National Review Gives Up, Tries Magic
By way of an introduction, I’m a contributor to Vanity Fair and Skeptical Inquirer as well as other random outlets, and the author of one book on intelligent design and another upcoming book on why Thomas Friedman, Charles Krauthammer, and others are symptoms of a broken republic. I’ve written for The Onion, New York Press, National Lampoon, Huffington Post, Skeptic, McSweeney’s, Nerve.com, a bunch of policy journals in the U.S., and some newspapers in Texas and Mexico. I’m also doing some sketch writing for Will Ferrell and Adam McKay’s website Funny or Die with a producer for whom I’m also writing a film treatment. As of two weeks ago I’m an advisor to Wynne LeGrow, the Democratic candidate for Virginia’s 4th congressional district. I’ve served as director of communications for the pro-secular PAC Enlighten the Vote for a couple of years, and I’m the founder of the distributed think-tank Project PM, on which I now spend most of my time. I’m 29 and from Texas, though I’ve also lived in LA, New York, Tanzania, and Mexico.
I’d like to begin here by asking everyone to note that National Review has today put up an article by a certain Joel Rosenberg, who is presented as an expert on the Middle East. This is a wonderful coincidence, as I happen to know a few interesting things about Rosenberg. For instance, he claims to have predicted the last decade of Middle Eastern affairs by interpreting the Book of Ezekiel and other items of ancient Hebrew prophecy. “That’s what I’m basing my novels on,” Rosenberg told CNN in 2006, referring to a series of techno-thrillers he maintains have proven him prophetic. “ I have been invited to the White House, Capitol Hill. Members of Congress, Israelis, Arab leaders all want to understand the Middle East through the – through the lens of biblical prophecies. I’m writing these novels that keep seeming to come true, but we are seeing Bible prophecy, bit by bit, unfold in the Middle East right now.”
According to his website, Rosenberg has quite a track record of predicting the not-so-distant future. “The first page of his first novel – The Last Jihad – puts you inside the cockpit of a hijacked jet, coming in on a kamikaze attack into an American city, which leads to a war with Saddam Hussein over weapons of mass destruction,” it says. “Yet it was written before 9/11, long before the actual war with Iraq.” That actually sounds pretty impressive. I mean, that’s exactly what ended up happening!
Still, though, Rosenberg did indeed write up a scenario in which we’d fight yet another undeclared war against Iraq over WMDs, which certainly ended up happening. Did he predict that 150,000 U.S. troops would be deployed to Iraq, topple Saddam, occupy the country, and find out that there aren’t any WMDs after all? Because that would be pretty impressive if he did. But he didn’t. Instead, his book details how Saddam tries to blow up the U.S. with ICBMs launched from his super-secret ICBM launchers, at which point the U.S. gets all huffy and nukes Baghdad and Tikrit. My memory is a little hazy, but I don’t remember any of that actually happening.
There’s also the matter of Rosenberg’s hijacked airplane, the one that comes in “on a kamikaze attack on an American city.” In Last Jihad, said plane crashes into the presidential motorcade in an attempt to assassinate the commander-in-chief. Well, that didn’t happen, either, but surely the fact that Rosenberg used a plane crashing into an American city as a plot element makes him an extraordinarily important person whose views should be sought out by the White House, Capitol Hill, and Kyra Phillips. But what if he had written a scenario in which terrorists attempt to crash a commercial airliner into the World Trade Center itself, and said scenario had been released in narrative form just a few months before 9/11? That would be more impressive still, right?
In fact, that scenario was indeed written, and said scenario was indeed released in narrative form just a few months before 9/11. But it wasn’t written by Rosenberg, or by any other modern prophet. Rather, it was an episode of the short-lived X-Files spin-off called The Lone Gunmen. I don’t know who the writer was, but I’m pretty sure he hasn’t been invited to Capitol Hill or the White House or even CNN. But why not? Coming up with a scenario in which such a significant event happens before it actually happens is, as we’ve determined, a valuable skill, perhaps even more valuable than Rosenberg’s ability to predict a few things that sort of happen along with a bunch of shit that will never happen at all. As Condoleeza Rice put it during her 2002 testimony before the 9/11 Commission, “No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon… into the World Trade Center, using a plane as a missile.” No one but the guy who wrote that one show with those guys from that other show, that is.
I’m kidding; plenty of people aside from that guy who wrote that one show with those guys from that other show imagined that such a thing could happen, and Condoleeza Rice is, of course, a liar. In 1993, the Pentagon itself commissioned a study in which the possibility of airplanes being used as weapons against domestic U.S. targets was looked into; similar reports on the topic conducted by various other agencies would follow over the next few years. In 1995, an Islamic terrorist plot to crash eleven planes into various world landmarks was foiled by international authorities. In 1998, the Federal Aviation Administration warned airlines to be on the alert for hijackings by followers of bin Laden, and a number of reports that circulated through the intelligence community over the next two years warned that said followers might try to crash airliners into skyscrapers. And in 1999, Columbine assailants Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold wrote out their plan to shoot up their school, blow up the building, escape to the airport, hijack a plane, and crash it into New York City, but only got around to doing the first part. Had they refrained from doing any of it and instead simply described that last event in a book, they probably could have looked forward to lucrative post-9/11 careers as novelists/cable news mainstays, insomuch as that they would have been “writing these books that keep seeming to come true” to the same extent that Rosenberg does.
Ah, but Rosenberg has written other books as well. Back to his website: “His second thriller – The Last Days – opens with the death of Yasser Arafat and a U.S. diplomatic convoy ambushed in Gaza. Six days before The Last Days was published in hardcover, a U.S. diplomatic convoy was ambushed in Gaza. Thirteen months later, Yasser Arafat died.”
That a U.S. diplomatic convoy might be ambushed in Gaza is hardly a tough bet; the reason that it was a U.S. diplomatic convoy in the first place, and not a U.S. diplomatic bunch-of-cars-driving around-individually-without-a-care-in-the-world-through-a-very-dangerous-region-where-anti-U.S.-sentiment-is-high-and-everyone-is-armed, is that Gaza is a very dangerous region where anti-U.S. sentiment is high and everyone is armed.
In fairness to Rosenberg, his plot points don’t simply involve things that have already happened several times or things that have almost happened several times or things that are happening right now; occasionally, he goes out on a limb by describing events that can only happen once, such as the death of Yasser Arafat mentioned above. The reader will no doubt recall that Arafat did indeed die of health complications in 2003, having reached the age of 75 in a region where life expectancy is a bit lower than that and also after having been in and out of hospitals for several years, which is generally the sort of situation that leads one to die. And so it would have been pretty easy to predict in 2003 that Arafat might very well pass away in 2003 or 2004 from a combination of disease and plain old age.
But as easy as such a prediction might have been to make, it was still too difficult for our prophetic friend Rosenberg; The Last Days opens with Yasser Arafat being blown up in a suicide blast along with the U.S. secretary of state… in 2010. So, although Rosenberg does indeed predict the death of Arafat, whereas many people less astute than himself had no doubt predicted that Arafat might live forever, the actual death of Arafat, coming seven years before his fictional technothriller death in 2010, actually made Rosenberg’s own scenario not more accurate, but less accurate and, in fact, impossible. Nonetheless, this is one of a handful of plot points that Rosenberg uses as an example of how he’s managed to write “these books that keep seeming to come true.”
This is the person whom the editor of National Review has decided to publish as one of publication’s contributing Middle East experts.
Welcome. Nice post although mocking the NR is an easy target. Good job though, A skeptic: very cool.Report
Just to clarify (because I might not be the only one was confused) the Joel Rosenberg described above is *not* Joel Rosenberg the SF writer.Report
“Lone Gunman” !!! Man, I gotta order the cd.
Really looking forward to another librul perspective here at the LOOG!
Whas wrong with wizardry? Doesn’t Imam Barry do his economics with bones?Report
@Robert Cheeks, Goat entrails Bob. Obama has a deep respect for the classics.Report
@North, …excellent N, a refrigerator moment. Did you see BO’s older brother got married again, NO. 3, I believe but it’s ok, he’s Muslim…but, Barry’s not, arhumph!Report
@Robert Cheeks, I don’t think GOPers should be throwing stones Bob, what’s Newt on? Number five?Report
@Robert Cheeks, N, I wasn’t being critcal of the number of wives, rather Muslims are allowed several wives, some concubines, and whatever…not that he was divorced. BTW, the dude lives in a hut with one of those steel roofs you see in Haiti, I mean can’t his bro hep the dude out? Send me his address and I’ll send him a couple of bucks and I’m a Paleo for cryin’ out loud!
Hey, let’s start a “HEP BARRY’S BRO” fund raiser here at LOOG?Report
@Robert Cheeks, Guys, this exchange had me rolling. Quit your day jobs and put this show on the road.Report
@Robert Cheeks, A paleolithic GOP fan-boy? Well ain’t that unusual. How’s the tailoring on your SS uniform? Looking like a spiffy little Wiking are we?Report
@Robert Cheeks, Alan, dude, I supported you in all your political races…you’re my kind of Af-Am! Re: the uniform, it’s a little snug in the bellie, but the pistol holster is spiffy, indeed!Report
Spot on. Loved the bit about Condoleeza Rice. Her meticulously scripted bullshit will live in infamy.Report
I guess this is piling on, but the notion that nobody ever thought of hijacking a plane and crashing it into important stuff doesn’t square with the fact that a guy hijacked a plane in 1974 and tried to crash it into the White House. Sean Penn made a crappy movie about it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25246-2005Jan20.htmlReport
Welcome to the League!Report
@Jason Kuznicki, I just logged on to second that.Report
@Rufus F., Word. Look forward to reading your stuff, Barrett.Report
Welcome!Report
Actually, I think the most disturbing thing about the NR article, now that I’ve read it, is this:
“By large margins, American voters instinctively understand that the strengthening of the Iranian-Hezbollah alliance poses not only a grave and growing danger to Israel, but also to U.S. national security.”
Instinctively? Is this the kind of thing for which you’re supposed to rely on “instinct”? Like it’s just kind of obvious, or ingrained? I am not an expert on the Middle East by any means, but it seems pretty clear that the historical, economic, cultural and religious forces at work require a great deal of ANALYSIS. Not a hunch or an inkling or a sixth sense. I mean, if instincts are all you need, why hire an “expert” to write about the Middle East at all? You could just hire the guy who drives the ice cream truck, or maybe a kindergarten teacher in Dubuque. In fact, wouldn’t that be better, as their instincts wouldn’t be all gummed up with facts and the like?
How in the WORLD can you rely on instinct to know that the Iran-Hezbollah alliance is in fact growing? And then, beyond that, that it means a grave threat to Israel. (You could just as easily assume that it’s a sign of weakness, and therefore that Israel is more secure as ever.) And then, beyond that, that it’s obvious that a threat to Israel is necessarily a threat to the US.
OK. Sure. I bet someone could make plausible arguments along these lines. But you’d have to make the arguments. Not rely on “instinct.”Report
@Sam M, That’s become a pretty common assertion over the past decade, that the “American people” have direct and mystical access to knowledge that is ignored by the “elites.”Report
@Barrett Brown,
Past decade? What do you think “In your heart you know he’s right” was about?Report
@Mike Schilling,
And in their guts, they knew he was nuts. Intuition, you see.Report
@Mike Schilling, C’mon Mikie, can you say “Great Society?” That sob, LBJ, tried to get Uncle Bob’s ass shot off! That’s the kinda thing that’ll make you a Republican!Report
@Sam M,
Maybe he’s just a lousy writer. Try it like this: “IF it were shown that the Iranian-Hezbollah alliance was strengthening, THEN the American voters would instinctively understand the threat.”
But that hasn’t been shown, at least not by this point in Rosenberg’s article. Yes, Ahmadinejad did go to Lebanon to make some trade deals with the Lebanese government. But that’s not quite the same as Hezbollah.Report
Also, Barrett, now that I’ve had a chance to read it — great post. This was awesome.Report
It’s the “League of Ordinary Gentlemen”. Although the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is good too (anyone know when Century part 2 is coming out?)Report
Erik, great choice to add Barrett as an Ordinary Gentleman. If this post is any indication, we can expect good things.
I’m surprised no one has yet pointed out that Tom Clancy had a deranged airline pilot in Debt of Honor suicide-attack the Capitol, decapitating the U.S. Government and vaulting Clancy’s protagonist into the Oval Office. Debt of Honor was released in 1994. An even earlier example of this sort of thing would be Thomas Harris’ first big novel, Black Sunday. In 1975, Harris envisioned terrorists suicide-attacking the Super Bowl. That one got made into a mediocre movie, too.
No one calls either Clancy or Harris “prophets” because they were clearly writing thrillers for profit. How is Rosenberg any different than these other two guys?Report
@Transplanted Lawyer, Rosenberg is different from those other guys because they are successful writers.Report
@Califlander, Actually, Rosenberg is extraordinarily successful.Report
@Transplanted Lawyer, Rosenberg cites the Bible as a source of inspiration, which means his prophecies that don’t come true are true.Report
Welcome Barrett! I’m trying to think of the last time I enjoyed reading a blog post this much. I’m coming up blank.Report
@Mark Thompson,
I can. Any of Barrett’s many destructions of the dolts at Jeff Godlstein’s place or his absolute and total embarrassment of John Calhoun’s more racist son, Robert Stacy McCain. Truly a nice additionReport
> So, although Rosenberg does indeed predict the death of Arafat, whereas many
> people less astute than himself had no doubt predicted that Arafat might live
> forever
I call BS. It’s pretty clear that although there are many people who are approximately as astute as he is, there are very few people who are less astute than he is.
BTW, it turns out that this guy isn’t the same one who wrote a bunch of really hackneyed fantasy novels based on the premise of a bunch of D&D players being transposed into the fantasy universe that their characters were in. (In case you’re wondering, whacky hijinks do indeed ensue.) Pity, I was looking forward to seeing what he had to say about his earlier work.
I wonder if we could piss him off by sending him lots of letters saying that his new books are fine but ‘…I found your Guardians of the Flame series to be much more realistic’ anyway.
-fredReport
@Fred Fnord
It’d be even more fun to pick aspects of the other author’s fantasy novels and ask what they foretell for our foreign entanglements.
And if he tries to correct you, ignore it and keep asking.Report
Love your stuff, Barrett! Keep it coming.Report
Great post! I actually read The Last Jihad and it was OK for the first half but then it became clear why Rush recommended it.
As for predictions, the guy sounds like he’s breaking his arm patting himself on the back. I co-authored a novel about a global warming conspiracy and several fictional things in it came true during the writing process. This was not a surprise, really, and does not make me smarter than anyone else. If you’re writing a book tied closely to current events and you DON’T end up predicting a few things? That’s what would be surprising.Report
Welcome, Barrett! Truly – fantastic post.Report
I’ve been drinking ‘tussin all morning. Let me welcome you to the League as well.Report
Arafat? You’d get more points (and make some real Vegas money, I’d bet!) if you could predict the death of the unstoppable bull: Abe Vigoda.Report