How often...

[SBC]

I think that many are unfamiliar with this quasi-right wing internet phenomenon.

Rootless young men, bereft of identity, glory, challenge, etc., have begun asking each other on young masculinist social media, "How often do you think about the Roman Empire?"

It's become a sort of joke. For instance:





While I deeply sympathize with the phenomenon, and am a proponent of traditional gender roles, masculine challenge and purpose, the potential (but limited) good of civic identity, and the importance of a cause large than oneself ... the fact is that

(a) this kind of ideation is no more the solution to postmodern man's abstraction from purpose and identity than is LARPing, video games, or pornography.

(b) if you're going to pine whistfully for an empire ... get a better Empire than Rome. Roman emperors were characterized by perversions that the most debased of you would blanch at, and the Roman empire was the incarnation of the grossest cruelty.

Think of it this way:
When you watch Gladiator (a great film), what gets you pumped is NOT ... NOT ... the Roman empire, but Maximus's opposition to everything that the Roman empire stood for.
The Roman empire is the *bad guy* in Gladiator (and in history).

Long to be a Maximus, yes. That is the opposite of Rome.

 

[Winnipeger]

G? Is the Answer G?

I think its G.

Ding ding ding!

We have a winner!

 

[Winnipeger]

I think that many are unfamiliar with this quasi-right wing internet phenomenon.

Rootless young men, bereft of identity, glory, challenge, etc., have begun asking each other on young masculinist social media, "How often do you think about the Roman Empire?"

It's become a sort of joke. For instance:


View attachment 267937


While I deeply sympathize with the phenomenon, and am a proponent of traditional gender roles, masculine challenge and purpose, the potential (but limited) good of civic identity, and the importance of a cause large than oneself ... the fact is that

(a) this kind of ideation is no more the solution to postmodern man's abstraction from purpose and identity than is LARPing, video games, or pornography.

(b) if you're going to pine whistfully for an empire ... get a better Empire than Rome. Roman emperors were characterized by perversions that the most debased of you would blanch at, and the Roman empire was the incarnation of the grossest cruelty.

Think of it this way:
When you watch Gladiator (a great film), what gets you pumped is NOT ... NOT ... the Roman empire, but Maximus's opposition to everything that the Roman empire stood for.
The Roman empire is the *bad guy* in Gladiator (and in history).

Long to be a Maximus, yes. That is the opposite of Rome.

So is that a C for you then?

 

[RobNYC]

C for sure. It has long been a field of study for me. So much from that era has caried over even into current times.

 

[bobomatic]

I'm not sure how to read into that previous comment, but if we're judging those who've come before, then I think it's a tad hypocritical. It implies that the person passing judgment would have, in that time, made a different moral choice. It assumes if you were born in roman times you depended on the norms of the institutions and societies that never questioned their morality. But only you, of course, would have had the moral clarity and fortitude to have fought openly for change. Not to mention that you would have had the courage to risk your life to engage in a revolution against the most powerful empire in the world at that time. In short, you presume that you are morally superior to those at that time. It's a mix of ignorance and arrogance of people doing the judging to flatter themselves as much more discerning, sensitive, and generally better than those who lived before. And, BTW, my answer is B. Gracias.

 

[bullet08]

Chuck Norris built Rome in a day.

 

[FLDRD]

Every time the season comes 'round I ponder the amazing transformation of The Holy Roman Empire into The Holy Roman Catholic Church and their appropriation of man-kinds historical celebrations into their "own", the manipulation that occurred with the Council of Nicea, etc., etc.

 

[STP]

Only when I watch Gladiator, but the trend is viral…

 

[brian64]

...do you think about Rome, Roman history, or the Roman Empire.

A: Never
B: Once in a while
C: Constantly
D: Only at Easter time
E: None of the above
F: I don't understand the question
G: That's a stupid question, I thought this was a forum about pipe smoking

B for me.

Have no faith in human empires...or anything else humans do, for that matter.

 

[SBC]

I'm not sure how to read into that previous comment, but if we're judging those who've come before, then I think it's a tad hypocritical. It implies that the person passing judgment would have, in that time, made a different moral choice. It assumes if you were born in roman times you depended on the norms of the institutions and societies that never questioned their morality. But only you, of course, would have had the moral clarity and fortitude to have fought openly for change. Not to mention that you would have had the courage to risk your life to engage in a revolution against the most powerful empire in the world at that time. In short, you presume that you are morally superior to those at that time. It's a mix of ignorance and arrogance of people doing the judging to flatter themselves as much more discerning, sensitive, and generally better than those who lived before. And, BTW, my answer is B. Gracias.

Nobody claims that 20/20 hindsight evidences some superiority intrinsic to his soul, such that he would have been an exception under another incubator.

Nobody who decries Hitler today (this is just low-hanging fruit) should assume that he would have been in the minority, saving Jews' lives, had he been an early-mid 20th century German.
But it's still right to say that we SHOULD have been. We might not have been, but we SHOULD have been in the minority, saving Jews' lives.

Knowing that we might have gone with the flow is a damned pathetic reason not to judge past wickedness.

As an aside: Only those who do not submit to moral codes outside of themselves project on to others the assumption that their moral judgements are rooted in infalted views of themselves. I might be the worst man here -- God knows -- and that's irrelevant to whether or not we can make objective statements about Hitler, school shooters, or the Roman Empire.

 

[Winnipeger]

 

[bullet08]

Nobody claims that 20/20 hindsight evidences some superiority intrinsic to his soul, such that he would have been an exception under another incubator.

Nobody who decries Hitler today (this is just low-hanging fruit) should assume that he would have been in the minority, saving Jews' lives, had he been an early-mid 20th century German.
But it's still right to say that we SHOULD have been. We might not have been, but we SHOULD have been in the minority, saving Jews' lives.

Knowing that we might have gone with the flow is a damned pathetic reason not to judge past wickedness.

As an aside: Only those who do not submit to moral codes outside of themselves project on to others the assumption that their moral judgements are rooted in infalted views of themselves. I might be the worst man here -- God knows -- and that's irrelevant to whether or not we can make objective statements about Hitler, school shooters, or the Roman Empire.

We can definitely have opinion about the past. But to pass judgement by today's standards doesn't really work. We can learn from the past and try to not make same or similar mistakes. But what are we going to do? Go back in history and hang someone who kicked his dog?

 

[brian64]

Most people in general don't seem to be capable of recognizing the true evils of their own day...they typically only see it for what it really is in hindsight...and that is the only reason why anyone thinks things are better today.

 

[SBC]

We can definitely have opinion about the past. But to pass judgement by today's standards doesn't really work. We can learn from the past and try to not make same or similar mistakes. But what are we going to do? Go back in history and hang someone who kicked his dog?

And this is where I can't figure out an answer that isn't explicitly religious:
I'm not interested in judging the past by today's standards, but by God's standards.

Sorry, I tried to do this with appeals to common ground, but at some point we have to answer whether or not we operate on a moral code outside of ourselves, or outside of any given society's shifting norms.

Some historical norms that are heinous by "today's standards," I'd defend. Other historical norms that are heinous by "today's standards," I'd likewise decry. Any given society will agree with traditional Christian morality at some points, and disagree with it at others.

But interestingly, many of the ways in which Rome was wicked, are gross *both* by traditional Christian *and* by modern secular standards. Most modern agnostics would criticize the cruelty of Rome.

 

[Gimlet]

I can't see that we've changed all that much from Roman times. We're still governed by oligarchies with emperors jerking the strings from their hidden penetralia. Still in thrall to false religions - except that they're now entirely socio-political rather than pretend-spiritual and new ones invented every day. Still expansionist and imperialist, except that now it's moral and intellectual imperialism and those who refuse to subscribe are the sub-human barbarians at the gates.
We still enslave the unfavoured, allowing those who can to buy their freedom and call it meritocracy. And we're still bought off with bread and circuses. We still as hubristic as ever, regarding the over-proliferation of our kind as a sacred duty and a mark of success and the industrial desecration of the world we live in an achievement and a proof of our superiority, even while Rome burns around us just the same as it ever did.

About all that's changed is the nature of stadium entertainments: now, when those providing the entertainment are the U2's and and Coldplays of this world, it's the audience who endure the cruelty.
Otherwise, while the balistas, pilums and javelins have got a little more sophisticated and we now flush our dirt and excreta into other people's baths rather than bathing in it in our own, there's very little new under the sun.

 

[Chasing Embers]

Why the sudden interest in Rome?

 

[SBC]

I can't see that we've changed all that much from Roman times. We're still governed by oligarchies with emperors jerking the strings from their hidden penetralia. Still in thrall to false religions - except that they're now entirely socio-political rather than pretend-spiritual and new ones invented every day. Still expansionist and imperialist, except that now it's moral and intellectual imperialism and those who refuse to subscribe are the sub-human barbarians at the gates.
We still enslave the unfavoured, allowing those who can to buy their freedom and call it meritocracy. And we're still bought off with bread and circuses. We still as hubristic as ever, regarding the over-proliferation of our kind as a sacred duty and a mark of success and the industrial desecration of the world we live in an achievement and a proof of our superiority, even while Rome burns around us just the same as it ever did.

About all that's changed is the nature of stadium entertainments: now, when those providing the entertainment are the U2's and and Coldplays of this world, it's the audience who endure the cruelty.

A lot of truth here.
(And hilarious closing line!)

 

[RustiePyles CPG]

G

solus imperator peteret

 

[bullet08]

And this is where I can't figure out an answer that isn't explicitly religious:
I'm not interested in judging the past by today's standards, but by God's standards.

Sorry, I tried to do this with appeals to common ground, but at some point we have to answer whether or not we operate on a moral code outside of ourselves, or outside of any given society's shifting norms.

Some historical norms that are heinous by "today's standards," I'd defend. Other historical norms that are heinous by "today's standards," I'd likewise decry. Any given society will agree with traditional Christian morality at some points, and disagree with it at others.

But interestingly, many of the ways in which Rome was wicked, are gross *both* by traditional Christian *and* by modern secular standards. Most modern agnostics would criticize the cruelty of Rome.

God's judgement is God's judgement. We shouldn't state that verdict for him. Whatever our opinion is.

 

[Winnipeger]

when those providing the entertainment are the U2's and and Coldplays of this world, it's the audience who endure the cruelty.