In a televised speech, Benjamin Netanyahu evoked a passage from Will and Ariel Durant’s seminal historical work, The Lessons of History, sparking significant controversy regarding the “superiority of Genghis Khan over Christ.” Netanyahu stated: “It is not enough to be moral, it is not enough to be just... history proves, unfortunately, that Christ has no superiority over Genghis Khan. Because if you are strong, ruthless, and powerful enough, evil will overcome good, and aggression will defeat moderation.”
Upon a careful reading of this profound philosophical work, it
becomes evident that Netanyahu has distorted the authors’ ideas to serve a
narrative centered on the use of excessive, brute force and to justify
annihilation. By suggesting that evil triumphs over good and that Christ’s
humanitarian values have no place in history, Netanyahu posits ideas that
fundamentally contradict the book’s core arguments and final conclusions.
What Lies Within The Lessons of History?
At the outset of his analytical study, Durant poses a
fundamental question: Have you found in history merely “a discouraging chamber
of horrors”... or have you derived from it any “illumination of our present
condition”? He adds that the essence of these inquiries lies in determining the
true nature of “victory.” While history echoes with the names of conquerors who
forged vast empires through “iron and fire,” the question remains: Do these
figures represent “victory” in its existential sense, or are they merely
biological accidents in the context of power struggles?
Durant begins with the
premise that “history is a fragment of biology.” In this vast
laboratory, states are subject to the same laws of “natural selection”
and the struggle for existence. From this context arises his famous
observation: “Nature and history do not agree with our conceptions of good and
bad; they define good as that which survives, and bad as that which goes under;
and the universe has no prejudice in favor of Christ as against Genghis Khan.”
In this characterization, the book provides a “realist”
monitoring of the mechanics of material history. Material power—encompassing
armies, economics, and technology—is the final arbiter in “momentary”
conflicts. States that ignore the logic of power and rely solely on moral
idealism often vanish under the feet of rising powers that are more “adaptable”
and ruthless.
However, in discussing
the impact of Christ, Durant points out that the moral development introduced
by Jesus became a tool for dismantling old theologies. He notes: “Just as the moral development of the Hellenes had weakened their
belief in the quarrelsome and adulterous deities of Olympus... so the
development of the Christian ethic slowly eroded Christian theology. Christ
destroyed Jehovah” (meaning that the moral image of Christ
deconstructed the image of the ancient, vengeful deity).
Material Victory vs. Lasting Meaning
In the final chapter, “Is
Progress Real?”, Durant categorizes the influence of Christ as part of “civilizational immortality.” He argues that “material
victory” is a quantitative and spatial conquest. Genghis Khan, Alexander, and
Napoleon achieved staggering material victories, yet these are “time-bound”
triumphs. Durant posits that material power carries the seeds of its own
destruction within the very logic of concentration. Economic and political
history is a periodic pulse between “contraction,” which mobilizes wealth and
power in a few hands, and a forced “expansion” that deconstructs this
concentration when it exceeds the limits of administrative capacity or social
endurance. Thus, decay becomes an inevitable tax on the imbalance between
efficiency and justice.
Within the book's broader
philosophy, Durant notes that material history is a “tiring repetition of past mistakes on a larger stage.”
States that achieve only material victories leave behind “ruins and graves,”
but do not necessarily leave behind a lasting “meaning.” This type of victory
can be described as “baroque”; it breaks rules and
patterns for a time but does not change the essence of human nature, which
remains competitive and greedy.
The Permanent Victory
Toward the conclusion,
Durant transitions from the “realist historian” to the “humanist philosopher,”
proposing the concept of a “permanent victory” that transcends military might.
He concludes that “a great civilization does not entirely die”
(non omnis moritur); rather, it remains alive as a “connective tissue” of human history. Citing the
classic model of the transmission of Greek civilization to Rome, he asserts
that “permanent victory” is not military but a “cumulative process”
built on ideas, values, and aesthetics. True progress is not measured by
material or technological power, but by the “increasing abundance,
preservation, transmission, and use of this heritage.”
Durant concludes his
vision with an optimistic outlook that transcends historical materialism. For
him, history is not merely a “record of crimes and follies”; through
consciousness, it transforms into a “celestial city” and
a “spacious country of the mind.” In this city, saints,
creators, and philosophers remain alive through their impact, while the “generals”
who left nothing but transient dominance fade away.
The ultimate lesson
Durant offers is that lasting victory resides in the civilizational “trace.” A
true civilization gathers the fragments of human heritage to
bequeath them to future generations as a lighthouse, protecting humanity from “sliding back into savagery.”
