional “religious libert”rnend up in apostasy, and maybe alsorndespair? What is to be hoped for fromrnnatural law, in itself, without a fuller doctrinernof light, and of love?rnRobert D. Hickson is an instructor at thernUnited States Air Force Academy in ColoradornSprings, Colorado.rnFOREIGN AFFAIRSrnDayton Discordrnby Srdja TrifkovicrnDr. Biljana Plavsic can go back to herrnmicroscope now that she has failedrnto win re-election as president of Bosnia’srnRepublika Srpska. A tenured professor atrnSarajevo University, she was elected deanrnof the faculty of math and science in 1988.rnAs a respected scholar and communityrnleader, she carried, the most votes of anyrnSerb candidate nmning in Bosnia’s firstrnpost-World War 11 multi-party elections inrn1990 and was elected to the presidency ofrnBosnia-Herzegovina as a representative ofrnthe Serbs. After war erupted in the springrnof 1992, she became the vice president ofrnthe Republika Srpska. In June J 996, shernbecame acting president of the Republic,rnand in the September 1996 elections shernwas elected president of the RepublikarnSrpska for a two-year term.rnBiljana Plavsic became head of state atrna difficult time for the Republika Srpska,rnas it suffered from economic collapse andrnan extraordinarily unfavorable internationalrnposition. Despite numerous difficultiesrnand obstacles, President Plavsicrnmanaged to shatter the international isolationrnand moved to put an end to corruptionrnand to the criminal activities whichrnhad taken hold of the countr)’ since thernwar years.rnIn her first interview after losing thern1998 general election, Biljana Plavsic explainedrnto me the reason for her defeat.rnSrdja Trifkovic: Madam President, duringrnthe campaign you had enjoyed thernsupport of the international community,rnand under your leadership the BosnianrnSerbs were beginning to emerge from internationalrnisolation. What went wrong?rnBiljana Plavsic: My credibilit’ vas un-rnDECEMBER 1998/41rnrnrn