From Gary North, What Will History Judge?
It is common for famous figures to say things such as this: “History will judge.”
I searched Google for “history will judge.” I got 228,000 hits.
Here are the top ones:
“History will judge societies and governments — and their institutions — not by how big they are or how well they serve the rich and the powerful, but by how effectively they respond to the needs of the poor and the helpless.” — Cesar Chavez
How history will judge 2016 — Washington Examiner
History Will Judge Today’s Christians According To These 4 Questions — Washington Post
How will history judge Donald Trump’s GOP supporters? — Washinghton Post
If the word “God” were substituted for “history,” no one would pay any attention to these statements. There is too much dispute over who God is and how He will judge.
Journalists generally are not believers in God. They would not write such headlines. But they are true believers in their view of history. They got this view mostly in tax-supported and/or state-licensed schools, where it is illegal to speak of God as a final judge, except in classes that ridicule such an idea.
Ah yes, the government-mandated “neutrality in religion”.
I can see the secularist smiles from here.
THE FIVE POINTS OF SOCIAL THEORY
I once again refer to the five points of social theory [i.e., my favorite points, which in fact are not self-consciously used by any other analyst]: sovereignty, authority (representation — “speaks on behalf of”), law, sanctions, and the future.
Is history sovereign? Anyone who says “history will judge” is implicitly assuming that it is. The very phrase assumes this.
Then who speaks on behalf of sovereign history? Who therefore represents sovereign history in history? There’s the rub. “May I have the envelope, please?” And the answer is: “Journalists initially; then university-certified and university-employed historians.”
“In the Name of the Guild, Under Our True Master and Source of the Law, the State.”
But what standards — what laws — will they use? This assumes that there are laws of history — an assumption that is universally rejected by those few historians who think about historiography. (Courses in historiography are as despised by history majors as courses on methodology are despised by economics majors. They say: “Let’s just get on with it.”)
Then there is the application of these universally denied laws to historical facts. This is the issue of historical interpretation. It is the issue of judgment. Put in terms of the language of Calvinism and Austrian School economics, it is imputation. It is the selection of the appropriate facts and matching them with the applicable theory of human behavior.
You might ask: “But what is ‘appropriate’? What is ‘applicable’?” Don’t ask. Don’t tell.
This is how the game is played. The players don’t like it when people ask these sorts of questions. “Let’s just get on with it!”
Our Betters dislike the idea of accountability to standards and laws that they did not create themselves.
Not a surprise.
If you press someone — if you keep asking these sorts of questions — the person who made the announcement of how history will judge will fall back on that old favorite: “It’s just a figure of speech.” It is, indeed.
When someone says that “God will judge,” it’s not a figure of speech. No one thinks that it is. People will respond: “Whose God?” They will respond: “How do you know what God will do?” Or this: “Who gives you the right to say what God will do?” Or the ever popular: “Oh, yeah?” These are all reasonable responses. If you ever say, “God will judge,” be prepared for such questions.
Yet anyone who says “history will judge” should be equally prepared to answer skeptical questions. But this is rarely the case. No one asks. Why not? Because the figure of speech really is just a figure of speech. Most people don’t take it seriously — nor should they.
To say that “history will judge,” if true, rests on a theory of history. It equates the opinions of historians with the opinions of God. It has to rest on a view of history that is intensely personal.
I bet that the (declining and shrinking) professional secularist historian guilds are VERY comfortable with equating the opinions of historians with the opinions of God.
They despise God, of course… but are always eager to steal His authority, and give it to themselves.
f everyone dies in the final heat death of the universe — the conclusion of almost all modern secular science — then history has no meaning. Why not? Because there will be no final judge. The last man standing will die. Then what? The correct atheistic answer is: “Who cares?” But once someone adopts this answer, it must be applied across the board to everything. This gets back to some version of this: “It’s my opinion. My opinion matters to me.” If you answer: “My opinion matters to me more than your opinion matters to you,” you are in for an epistemological fight. The next steps:
Oh, yeah? Who says?”
“You and who else?”
The phrase “history will judge” is really this statement: “My historians will beat your historians.”
In the end, everything in a secular society – including scientific findings and basic truths, as we can see with the COVID-19, transexual/homosexual controversies, abortion, etc — comes down to numbers and dollars and wall-to-wall universal mainstream media marketing campaigns… and, eventually, punishment, imprisonment, isolation, and impoverishment/ professional career destruction.
It’s not about objective truth (“…whatever that is…” snorts Our Betters), it’s about power today, for the Right Sort of People.
Believing Christians will never be considered the Right Sort in the eyes of Our Betters. There are certain advantages to this position, including independence from the incompetence, failure, and the coming delegitimization of Our Betters and their power structure.
The love of God is infinitely more valuable than the politically expedient and temporary favours of Our Betters. God raises up one, and pulls down another… and no man can stay His hand.
Anyway, here is the bottom line: “History will judge” is up there with “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you” with respect to its degree of trustworthiness. When you see it, you can be sure of the following:
1. The person saying it is not a professionally trained historian.
2. He has never read a book on historiography, let alone several.
3. He has no self-conscious theory of knowledge.
4. He has no self-conscious theory of history.
5. He has enormous confidence in his own assessment.
6. This self-confidence is not backed up by either facts or theory.
7. He thinks of “history” as the equivalent of God.
8. He does not think that God is a judge — final or otherwise.
9. He has not read half a dozen conflicting history books on any topic.
10. He has not considered what Facebook is doing to historical agreement.
For more on this, read my article on “Historiography and Destiny.” It’s here://www.garynorth.com/public/15803.cfm
“History” will not judge anything: it has no consciousness.
God and the records He keeps, on the other hand, will actually and effectively judge all things.
And then there is this. What if the facts scream that the official story cannot possibly be true? But what if it requires you to abandon the universally accepted view of the past. What then?
Ignore it. Pretend it isn’t there. Here is my favorite example. Start at 11 minutes.
What sayest thou?
Start here: Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings (1966). I have waited 60 years to see it footnoted as a reliable source in any history textbook or monograph published by a university press. I am running out of time.
This is why I don’t use a textbook for my American history course in the Ron Paul Curriculum. Textbooks are the official story. I don’t want my students infected by the official story.
Too bad I don’t have a million students
Gary North ran out of time.
His point stands, though, and should be remembered by all Christians when facing the fraudulent pagan noise machines and self-serving, deceptive, power-hungry guilds.