Get Yer Popcorn for the Apocalypse

Is there any point to history?

Or do generations only rise and die?

Most cultures have said no. Social life at least was just one damned thing after another.

The Judeo-Christian and the Muslim traditions disagree. We have always held that history was under divine guidance, and, over time, revealed God’s will.

There are suggestions of this in the Beatitudes. Even though Christianity seems a more individualistic religion than Judaism.

First, there is the promise that the “meek,” the selfless, will inherit the Earth.

Then there is “blessed are the peacemakers.” The obvious reference is to just government.

We have accordingly been paying attention to the march or shuffle of history, in Europe and its colonies, for a couple of thousand years.

How has that worked out? Can we indeed detect in it some holy lesson, some teleological trend?

It seems obvious that we can—in the sense that there has been dramatic human material progress over that period. Not incidentally, most of that has come in Christian lands, suggesting religion might have something to do with it.

By itself, however, this does not demonstrate divine guidance. It is natural enough for mankind to be seeking material comfort, and so over time it is natural if they achieve it.

A better test is this: in the strife of governments, lands, and empires, does the good guy usually, if not always, win?

It looks as though they do. The bad sorts can gain temporary ascendency, but always lose in the long run.

Cynics here have a ready reply: it only seems to be so, because history is written by the winners.

Yet those of us old enough to remember the fall of the Soviet Bloc must suspect there is something to it. The Communist world was indeed, as Reagan called it, “the Evil Empire.” If we did not quite believe it then, we have heard ourselves much testimony since from those who lived beneath it. And those of us who saw it fall must have suspected a miracle, a divine intervention. Only a few years earlier, it was conventional wisdom among the learned classes in the West that soon Communism would achieve primacy, either through victory in one big hot war in Europe, dominos toppling in the Third World, or “convergence”—the West being forced to adopt the same policies to compete.

Yet suddenly, it was gone. As though we had awakened from a dream.

We saw ourselves the same in the fall of Nazism. For a few years, it looked invincible and inevitable. And then it came crashing down.

Opposed again to this idea of God in command, it is fashionable today to condemn the great European Empires as examples of evil triumphing. Evil then swept the Earth, and held sway for perhaps a hundred years. You might argue that they lost in the end; but they had a strikingly good run.

I think that is misguided. There is nothing evil about an empire. To be blunt, that notion is racist.

How is it better for me that the people running my government are of the same race as myself? That should mean nothing to me, unless I am a racist. Or expect special favours because of race.

It also does not matter, by itself, that I vote on who is in charge. That is only a means to an end.

An elected government can be evil. Hitler was elected, and was evil. Robespierre was elected, and was evil. Lynch mobs are evil.

An unelected government can be good. Pope John Paul II was not elected, and few could argue he was a bad pope.

What matters is that the government is run disinterestedly, honestly, and fairly for all, and is strong and resolute enough to defend everyone’s rights and property, against either close neighbours or outsiders.

An imperial government may well be better at that than a local government of the same genetic makeup. They even have special advantages: they command more force to defend against outsiders. They can concentrate more force to keep order. They are not beholden to anyone at the local level, as a local government, or an elected official, is likely to be. And they have nothing to prove socially: to them, all local classes, races, or tribal groups are likely to look the same.

The British treatment of Ireland was evil; but that was really a separate issue. The problem was precisely that Ireland was not thought of as part of the Empire, but part of the homeland. So assimilation was demanded.

Everywhere else, Britain gave the world Pax Britannica, a notable period of peace and prosperity, of optimism about the future, and of rapid human progress. It ended the slave trade; it ended the caste system in India; it ended suttee; it ended thuggery, banditry, and piracy wherever it went; it ended the eternal genocidal tribal wars in Canada, Africa, and the South Pacific. It introduced common law, parliamentary procedure, and sound principles of accountancy, significant civilizational advances, worldwide. Not to mention empirical science and the industrial revolution.

The Roman Empire, the next most obvious example of a successful empire, was in the same way a civilizing influence. It gave Europe the Roman Law, still the basis of most European legal systems. It hosted the spread of Judeo-Christian values and Greek moral and political philosophy. It ended Punic child sacrifice. It ended the constant tribal wars and human sacrifice of Gaul. Like most empires, it reduced racism. Anyone could become a Roman citizen.

After a thousand years, it fell; and its fall in the West produced a significant civilizational decline. This is some measure of its value.

America is not an empire, but is now globally dominant. And America is, perhaps not coincidentally, the most moral of nations. It is, literally, the most religious of advanced nations. America is a nation not based on race or ethnicity, but on ideals: the ideals of liberal democracy, of Jefferson and Locke. While it has sinned in its past, only in comparison to its own ideals, not in comparison to other nations at the time.

There are logical reasons why the most moral nations will most succeed—which may be to say, this is burned in to the world’s Logos. If you cannot trust your neighbours, and trust the government, a huge amount of effort and energy must be wasted. People with shared ideals and a selfless attitude are more inclined to work together towards a shared goal. This defines a successful society.

The secret to the great success of Roman was such trust. The classic Roman battle tactic was for each soldier to thrust sideways, instead of at the attacker in front. This allowed him to get past the enemy’s armour. But for this to work, each man needed absolute trust in the soldier next to him. It was a test of selflessness.

The second great strength of Rome was that they never accepted defeat. When Carthage sank their entire fleet, they built another. When Hannibal wiped out their army in the field, they built another.

This was possible only because the average Roman had unshakeable faith in the government. In another place, in the face of such defeat, social order would dissolve in recriminations and revolt. Compare Russia in 1917; or France in 1870 or 1940.

The British secret was the same. As someone said, “the British lose every battle but the last.” They did not break in defeat; their finest hours have been magnificently orderly retreats or last stands. You could not break the British line or the British square. They just kept fighting until, sooner or later, the other side gave up.

This is possible only with a high level of mutual trust; trust in your government, your commanders, and your fellows in the field.

Understanding this much, it must then be said that we are plainly now entering a period of abject cultural decline. Trust has been broken. Unity around ideals has been lost. Postmodernism, intersectionality, feminism, transgenderism, and multiculturalism are exactly the opposite of what makes a society, a culture, or a government moral and successful. They seem designed to deliberately foment conflict. They represent a systematic denial of all shared values and moral principles.

The only thing keeping us from total collapse is the absence of any clear alternative. Of what Ibn Khaldun saw as the engine of history: of some new and vital ideology sweeping in from the desert or the fringes to re-establish moral order.

The decadence explains why Marxism is still or again so popular, despite its obvious and consistent failures. Marxism at least offers a coherent vision of history, a sense of social direction, and a moral code.

It explains again why Islamism suddenly has such strong appeal; for all the same reasons.

But just like Communism, we see that Islamism does not produce good results. We saw it tried in Iran and Libya. Like Marxism, it seems just unifying enough to get a movement into local power, but not compelling enough to inspire moral behaviour in them for more than perhaps a few years.

Trumpian populism seems to be producing better results, but is also no solution. It is too obviously all showmanship, smoke and mirrors. It will engage perhaps for a season, but not for longer.

Environmentalism might look like another current candidate for giving social life meaning. But it is anti-social and anti-human. It is no more than an impulse toward mass suicide.

America has gotten to the present point on the unifying principles of liberalism. Liberalism may still have fuel. Libertarianism is gaining support among the young.

But liberalism as a creed is limited. It is a via negativa, outlining what society must not do. This has led before to a general popular sense of inadequacy: if we have freedom, freedom to do what? What, other than not bothering each other, are we all here for?

It feels, in the end, bloodless, mechanical.

It needs, therefore, a second motivating ingredient.

Originally, this was Christianity. Locke built liberal philosophy on Biblical foundations. John Adams wisely advised, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” And he knew what he was talking about. A great deal in liberal democracy is based on an assumption of moral behavior among parties. Failure to recognize this truth led the US sadly astray in its attempts at nation-building in Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq.

Our best hope therefore seems to be something like a Third Great Awakening in the United States.

Leonard Cohen seems to have seen the same, in his 1992 song “Democracy.”

It's coming to America first
The cradle of the best and of the worst
It's here they got the range
And the machinery for change
And it's here they got the spiritual thirst

… It's coming from the sorrow in the street
The holy places where the races meet

… From the staggering account
Of the Sermon on the Mount

… From the wells of disappointment
Where the women kneel to pray
For the grace of God in the desert here
And the desert far away:

Democracy is coming
To the USA.

We can only pray.