Intergalactic Summit

Or, as we were originally discussing and you are now disregarding, it implies none of those things and is simply a fact that subjects themselves are imperfect and thus have failed.

At its core, it is the realization that perfection and imperfection are mutually exclusive. You cannot govern an imperfect people with a perfect system anymore than you could govern a perfect people with an imperfect system.

What remains is either the necessity of intervention on the part of perfection to act on behalf of, or instead of, imperfection in order to rectify the latter to the former (which would be the aforementioned "tyranny" in which God puppeteers His creation in order to prevent them from sinning) or a system by which imperfection can be judged according to perfection's standards and a measure of pardon be afforded to imperfection's attempt to live up to perfection's standards (which is akin to what the Amarr teach in that living righteously before God, in spite of your failures, will lead you into Paradise by God's own decree).

Logic would imply that if God's system is perfect, then everything should be accounted for, including the imperfection and failings of the subjects.

Which means that said failings are expected and part of a scheme, or either that the system is not perfect. It can not possibly fall in any other category.

Who taught you to hate?

Whether you consider God worthy of worship is irrelevant. He will have your worship in this life, or he will laugh at your cries of torment for all eternity in the next. Nor does God care whether you provide him worship out of love, out of fear, or even whether you provide it willingly at all. All that matters is that you provide him your worship.

God is the god of all worlds — this world, the last world, and the next world. He exists whether you believe in him or not, and at the Judgement, you WILL believe as you stand before him, naked and alone, quaking in terror as are read out your many sins — sins committed as a member of SFRIM and as a member of PY-RE.

There remains one tiny hope for you, if not to escape Hell, but at least to move yourself up a level or two. Make your next "sojourn" among the Sani Sabik. Take up the Golden Vial, and sacrifice three Minmatar — one of each bloodline — upon the Altar of God, and fill your vial with the blood of each. Pledge to forsake all forms of Minmatarness and spend the remainder of your life perfecting your hatred of that reprobate nation, continually sacrificing them and taking their blood, blood you consecrate by ancient and majestic rites; blood that cleanses you of your sins.

This is your only hope. Amen. Amarr Victor.

Entry Eleven: Ow

Well ... this had to happen eventually. Really, this record wouldn't have been complete without it.

So, I'm dead, now, again, according to some theories. Rest with the ancestors, me.

It was pretty neatly done, or maybe I just messed up and panicked. I had no idea you could make a Proteus lock that fast, but I'm not 100% on whether I could maybe have slipped the net if I'd just activated the MWD fast enough. In any event, a few drones, a few rail charges, and one Sin's worth of well-timed smartbombs later, and ...

... and I was back coughing tube fluids on a clone bay floor.

(Hee. Someone else's Sin caught up to me faster than my own.)

I entered that last post, above this one, while showering. I guess I hadn't really absorbed what had happened.

Sitting here, having my apparently-traditional post-cloning pot of tea, I'm maybe digesting it a bit better.

The discontinuity's kind of minimal-- just whiteout and then a resumption, though whoever had the idea of getting my camera drones to send me a couple seconds of footage of my own naked corpse drifting amid the wreckage with the torn ends of my control rig trailing from my skull wins the award for unexpected gratuitous trauma.

What the point of that was supposed to be is something I've been trying to figure out. If the idea is to make getting podded as painful as possible without actually introducing pain, then ... well, good work, whoever you are. Well done. You've taken a moment of vulnerability and helplessness and made it just that much moreso.

If the point was to maybe make us more aware of the lives we're responsible for, though, I can't imagine this will have the desired effect, since the only life being focused on is already the one a capsuleer tends to think the most about. It's not like we get this sort of horror show every time we lose a ship or destroy one. Maybe the effect will be to make me treat my own life with more care, but I can't see it making me worry about others very much more.

Then again, this is precisely what I was talking about before: memento mori. Nothing lives forever, not even us.

I don't think of myself as being particularly attached to my own existence, but I guess maybe I'm not much happier about getting my own transience vividly illustrated than the next so-called immortal.

The point I was making is that for many it seems it is easier to believe in a fiction, a fallacy, than it is to confront reality. A belief in honour and glory in war, that violence comes with rules and restrictions is disabused the moment it is realized that violence is its own arbiter, a force unto itself. You spoke of capsuleers operating like we live in our own tribes. This is not a unique phenomenon to me, and it is wholly human to me. The nature of human communities is the creation of a favourable parity of violence so as to ensure security against others.

Culture, religion, philosophy, morality, ethics and politics are only the products of increasing social complexities and heirarchy, the means by which one defines ones own community as, "Us," through shared or common values. It does not however change the fact that the, "Us," is always opposed to a, "Them," and the dynamics of Us versus Them remains unchanged whether one is using wooden spears or railguns, an independent capsuleer or a citizen of a State. It is violence and its successful use and application that decides not only who lives or who dies, but whose communities deserve to exist and those who do not.

Those who do not desire to accept such maxims in favour of whatever opiates of personal denial preferred simply become the first victims of those that do.

I would say diplomacy is still premised on violence. Whether on the threat of its use in to serve ones own interests, or in the interest of allying with others in order achieve a greater parity of violence against others. I never talked of armed camps, I talked of violence and ensuring security as being the driving impetus of human affairs whether one wishes to recognize it or not. Sure, there's always alternatives to violence but only in those situations where one is unable to use it due to disparity in force or the threat of force itself is sufficient to achieve the objectives of political or economic self-interest.

You bring up the Amarr as counterpoint to that notion and what I wrote, yet the Pax Amarria is the peace brought through violence. The Empire exists because of the disparity of violence it was able to deploy against its neighbours, and it assured peace by conquering or intimidating those peoples through the force and violence of its Crusades. It's true, there is no, "Them," once you've killed or enslaved them all.

There is only peace through power and there is no greater power than to do violence against another.

The reasons, justifications, ideologies, politics, cultures and civilizations are all mutable, but the dynamics of violence will always remain the same. Everything else is just self-interest and quid pro quo in the face of violence because life remains a zero-sum game of survival with all or nothing stakes in play.

Perhaps it's a harsh perspective to have but if I enjoyed sugar-coating things I would have been a baker or confectioner.

I said that violence is the greatest power in human affairs because the only counter to violence is violence itself of a greater magnitude either qualitative or quantitative. That is why I called it the final arbiter.

Wealth is power, but wealth and fortunes can be seized and taken through force and violence.

Knowledge is power, but knowledge can be destroyed by those willing to burn your books.

Having charisma can be powerful, but all the likes on Galnet forums are not armour against kinetic ammunition.

To me, your examples of alternative power in fact only derive their true power in the context of force and violence itself: Wealth and industry to purchase and produce the implements of violence, knowledge to create the better technologies of violence, and the charisma required by leaders to forge the political will in order to use violence. It is only force and violence that remains both ends and means in itself, with all other human activity subservient to its requirements. The only time this is not the case and peace arises, as already stated with example of the Amarr Empire, you have already destroyed, conquered, or subjugated every other polity other than your own that poses a direct or potential threat through use of force and violence.

So no, I would disagree. The only really good tool I need is the capability to do violence, and to do it well. Certainly the only measure by which I feel judged and the only merit demanded of me these days is that when I am in the pod I apply my capability of violence as efficiently and as well as possible to ensure the success of me and mine, the, "Us," versus all the multitudes of, "Them" as services rendered.

Would you prefer it any other way?

I will admit, I'm not exactly sure what else is required for success as a capsuleer other than a talent for destruction or providing for others the ability to do so. That has been my experience in the pod anyway. I have never felt otherwise that the only thing that others value in me is that I can be relied upon to prosecute violence without hesitation to ensure op success. I don't see what is required of me beyond that.

And yes, you have no need to persuade me of anything because I had no interest in pursuing something as trite as the tactic of, "If you cannot convince me, then you are wrong." as part of some kind of polarized debate.

I provided only an honest elaboration and explanation of my thought and opinion, the perspectives borne of my own experience as I believe so did you. Since our experiences differ, then it follows so will our perspectives and there is really nothing more to it than that to me.