I have to add here that the writer of the WS article has a very fragile grasp of what "apocalypse" really means. By equating it with Armageddon, he confuses the discourses of apocalyptic and eschatology.
Apocalpytic is the unveiling (Koine Greek: ἀποκάλυψις apocálypsis: uncovering) of a spiritual reality, in which sense the struggles to make sense of racism in the United States may rightly be called apocalyptic, and the attempts of many conservatives to deny the validity of these struggles, are simply Oz's attempt to pull the curtain closed again to cover a flagrant spiritual "nekkidness." (Naked: unclothed; nekkid, unclothed and up to no good."
By contrast, eschatology, the study of "last things" (Koine: ἔσχατος, eschatos) does concern the end of the world: in Abrahamic terms, the final breaking-in of the Eternal's justice and the remaking of the world.
They are often combined in Christian thought in particular, so this confusion is understandable. Even today, one can see this combination explicated, scientifically if unintentionally, by the harrowing article What would happen if an 800-kiloton nuclear warhead detonated above midtown Manhattan?
), which combines the unveiling of the true cost of our reliance on violence to sustain our political organizations with the final breaking in of God's justice via the execution of mutual assured destruction. However, one must read that article in combination with A Canticle for Leibowitz
to get to the "remaking" part.