SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Ignorant Certainty: On Apocalypse and Empire
Now that the end of the world didn't happen, I can't stop thinking about it. What chutzpah, what a diminished worldview, not simply to make such a prediction, but -- even more incomprehensible, to my relentlessly self-questioning mind -- to know you'll be among the saved.
May 26, 2011
Now that the end of the world didn't happen, I can't stop thinking about it. What chutzpah, what a diminished worldview, not simply to make such a prediction, but -- even more incomprehensible, to my relentlessly self-questioning mind -- to know you'll be among the saved.
In 1011, a guy like Harold Camping would probably have been able to generate more panic than bemusement. A millennium later, with science taught in the public schools and all, we have a little more collective resistance to such thundering certainty leaping from highway billboards. I confess, however, to feeling a deep, reptilian tug last Friday morning, as I saw the sign -- SAVE THIS DATE, MAY 21, 2011, CHRIST IS COMING -- while driving through eastern Wisconsin. Yikes, that's tomorrow.
What lingers for me in the aftermath of "life goes on (at least for a while)" is an alarmed sense of the power of ignorant certainty. Fanatical preachers are nothing more than the caricature of this power, which, in 2011, thrives like a virus in the American body politic.
"Today we presented legislation that advances our national security aims, provides the proper care and logistical support for our fighting forces, and helps us meet the defense challenges of the 21st century."
Thus spake U.S. Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, in a press release two weeks ago announcing the committee's approval of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 -- which contains provisions so alarming it has been dubbed, by David Swanson, "arguably the worst bill ever considered likely to pass into law," and even sparked an editorial in the New York Times.
Among the egregious provisions in the legislation, which awaits a vote on the House floor, as Swanson and many others have pointed out, are a crippling of the implementation of the new START treaty and a halting of the process of nuclear weapons reduction, keeping our nuke stockpile at Cold War levels; a total allotment of $690 billion for the Departments of Defense and Energy (including $119 billion to fund the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, $18 billion for ongoing nuclear weapons research and development, and funding for various other highly questionable weapons programs and systems); and allowance for the indefinite detention of current and future Guantanamo prisoners.
But the big, scary thing about this piece of legislation -- the thing that summons a newer, deeper irrationality from the pit of our collective paranoia -- is the provision that would expand the "war on terror," at presidential discretion, to the whole world.
As the Times editorial put it: "Osama bin Laden had been dead only a few days when House Republicans began their efforts to expand, rather than contract, the war on terror. Not content with the president's wide-ranging powers to pursue the archcriminals of Sept. 11, 2001, Republicans want to authorize the military to pursue virtually anyone suspected of terrorism, anywhere on earth, from now to the end of time."
The bill circumvents Congress and the Constitution and would allow the Executive Branch to wage war solely at its own discretion. "It would allow military attacks against not just Al Qaeda and the Taliban," the Times explains, "but also any 'associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States.'" It authorizes, with its excruciatingly vague language, a sort of global manifest destiny.
And this brings me back to the idea of ignorant certainty -- a certainty about who should live and who should die -- that is the driving force not just behind religious fanaticism but, far more dangerously, behind the politics of empire.
The ignorant certainty of Harold Camping is essentially innocuous. He wasn't calling on believers to dispatch suspected sinners to their just deserts in eternity, simply to relax in the belief that God would do it himself. But the ignorant certainty of the politically powerful leaves nothing to God. The killing is done on their initiative and at their discretion -- and it's real.
This is war, and it has thrived as vibrantly in democracies as it has in autocracies. It could even be argued that the democratization of war and glory, the promotion of everyman from squire to swordsman, has fanned the flames of war. Consider the history of the 20th century (and the first tenth of the 21st). Democratic governments, while generally holding themselves blameless, have been responsible for a large percentage of the carnage wrought by modern, industrial wars.
And the United States of America, the original democracy, now devotes about two-thirds of its energy and treasure to war and defense. With the invention of the "war on terror" -- a term as vague and meaningless as "war on evil" or "war on sin" -- the political true believers and the economic beneficiaries of war found a way to keep the game alive indefinitely. NDAA 2012 would create the legal framework to disconnect "terror" from the 9/11 atrocities and guarantee the future of war, at the mere cost of the national soul.
Something feels like it's about to end. It's not the world, just what's left of American democracy. Once an interesting experiment in human sanity, it may prove unequal to its internal forces of fear and greed.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Robert C. Koehler
Robert Koehler is an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist and nationally syndicated writer. Koehler has been the recipient of multiple awards for writing and journalism from organizations including the National Newspaper Association, Suburban Newspapers of America, and the Chicago Headline Club. He's a regular contributor to such high-profile websites as Common Dreams and the Huffington Post. Eschewing political labels, Koehler considers himself a "peace journalist. He has been an editor at Tribune Media Services and a reporter, columnist and copy desk chief at Lerner Newspapers, a chain of neighborhood and suburban newspapers in the Chicago area. Koehler launched his column in 1999. Born in Detroit and raised in suburban Dearborn, Koehler has lived in Chicago since 1976. He earned a master's degree in creative writing from Columbia College and has taught writing at both the college and high school levels. Koehler is a widower and single parent. He explores both conditions at great depth in his writing. His book, "Courage Grows Strong at the Wound" (2016). Contact him or visit his website at commonwonders.com.
Now that the end of the world didn't happen, I can't stop thinking about it. What chutzpah, what a diminished worldview, not simply to make such a prediction, but -- even more incomprehensible, to my relentlessly self-questioning mind -- to know you'll be among the saved.
In 1011, a guy like Harold Camping would probably have been able to generate more panic than bemusement. A millennium later, with science taught in the public schools and all, we have a little more collective resistance to such thundering certainty leaping from highway billboards. I confess, however, to feeling a deep, reptilian tug last Friday morning, as I saw the sign -- SAVE THIS DATE, MAY 21, 2011, CHRIST IS COMING -- while driving through eastern Wisconsin. Yikes, that's tomorrow.
What lingers for me in the aftermath of "life goes on (at least for a while)" is an alarmed sense of the power of ignorant certainty. Fanatical preachers are nothing more than the caricature of this power, which, in 2011, thrives like a virus in the American body politic.
"Today we presented legislation that advances our national security aims, provides the proper care and logistical support for our fighting forces, and helps us meet the defense challenges of the 21st century."
Thus spake U.S. Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, in a press release two weeks ago announcing the committee's approval of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 -- which contains provisions so alarming it has been dubbed, by David Swanson, "arguably the worst bill ever considered likely to pass into law," and even sparked an editorial in the New York Times.
Among the egregious provisions in the legislation, which awaits a vote on the House floor, as Swanson and many others have pointed out, are a crippling of the implementation of the new START treaty and a halting of the process of nuclear weapons reduction, keeping our nuke stockpile at Cold War levels; a total allotment of $690 billion for the Departments of Defense and Energy (including $119 billion to fund the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, $18 billion for ongoing nuclear weapons research and development, and funding for various other highly questionable weapons programs and systems); and allowance for the indefinite detention of current and future Guantanamo prisoners.
But the big, scary thing about this piece of legislation -- the thing that summons a newer, deeper irrationality from the pit of our collective paranoia -- is the provision that would expand the "war on terror," at presidential discretion, to the whole world.
As the Times editorial put it: "Osama bin Laden had been dead only a few days when House Republicans began their efforts to expand, rather than contract, the war on terror. Not content with the president's wide-ranging powers to pursue the archcriminals of Sept. 11, 2001, Republicans want to authorize the military to pursue virtually anyone suspected of terrorism, anywhere on earth, from now to the end of time."
The bill circumvents Congress and the Constitution and would allow the Executive Branch to wage war solely at its own discretion. "It would allow military attacks against not just Al Qaeda and the Taliban," the Times explains, "but also any 'associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States.'" It authorizes, with its excruciatingly vague language, a sort of global manifest destiny.
And this brings me back to the idea of ignorant certainty -- a certainty about who should live and who should die -- that is the driving force not just behind religious fanaticism but, far more dangerously, behind the politics of empire.
The ignorant certainty of Harold Camping is essentially innocuous. He wasn't calling on believers to dispatch suspected sinners to their just deserts in eternity, simply to relax in the belief that God would do it himself. But the ignorant certainty of the politically powerful leaves nothing to God. The killing is done on their initiative and at their discretion -- and it's real.
This is war, and it has thrived as vibrantly in democracies as it has in autocracies. It could even be argued that the democratization of war and glory, the promotion of everyman from squire to swordsman, has fanned the flames of war. Consider the history of the 20th century (and the first tenth of the 21st). Democratic governments, while generally holding themselves blameless, have been responsible for a large percentage of the carnage wrought by modern, industrial wars.
And the United States of America, the original democracy, now devotes about two-thirds of its energy and treasure to war and defense. With the invention of the "war on terror" -- a term as vague and meaningless as "war on evil" or "war on sin" -- the political true believers and the economic beneficiaries of war found a way to keep the game alive indefinitely. NDAA 2012 would create the legal framework to disconnect "terror" from the 9/11 atrocities and guarantee the future of war, at the mere cost of the national soul.
Something feels like it's about to end. It's not the world, just what's left of American democracy. Once an interesting experiment in human sanity, it may prove unequal to its internal forces of fear and greed.
Robert C. Koehler
Robert Koehler is an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist and nationally syndicated writer. Koehler has been the recipient of multiple awards for writing and journalism from organizations including the National Newspaper Association, Suburban Newspapers of America, and the Chicago Headline Club. He's a regular contributor to such high-profile websites as Common Dreams and the Huffington Post. Eschewing political labels, Koehler considers himself a "peace journalist. He has been an editor at Tribune Media Services and a reporter, columnist and copy desk chief at Lerner Newspapers, a chain of neighborhood and suburban newspapers in the Chicago area. Koehler launched his column in 1999. Born in Detroit and raised in suburban Dearborn, Koehler has lived in Chicago since 1976. He earned a master's degree in creative writing from Columbia College and has taught writing at both the college and high school levels. Koehler is a widower and single parent. He explores both conditions at great depth in his writing. His book, "Courage Grows Strong at the Wound" (2016). Contact him or visit his website at commonwonders.com.
Now that the end of the world didn't happen, I can't stop thinking about it. What chutzpah, what a diminished worldview, not simply to make such a prediction, but -- even more incomprehensible, to my relentlessly self-questioning mind -- to know you'll be among the saved.
In 1011, a guy like Harold Camping would probably have been able to generate more panic than bemusement. A millennium later, with science taught in the public schools and all, we have a little more collective resistance to such thundering certainty leaping from highway billboards. I confess, however, to feeling a deep, reptilian tug last Friday morning, as I saw the sign -- SAVE THIS DATE, MAY 21, 2011, CHRIST IS COMING -- while driving through eastern Wisconsin. Yikes, that's tomorrow.
What lingers for me in the aftermath of "life goes on (at least for a while)" is an alarmed sense of the power of ignorant certainty. Fanatical preachers are nothing more than the caricature of this power, which, in 2011, thrives like a virus in the American body politic.
"Today we presented legislation that advances our national security aims, provides the proper care and logistical support for our fighting forces, and helps us meet the defense challenges of the 21st century."
Thus spake U.S. Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, in a press release two weeks ago announcing the committee's approval of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 -- which contains provisions so alarming it has been dubbed, by David Swanson, "arguably the worst bill ever considered likely to pass into law," and even sparked an editorial in the New York Times.
Among the egregious provisions in the legislation, which awaits a vote on the House floor, as Swanson and many others have pointed out, are a crippling of the implementation of the new START treaty and a halting of the process of nuclear weapons reduction, keeping our nuke stockpile at Cold War levels; a total allotment of $690 billion for the Departments of Defense and Energy (including $119 billion to fund the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, $18 billion for ongoing nuclear weapons research and development, and funding for various other highly questionable weapons programs and systems); and allowance for the indefinite detention of current and future Guantanamo prisoners.
But the big, scary thing about this piece of legislation -- the thing that summons a newer, deeper irrationality from the pit of our collective paranoia -- is the provision that would expand the "war on terror," at presidential discretion, to the whole world.
As the Times editorial put it: "Osama bin Laden had been dead only a few days when House Republicans began their efforts to expand, rather than contract, the war on terror. Not content with the president's wide-ranging powers to pursue the archcriminals of Sept. 11, 2001, Republicans want to authorize the military to pursue virtually anyone suspected of terrorism, anywhere on earth, from now to the end of time."
The bill circumvents Congress and the Constitution and would allow the Executive Branch to wage war solely at its own discretion. "It would allow military attacks against not just Al Qaeda and the Taliban," the Times explains, "but also any 'associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States.'" It authorizes, with its excruciatingly vague language, a sort of global manifest destiny.
And this brings me back to the idea of ignorant certainty -- a certainty about who should live and who should die -- that is the driving force not just behind religious fanaticism but, far more dangerously, behind the politics of empire.
The ignorant certainty of Harold Camping is essentially innocuous. He wasn't calling on believers to dispatch suspected sinners to their just deserts in eternity, simply to relax in the belief that God would do it himself. But the ignorant certainty of the politically powerful leaves nothing to God. The killing is done on their initiative and at their discretion -- and it's real.
This is war, and it has thrived as vibrantly in democracies as it has in autocracies. It could even be argued that the democratization of war and glory, the promotion of everyman from squire to swordsman, has fanned the flames of war. Consider the history of the 20th century (and the first tenth of the 21st). Democratic governments, while generally holding themselves blameless, have been responsible for a large percentage of the carnage wrought by modern, industrial wars.
And the United States of America, the original democracy, now devotes about two-thirds of its energy and treasure to war and defense. With the invention of the "war on terror" -- a term as vague and meaningless as "war on evil" or "war on sin" -- the political true believers and the economic beneficiaries of war found a way to keep the game alive indefinitely. NDAA 2012 would create the legal framework to disconnect "terror" from the 9/11 atrocities and guarantee the future of war, at the mere cost of the national soul.
Something feels like it's about to end. It's not the world, just what's left of American democracy. Once an interesting experiment in human sanity, it may prove unequal to its internal forces of fear and greed.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.