Do We Let the Barbarians In?

Mr Horvat addresses the Groypers' relationship to conservatism using the Romans and the barbarians as a metaphor. He argues against letting them join the struggle for the Good, the True, and the Beautiful.

From The Imaginative Conservative

By John Horvat II

There are signs that some conservatives, “Roman” and “barbarian” alike, are questioning certain liberal premises and expressing a desire for a grand return to grace and for God to fill the vacuum created by a world without beauty and truth.

During the long decline of the Roman Empire, the Roman legions defended the borders against the barbarians. With their organizational and military skills, the Romans kept them out.

However, as Rome decayed, it became harder and harder to keep control. Citizens no longer wanted to fight; they preferred to feast. Roman officials often entered into alliances with the neighboring barbarian tribes to fight off more aggressive hordes threatening the empire.

At some point, the Romans opened their borders and built bridges across the Danube. They invited the friendly barbarians inside so that they might help man the Imperial defenses. But barbarians, being barbarians, could not be trusted to maintain the empire. As the Romans found out, such arrangements do not end well.

A Very Rough Analogy

The Nick Fuentes and Groyper debate finds the conservative movement in a situation very roughly analogous to that of the Romans. An unruly crowd wants to join the movement.

The more established conservatives rightly believe in defending the cherished values of religion, family, and country. They acknowledge the existence of a moral law. However, these conservatives suffer from the corrosive decadence of society that thins their ranks. No offense to anyone, but these conservatives would be likened to the Romans struggling to survive.

On the other hand, there is a confused mass of other conservatives who have little to unite them and give them a clear collective purpose. They gather around notions of identity as a means of survival. They cannot bother with moral niceties. Others are attacking them, and they need to fight back. They are willing to make alliances, break rules, and engage in brutal tactics. No offense to anyone, but these conservatives might be likened to the friendly barbarians. Indeed, some Groypers would embrace the label heartily.

Both conservatives, Romans and barbarians alike, agree they face a common threat from the radical leftists who attack all society. These liberal activists seek to impose a cancelling woke agenda that grants no quarter. These woke leftists can be compared to the outside, attacking hordes. If allowed to win, they will destroy America.

An Existential Question

The big question is how to fight this leftist threat with the confused mass of people at hand. With such a variety of components, the conservative movement faces an existential question about what it means to be a conservative.

With the present order crumbling, the matter takes on an urgency. The temptation is to reach out to whoever is available to man the defenses.

Indeed, the central question right now is: Do we let the barbarians in?

It is not an easy question to answer since some barbarians are already within. Each side has something that the other needs. Each also has things that the other cannot accept.

Common Needs

The two groups share common needs. The Roman conservatives have order, albeit inside a decadent society. It is a sterile and secular order, the fruit of certain liberal doctrines. But some order must be defended, because the alternative is unacceptable.

 “Order is the first need of the soul,” wrote Russell Kirk. “Without order, one cannot be free,” continued Kirk. “Freedom, justice, law or virtue are all extremely important, but order is the first and most basic need.”

Abandoning order in the name of political expediency is self-defeating and dangerous. The outer walls must be maintained.

On their part, the barbarian conservatives, especially the grassroots followers, have a combative spirit and energy that, if properly channeled, could be effective against the chaotic, attacking hordes.

Things that Separate

There are also many things that set the two apart. The Romans tend to cling to their sterile order; the barbarians want to burn it down. The Romans worship strange liberal yet dying gods (like materialism and individualism). These do not align well with the more tribal, barbarian gods (such as nationalism, false mysticism, or anarchism).

At the same time, the Romans look upon barbarian practices and beliefs (like racism, anarchy, lewdness, vulgarity, etc.) and find them unacceptable. The barbarians complain of Roman imperialism, complacency and protocol as taboos that must be smashed.

Complicating the scenario, there is some overlap between the two groups, which often makes it hard to separate them.

Thus, the conservative movement finds itself at an impasse as it must decide if it is the case to let (more) barbarians in. Hence, the raging controversy.

A Way Out

The simple answer to the question is no.

Mixing the two and pretending they are one is a recipe for disaster. Barbarians are not team players. Any attempt at an artificial union can degenerate into brutal power politics. Such a descent into disorder will always favor the barbarian.

The two can and must still fight hard against the common enemy, the chaotic horde. However, they do not share the same goals and that needs to be made clear.

Indeed, if a solution is to be found, it must lie beyond the categories of Roman and barbarian. It must appeal to something missing from the political debate that can serve as a point of unity.

Filling the Void

The two sides share something more than just a common enemy. With the breakdown of the present order, significant sectors on both sides suffer from a stifling spiritual emptiness where they search for meaning beyond self-interest and gratification.

They share a discontent that is often hidden by the feverish activity of modern life. This void causes depression, sadness, and despair that spans all groups involved. It transcends political and economic systems.

What is needed is something so powerful that it can address this void and render the categories of the two groups irrelevant. It must put in place a framework for the real transformation that America needs, not a patch to keep things the same.

Entrance of Another Player

Returning to the Roman analogy, another player emerged as the Empire disintegrated. Amid the civilizational decay, this then politically insignificant player injected vitality into the demoralized Roman and tamed the heart of the barbarian without taking away his dynamism. Upon the ruins of that decadent Empire, this player forged and united the two parties together, Roman and barbarian, and built a glorious civilization.

Of course, God is the player that entered the equation and, through His Church, accomplished what no one dreamed possible with so little.

Something Is Moving

This spiritual transformation that towers over ideologies is what is needed today. It is a proposal so daring that it startles and even terrifies a skeptical and cynical world.

However, there are signs that some conservatives, Roman and barbarian alike, are questioning certain liberal premises and expressing a desire for a grand return to grace and for God to fill the vacuum created by a world without beauty and truth.

Young people, and especially young men, are thinking outside the box and inside the pew in a movement that surprises the most veteran observers and churchmen. Even those from the unfriendly horde are touched by this appeal and are changing their lives drastically.

People are converting. It does not yet involve huge numbers, but something is moving.

Someone Is Moving

Perhaps more importantly, Someone is moving that can change everything. Inside countless souls, God is acting almost without human agency due to the apocalyptic crisis inside the Church. Those touched by grace appear out of nowhere despite the complete lack of evangelization.

These poor souls cry out with Saint Augustine: “Too late have I loved Thee, O Beauty so ancient and so new! Too late have I loved Thee!”

In such transports of ardor and joy, the old idols, modern and postmodern, come crashing down. Nothing seems impossible.

It calls to mind the scene of a similar “impossible” conversion long ago that set in motion the founding of Christendom.

On Christmas Day, 496, Saint Remigius, bishop of Reims, said to Clovis, the pagan king of the Franks, as he baptized him: “Adore what you have burned and burn what you have adored.”

Today’s Romans and barbarians should unite under this same resolution. It is a good place to start a return to order. The politics and economics can come later. First, let the yearnings of so many souls searching for meaning be satisfied.

__________

The featured image is “Battle of Lepanto” (1570s), by Luca Cambiaso, and is in the public domain, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.