Guns of Infinity



Considering the fact that we’re toying with the idea of instituting a universal basic income up here, we might actually be able to see if that hypothesis has any basis in reality at all.

It’d be like the Benedict Option! Only without the common values, social cohesion, or human empathy!


Objectivists do have common values. They kick out everyone who doesn’t mindlessly toe the party line.

(Note that, except for the fact that children tend to be involved, I’m actually pretty fond of the Benedict Option. You want to make an ideal society by going off the grid? Hey, awesome. Let’s see if you can make it work!)


It’s appalling that people consider hurting people who are good worth more than potentially helping the bad.
Especially when they are also actively helping people who are much much worse.


Ultimately, it comes out of this weird prosperity gospel thing which intertwines itself in the foundations of American culture. The “American Dream” teaches that if you work hard and keep your head up, you’ll become successful. The dark side of that belief is that it implies everyone who’s poor or disenfranchised or otherwise disadvantaged through accidents of birth or environment are only that way because they didn’t work hard enough.


Hey, @Everyone I’m looking for recommendations on literature about history, especially regarding the topic of giant, sprawling empires, and the morality and justifications of warfare.


Check out WorldCat it lists books (scholarly I believe) articles pictures etc. I use it occasionally to find books and such. You can often find PDFs of academic books online as well. Not to mention if you want to look up contemporary thoughts on a lot of civilizations (sadly mostly western) it’s rather easy to find Lucy’s history or Greek historians writings and such.


it one are most infamous half truth. Our first real world examples of I was out in the state that were living in the republic particular the early republic Rawly objectified man either in slavery or slave wages and terrible compensation.


I think the most unfortunate part of the “Benedict Option” is that it forgets the part about how Christianity was founded where the “empire” was openly hostile to the faith, and the solution then was not Christian communes. The solution then was to live among the people, preach the Gospel and accept martyrdom if necessary.

This current siege mentality smacks of extremism, and also forgets a lot of history.


One more than we deserve if you ask me :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:.

On a more serious note, we do have the ocasional good music, obviously that Fado, only existing in Portugal (the “saudade”, a word almost impossible to fully translate, had to have a bright side, no?), is the main reference in that category. Still, our candidates to the Eurovision, as far as I can remember, have absolutely sucked for a long time. This year we got a good one, and apparently Eurovision decided to reward us for not making their ears bleed as usual. :smiley:

Thanks for the congrats. Still, I would be a much more happy person if we ever won the literature Nobel a second time. But I guess we only get one absolutely amazing writer with some generations between, and never again the likes of Saramago, Camões or even Pessoa.

Until then, we will need to get excited with winning Eurovision and being the European champions of football (or soccer, to our american friends). Not bad for our sense of self-worth, quite on the contrary, despite the fact that we probably didn’t deserved any of them (can’t speak for Eurovision, but we are the least worthy winners of the football European Cup since 2004, at least).

Thanks. Forgive me if I can’t really comment on the Netherlands’ performance, but I haven’t seen the show this year.

Our dusty imperialist notions are infiltrating it, aren’t they? “Of course Israel, Turkey and Canada can join Eurovision. Everyone can join, because they still are our subjects, they just like to pretend they aren’t, those damned brats!” :imp:

Well, Roman Ancient authors have some sound and interesting considerations on those topics when it comes to the Roman Empire, especially if we throw some philosophy onto it, but I have never dealt directly with extensive modern historiography on the subject, and you would hardly want to read a ton of ancient texts.

What is the objective of the readings? For a school paper, for college, for a post-graduation / research paper or just for fun?


Technically, the Benedict Option doesn’t obviate any of that. There’s no obligation to live in communes or anything. As far as I can understand, it means setting yourself apart culturally and politically from the wider world, while primarily relying on social networks built along common codes of behaviour and values. I have a friend who’s pretty into that sort of thing, and he still comes over, rolls dice and pretends to be a supervillain with us every Sunday afternoon.

If anything, I’ve found that it’s the thoroughly politicised Christians (evangelicals especially) who buy into the siege mentality the most. Since so much of their social capital is tied up in dominance of the moral and political discourse, allowing for criticism and alternative viewpoints genuinely seems like an existential threat.

Dreher’s position (IIRC) is more like “the siege is over, we can’t rely on walls to protect us, but we can still rely on each other”.

Also, YMMV on how “hostile” the Romans were to early Christianity. It tended to vary from Emperor to Emperor.


It also tends to ignore how such siege mentality ineveitably wound up, with punishing economic and societal failures due to exclusion of any ideas espoused by certain foreign groups. If Rome hadn’t adopted the best of every civilization it conquered or came into contact with, it wouldn’t have been so successful, and when it did stop adapting and incorporating those ideas it stagnated and fell. Among a myriad of other reasons of course. Rome wasn’t a particularly tolerant society, but they would have looked at certain modern day groups and countries and gone “isn’t that a bit far?” Which is saying something.


Sometimes. The whole commune thing was there from the beginning, even if it didn’t get ISO Standardized until St. Benedict and St. Augustine (and there’s nothing wrong with monasticism either, except in the form that nunneries took because men were scared of women who didn’t want to be their property). It revived during the 1600s among Calvinists in England and France, as a specific conclusion from Calvinist theology (and, y’know, because they were kinda under genuine siege then).

The siege mentality here is because these Christians have to live among people who don’t share their values, and they really don’t want to do that. But again, I’m cool with “fine, screw you all, we’ll go somewhere where we can do it our way.” It’s just harder to do that nowadays because there’s no frontiers left. Even in, say, Canada’s wild spaces, you’ll still have people coming across your community, and there’ll still be dudes in stylish red jackets checking up on you to make sure that your theology doesn’t involve marrying twelve-year-olds.


This kind of discussion usually ends with historians trying to explain things about the roman hostility and violence over christians, and christians becoming really defensive, slightly offended, and absolutely skeptical of what is being told. In that sense, roman religion is highly alien to our definition of religion, and that is, naturally, hard to understand if one is too connected with modern religious dogmas, culture, and religious thought, which is completely natural. We can go down this road, I am just saying the most probable outcome.

Martyrdom wasn’t seen as a possible necessity, it was craved for, at least by a not so smal number of early christians.

If we compare Rome to the Middle and Modern Ages, yes, they were amazingly tolerant. By our standards? No, obviously not.


Theological offense no one wants to die but the act of martyrdom self was the ultimate expression of walking in the image of Christ symbolizes innocent death. The most to try to emulate the most important part that Christian miss his compassion.


Well I can’t speak for soccer, really the only times that registers on my radar is if there’s another homophobic or hooligan incident and/or FIFA is an accomplice in committing gross human rights violations again.:unamused:
At least Eurovision will let me get pleasantly drunk.:wink:

I’m afraid my profession has rendered me a far less eager reader of literature and fiction then I used to be, except if it is interactive of course (or has an audiobook for in the car.):expressionless:
I get most of my entertainment those days from the occasional gathering with friends, gardening, walking or of course videogames.

True, I’ve heard Kazakhstan may try to enter, but of course I’ve heard that one before. Still if anyone should be able to enter it would be Canada, particularly now that CETA basically ropes them into the European empire again (and seeks to doom anything remotely social or democratic in all of our countries).


Even for it’s time in the classical age, many Eastern civilizations tended to adopt a live and let them pay taxes. Whereas Roman society tended to be a live more like a Roman, we keep what we like and tax you. Not to mention some of the successor states that’s integrated other cultures rather than dominating them. Those where the exception and not the rule of course, Asia Minor loved a good Galatian bashing from time to time. Though they tended to get trounced instead of drive them out.


Romanization was promoted, yes. But it wasn’t forced. Speaking of the Roman Empire and Roman religion isn’t talking about a relatively uniform world, quite on the contrary. There were big differences from region to region. And besides, I didn’t understood the “we keep what we like” part. Is it a reference on the pillaging? That was an universal reality back then, not a roman one.


That’s a reference to Roman Syncretism, and the idea of taking local gods and fitting them into the pantheon.


Well, Roman Syncretism just shows how the Romanization wasn’t a cultural conquest, but a quite “two-way” kind of construction.


I’m curious, if Tierra would have had complete and utter victory and occupied Antar, what would that have looked like?