Guess Who’s A Trucker Now?

Yeah, I am. 🙂

I got into a trucking school back in May where I learned everything I needed to learn to get my CDL-A. After that, I went out on the road with a trainer where I learned how to really handle a truck. I started driving on my own back in August and just came home for the first time. On Saturday, I’ll get another load and shoot out for another month or so before I come home again.

My first month out has shown me just how far I have to go. Don’t get me wrong — I’ve enjoyed it thoroughly. But I am very, very, VERY thankful for all the more experienced truckers out there who have been super patient with me and helped me get backed up to doors or into parking spots when the set-up is not something taught at the academy. Without these absolute angels among men, I’d have done some serious damage. I mean, I can straight-line like anyone else but setting up for a 45° back when I don’t have the space I’m used to? Or backing up off-set up a hill? Or handling a super-tight backing? Not easy.

What I generally do is straight-up tell the shipper or receiver that I’m still new and could use a spotter and that it will go faster if they put me on an easy door. I do the same thing at truck stops if there isn’t a whole lot of open parking. I’ll find a trucker and wave him over and ask for help. I know that as I get more experience under my belt, I’ll need this less and less, but I’m very thankful for all the guys who have taken time out of their day to help me.

This help, this sense of “brotherhood,” is something that you don’t find in a lot of other fields. I know that I was pretty much thrown to the wolves as a teacher. But I’ve found that being honest about what I can do and what my experience is while driving tends to make the others do what they can to help me and to explain things so that I can get better.

The money is good, too. I drive for a great company and they pay well and treat me well. No micro-management. No mandatory daily meetings to get screamed at over things outside my control. No cult-like or abusive-relationship-like BS. I’m told where to go to pick up a load (and what time to be there), told where to deliver it (and when), and then left to determine when and where I’ll take my mandatory breaks. I’m treated like I have good sense and like I’m a person worthy of respect. And I’m paid well. Very well. My education for this industry cost me nothing up front — just an agreement to work for this company for a year in order to pay it back. No money out of my paycheck — just do the work for a year and then I could go somewhere else if I wanted.

So, if any of you out there are struggling in a field where you get treated like garbage, have crap pay, and are looking for a way out, I have some hope for you. Get into trucking. We need more drivers. There are schools where you can learn all you need to know. If you drive for my company, you’ll get additional training after you get your CDL to help you learn the things they don’t have time to teach you at the driving school. You’ll be treated with respect by other drivers and by the public who know that, without us, they don’t get food. Don’t stay in a dead-end job with a boss who gets off on screaming in your face, throwing things at you, and treating you like garbage. No, you won’t go home every day (or even every week) but the money is good, the freedom is awesome, and you’ll wake up each day knowing that the load you’re hauling is going to keep people fed and clothed. Other truckers WILL help you if you need it and are humble enough to ask for it (and having boobs helps because chivalry is still A Thing in trucking).

Anyhow, that’s part of why my updates are sporadic. When I’m on my 10 hour break to sleep, that’s pretty much what I do — get a shower at the truck stop and then sleep. 🙂 Hopefully, as I get more experience driving and backing, I’ll find more time to post little updates and even travel logs (though I’ll have to keep some details out).

Oh, one last thing — don’t be jerks to truckers. If we signal that we want to move over, let us. Don’t pass on the right. And don’t get in front of us and stop unless you want to meet Jesus. It takes us a lot of time and space to stop those rigs. If you don’t like that, go argue it with God and Sir Isaac Newton.

— G.K.

Bill Whittle Talks Screen Writing

So, yesterday, Bill Whittle came on my livestream and we talked about screen writing! Watch below!

These are the books Bill was talking about:

Screenplay: The Foundations of Screenwriting
Making a Good Script Great

Thoughts on Writing — Why Preaching Fails

So, it’s no real secret that I deeply dislike preach-fic or message-fic. I find it trite, dull, uni-dimensional, and lazy. I do this even when I agree with the message being preached because it’s just not good story-telling.

However, the question comes up as to why it’s bad story-telling. And, while I’m struggling with the whole “Augustine might be smart but he’s still an idiot” thing, my brain has been coming up with the answer to this other question.

The reason preaching is bad story-telling is because it forces everything to follow a set-piece theme and anything that deviates from this must be removed or mocked. It causes the author to turn just about every scene, every conversation, every interaction, every internal monologue to become yet another chance to deliver The Message. Every character is cast in terms of how they deal with The Message. Every plot point becomes about how The Message is Good. There’s no chance for the characters to develop quirks, personalities, relationships, or any characteristic that is not going to re-enforce The Message.

Historically, the worst examples of this have been in Christian fiction. For instance, I read the entire Left Behind series and found it enjoyable as a nice fluff read. However, I rarely find myself interested in going back and re-reading this series because the characters are so dull and one dimensional. They’re either “saved” (which is a word I hate because of that Augustinian transactionalism) and thus always doing Good or repenting for doing Bad and praying for those who aren’t “saved” yet. If they’re not “saved” then they are either Pure Evil with no hope of redemption or they’re selfish, self-centered, self-focused, hedonistic people who will either become “saved” or will become Pure Evil.

But real people aren’t like that and that is part of the tragedy. I know plenty of wonderful people who aren’t Christian. Yes, I fear that they will go to the Bad Place in the hereafter and yes, I pray for them. But they’re not inevitably selfish or self-centered. They are human. They’re kind, generous, willing to sacrifice to help others — either because of their own faith or because they believe in something like karma. I know plenty of Christians who are real jerks. And they are “real” Christians but they are just deeply unpleasant people to be around.

Now, the current trend in preach-fic goes two ways: either it’s Woke or it’s anti-Woke. Regardless of which side it’s on, it’s got characters who are flat. The protagonists are always the enlightened ones who see The Truth and are trying to get everyone else to bend to The Truth. The antagonists are always hateful, self-centered, narcissists who hate The Truth and instead want to enslave everyone to Their Power. Anyone who isn’t a protagonist is just another Sheep who needs to be Herded to The Truth.

Literally the only difference is which Truth is The Truth.

This is story-telling on the level of fairy tales we tell to very young children who are not developed well enough to understand just how complex reality and real life can be. It’s on the level of something like Cinderella with the Evil Stepmother and Evil Stepsisters who are trying to keep Cinderella from finding happiness. Sure, that’s a good foundation for a story and there are plenty of stories that are Cinderella stories that are quite fun to read and re-read. But the good stories move beyond the Cinderella = Pure Good and Evil Stepfamily = Pure Meanness. Adult readers get very tired of stories that are constructed with no more complexity than the fairy tales we tell toddlers because we know that reality is not like that.

Another reason that preach-fic is boring is for the same reason that having someone nag you gets old fast: if you’re an adult, you know what’s going on in your world. Being constantly reminded of a situation you know does nothing to help and it makes you just tune out the person talking because you’re sitting here thinking “and you think I haven’t considered this? Do you think I’m an idiot?”

It’s the same phenomenon that causes teenagers to roll their eyes and shut their ears when they’re getting harped on for the umpteenth time about Drugs Are Bad, Mmkay? They got the message the first dozen times. The more you harangue them, the more likely they are to say “well, if I’m going to get lectured about it, I might as well try it so there’s a reason for the lectures in the first place.”

That same thing happens on a cultural level, as well. The louder The Message gets preached, the more people tune out. That is causing the preachers to just get louder and more insistent with The Message which makes more and more people tune out. The only hope is for one side or the other to figure this out and start telling interesting stories where The Message is just part of the backdrop and theme and no longer the driving force of the story itself.

— G.K.

Augustinian Transactionalism Is A Headache

No, I haven’t forgotten about this place. However — and I cannot overemphasize this enough — trying to explain Augustine, Anselm, and why they are both kind of idiots is incredibly difficult. That’s been my stumbling block for months and that’s why there haven’t been any updates.

Add in that I am currently looking for work and I just haven’t been able to find the time or energy to study history while I’m trying to figure out how I’m going to pay my bills and you’ve got a pretty good picture of how things are.

That said, hopefully I will find something soon and will be back to explain why Augustine, even though he is a Church Father, is also a ginormous idiot.

— G.K.

Byzantium — The Church, the New Testament, and Holy Tradition

So, the next few posts in this series are going to focus a little more on understanding the structure of the Orthodox church and its core beliefs and practices because understanding them is kind of important to understanding why Roman civilization continued and flourished up to the fifteenth century in Byzantium but floundered and collapsed in Rome and points West.

Previously, I warned the Catholics not to come at me over the fact that our two communities haven’t seen eye-to-eye on a lot of things for the better part of over 1500 years. This week, it’s the Protestants’ turn to get their feathers ruffled.

Now, I’m going to say this again: this is the Orthodox point of view. I’m not asking you to take it for your own or to even like it. I’m asking you to accept it as the Orthodox and Eastern view, a view that is very decidedly not Romanocentric. If you can do that, then we can do that “agreeing to disagree” thing. But if you think you’re going to come at me with how the Holy Spirit departed the church in the early centuries because the Pope was bad (it didn’t and the Pope wasn’t always a bad guy), how Christ “shrouded” the Real Truth until Luther/Calvin/Williams/Smith/Henry VIII/Parham/whoever your Modern Prophet Who Talks To Jesus On The Two-Way Radio is was born (go join the Gnostics and talk about how super Magickal and Spiritual you are and how you’re the Mostest Spechulist Widdle Snowflake in the Universe), or how Holy Tradition is wrong and obscures the truth of the New Testament (where in the name of God do you think the New Testament came from, you bloody-minded, squirrel-brained imbeciles?!), then I make you the same offer I made the Catholics last time:


I’ll throw the Golden Gate and the Brooklyn Bridge in free for you fine folks!

Sorry if that seems harsh but if I have to suffer through Yet Another Conspiracy Theory about how there wasn’t a “real, true church” from about 50 AD until Whenever The Great Restorer You Like Was Born AD, then I might start stabbing people with wet noodles. The true, universal and complete (that’s what “catholic” means), and Apostolic church existed in the entire Roman Empire, East and West, from 33 AD without a breach. Even the Roman Catholic Church is an off-shoot of the ancient church — just a section that went off to do its own thing due to political realities and is no longer in agreement with the Synod of the other ancient churches and the newer churches that arose from them (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Russia, Bulgaria, Armenia, Ukraine, Japan, the Orthodox Church in America, etc). Some Protestant churches are off-shoots of the Roman branch but most of them… well… no offense, but y’all are a little nuts, okay? It’s like you forgot how to read the New Testament sometimes even though you seem to worship the words in it more than the Word it speaks of.

Conspiracy Guy
I love y’all. Really I do. But the phrase “nuttier than a whole sack of squirrel sh*t” has been heard leaving my mouth when discussing Protestants.

Why is that, I wonder?

Oh yeah, because of the lack of respect for the ancient traditions we call “Holy Tradition!”

Now, before you start up with your Sola Scriptura arguments, I want you to ask yourself one very, very simple question. I want you to be honest with yourself about it, too. The question is this:

When and how was the New Testament written and compiled and how did the church continue to spread the message of salvation and teach the faith before then?

Now, I answered part of this a few entries back when I said that the books that would come to comprise the New Testament were written between about 35 AD and 95 AD. That’s the “when” part. The “how” part is “they were written with quill or pen on parchment or papyrus.” Remember, the printing press is still about 1,400 years from existing in Europe (and about 850 years from existing in China). The New Testament did not get delivered, already leather-and-cardboard bound and printed in columns with the chapters and verses numbered and words of Christ in red in modern English on Pentecost 33 AD. I mean, the Holy Spirit brings a lot of gifts, but that wasn’t one of them. 😉

Descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost
Please don’t smite me…

Copies of the various gospels, books of instruction (like The Didache), the epistles, and other important documents had to be copied by hand and then delivered by individual human carriers (telegraph, telephone, and email being quite some time in the future). Any given church might have two, maybe three of the Gospels and a handful of some of the epistles alongside some books of local instruction, letters and writings that were not later made canon, and letters and writings that would later be held to be heretical (in error).

So then, how did the Church as a whole continue to ensure that it was teaching things correctly when the New Testament was still being gathered?

The answer is two words that some of you are gonna hate: Holy Tradition.

Holy Tradition Haters Gonna Hate
Some of you are making this face right now

Remember, the people who founded the early churches were the Apostles or the Equal-to-the-Apostles (like Mary Magdalene). They had been taught by Christ Himself and had witnessed His earthly ministry. They could teach from memory and, guided and guarded by the Holy Spirit, they did not change the teachings that had been given to them. They made use of writing when it could be useful. They also wrote the first ikons (to the Orthodox, ikons are not paintings, they are writings). These could be very useful in instructing and inducting new Christians since the Romans would see only “pretty artwork” but the message contained in the ikon could be understood by Christians who had not learned to read. The Apostles would lay their hands on those who were to take over the teaching and administration of a given church and would ask that the Holy Spirit guide and guard the new deacon/priest/bishop the same way He had guided and guarded the Apostles. Then the Apostles would go off to found another community.

That laying-on-of-hands is important. That’s how tonsuring and ordination is done. Every single deacon, priest, bishop, metropolitan, and patriarch of the current Orthodox Churches can trace their lineage through the direct laying-on-of-hands all the way back to Pentecost. It’s an unbroken line that, in the West, only the Pope can match. It was also one of the first sacraments. Others were baptism by full immersion in water, the Eucharist at the shared meal at the “love feasts,” the anointing with holy oil the newly consecrated and the sick, the blessing of matrimony, and the practice of confessing ones sins before God.

“But, those are all mentioned in the New Testament!”

Holy Facepalm
Dude, is it just in one ear and out the other?

Yes, they would be mentioned in it. Once it was written. Once it had been compiled. Once every church had a copy of it. But what about the churches in the first few centuries who had only oral teachings and a handful of notes to work off of? They were somehow able to follow the teachings without needing a copy of any of the written Gospels or the Epistles. Indeed, it would be because of the importance of Holy Tradition that the physical written texts were preserved, copied, and shared between the communities! The New Testament itself is one of the fruits, one of the products, of Holy Tradition!

Holy Tradition itself arose out of Judaism, one of the few “early” religions to place importance on written Scripture as well as oral traditions and observing annual celebrations (like the Passover). Most religions from early history did not have a strong literary component and did not require literacy to achieve rank within them. So, the emphasis on keeping records of the actual teachings in writing and preserving and copying those writings came to Christianity straight from the faith of the Jewish fathers. Remember, almost every last Apostle was Jewish. The first council in Jerusalem actually dealt with the question of “did Christians need to convert to Judaism first?”

Much of the formality of Orthodox liturgy and the Catholic mass likewise arises out of Judaism. Jewish practices at the synagogues and Temple formed the basis for how worship services were carried on in Christianity. Like the first century Jews, our worship services consist of:

  1. An opening blessing
  2. Prayer
  3. Readings from the Law (Judaism)/Readings from the New Testament (Christianity)
  4. Readings from the Prophets (Judaism)/Readings from the Gospels (Christianity)
  5. Sermon
  6. The Eighteen Blessings (Judaism)/The prayers to prepare for the Eucharist (Christianity)
  7. The Dismissal

(Taken from The Historic Church, pages 26 – 27, by Archpriest John Morris)

The other things that make some Protestants twitch also come out of the first few centuries following Pentecost. By the time that the New Testament canon was set (sometime in the fourth and fifth centuries), the Church already had a rich support in Holy Tradition to keep it from falling into error and worse. It also had a structure that protected it from being overly influenced by the government — a structure that worked well in the East but was discarded in the West.

But we’ll get to that next time.

— G.K.

Byzantium — What is Christian and What is Crap?

So, this is going to be one of those posts where the Catholics aren’t going to like what I have to say. Therefore, I’m going to make a deal with them: if y’all are willing to understand that this is the Orthodox point-of-view and that I’m not asking you to accept it, like it, or agree with it beyond saying “that is what the Orthodox think, we think differently,” then we can do this thing called “agreeing to disagree.” If you’re going to come at me thinking that you can ignore Acts of the Apostles (you can’t), that Rome was the only church Peter founded (it wasn’t), and that letters recognizing the bishop of Rome as first among equals because of Rome’s political importance are somehow saying that he’s Super Bishop and King of All Creation (he’s not), and that I’m going to suddenly change my mind well…


I’ll throw the Golden Gate Bridge in free.

So, as I mentioned last time, Old Rome did not much cotton to this “New Rome” being given the same prominence it had once held now that the seat of government had moved east. When Constantine argued that the bishop of Constantinople should be granted the title of “Patriarch” since he now led the church in the Imperial Capitol, well, that didn’t sit well with Rome. However, it went through because the process of allowing the expansion of the church was not subject to much centralized control (how could it be — this was way before telegraphs, the postal service, steamships, railroads, or anything resembling fast transit). It helped that the church of Constantinople had been founded by one of the Apostles (Andrew) in the first century so it wasn’t like it hadn’t been part of the ancient community.

Now, as I’ve mentioned before, Constantine converted to Christianity. However, back in this era, there wasn’t any solid definition of what it was to be Christian and which teachings from which churches were authentic and correct. There was a lot of heresy and heterodoxy in this era and the Gnostic garbage is probably the most well-known of the lot.

“But what were the Gnostics? Weren’t they the ones with the Real Truth(TM)?”

Well, Timmy, do you know how there are about ten dozen different flavors of Baptist (First Baptist, Southern Baptist, Reformed Baptist, Methodist-Baptist, Primitive Baptist, Evangelical Baptist, Billy Bob’s Baptist BBQ and Casserole…) but there is at least one Baptist church that insists that only its members are doing things correctly and that only its members are going to heaven and that you had to attend it every Sunday and listen only to the sermons of its current pastor and definitely had to pay a certain amount to the church? That Baptist church would be the modern-day version of the Gnostics.

Fuck the Gnostics
Eff the Gnostics and their elitist “I’m the mostest spechulist” crap. Woodlawn would have welcomed them.

Look, if you doubt me, go read the garbage for yourself. You can find it all for free here. You’ll find that every last one of the so-called Gnostic gospels is some version of “yeah, Jesus told everyone the stuff you read in Matthew, Mark, or Luke but He totally told me the Real Magic and how to become Greater Than God and have Superpower and all you have to do is listen to the guy who says I taught him these secrets and you can be one of the Real Christians.” The handful that aren’t are just personal prophecy that didn’t have jack to do with the church or the people (yeah, a book that says that Anna had a dream that her daughter would marry a king isn’t exactly going to be as useful as the Pauline Epistles when it comes to teaching about Jesus).

I’ll be here with the whiskey and the eye bleach when you get done torturing yourselves.

Eye Bleach
By the blep, you are blessed.

Back so soon?

Well, settling the teachings of the church into those which were correct (orthodox) and those which were incorrect (heterodox) was part of why there was the First Great Ecumenical Council held in Nicaea in 325 AD. Hosius of Cordoba presided with Emperor Constantine attending just to keep things from getting out of hand (and yes, these councils could and did turn into actual, fist-to-the-face, fights at times). The main issue of contention in the First Council was to settle the issue of Arianism. Now, Arianism wasn’t some tiny disagreement over trifling details like “do we sing the processions in C major or G major?”

Ikon of the First Council
Chances are there was a lot more drinking and fisticuffs than this ikon depicts

Arianism was a Big Deal. Arians argued that Jesus was not co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father and instead was just the highest creation. This went against what Christ Himself had said and against the teachings from the Apostles that God the Father and God the Son were one and were co-eternal and co-equal. If you argued that Jesus was just a human who God possessed, then why worship Him since Jesus wouldn’t have had much to do with the salvation of humanity? The fights over whether or not Jesus was God (He is) or was just Some Guy got pretty contentious and the First Council tried to resolve the issue (but Arianism would keep cropping up for a while — heck even today there are some Protestant denominations that hold Jesus as the First Creation). Part of this was to say that Arianism (and a lot of the Gnostic writings that supported it) was crap and to establish the Christian Creed (called the Nicaean Creed) to establish what the church actually did believe and teach.

The final list of which books were canonical was not fixed at this Council but most of the Gnostic writings were chucked out as heretical or useless.

How to handle Gnostic texts
A bit of wisdom from the Internet concerning how to deal with heresy…

So, what was the Nicaean Creed? Well, just about any Christian will recognize the first part of it. The original creed, as set at the First Council of Nicaea said this:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father;
Of the substance of the Father, God of God, and Light of light, very God of very God;
Begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made, both in heaven and in earth;
Who for us men, and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate, and was made man.
He suffered and the third day, He rose again and ascended into the heavens.
And He shall come again to judge the quick and the dead.
And we believe in the Holy Ghost.
And whosoever shall say that there was time when the Son of God was not, or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature or is subject to change or conversion, all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.

Other matters were settled at this council as well such as how to calculate the date for Pascha (Easter) and about how to welcome lapsed Christians back into the church and what steps of repentance they had to take. You can read more about the First Council at Wikipedia, Britannica, or by getting a copy of The Historic Church by Archpriest John Morris.

So, things would rock on for the next few centuries but Rome was getting more and more irked by the loss of their prerogatives and that did not spell peace for the Empire… but we’ll deal with that a lot over the coming posts.

— G.K.

Byzantium — We Built This City…

…On Christianity and trade routes.

You didn’t actually think the answer was going to be “rock ‘n’ roll,” did you?

Yeah, no Constantinople was founded by our boy Constantine because he was paying attention to the times. That’s right, I’m talking about the actual city now that I promised I would get to last time.

Silk Road
Going around the African Cape was just Not A Thing back then…

Now, don’t get me wrong — Rome had been a powerhouse for a long time and definitely had a good position on the Tiber and the Mediterranean. It had been ideally situated to challenge and later beat the tar out of Carthage. It was accessible by the Greeks and the Macedonians and had the ability and the materials necessary to build some really good ships. But once Carthage had been stomped into the ground, well, there really wasn’t much in the way of trade west of Rome. Now, sure, there were silver and tin mines in Spain and tin mines up in Britannia but it was easier, in some ways, to transport those goods overland instead of on ships. Trade shifted back eastward towards Greece and Asia Minor since that is where one could find spices coming up from India and China and other points Oriental as well as stuff coming up from more-central-Africa via the Nile.

Rivers in Europe That Are Navigable
Notice how most of the rivers empty into the Black Sea?
Mississippi River System
The Mississippi River system is part of why the United States had such strong internal trade compared to Europe.

Something that Americans especially seem to have a hard time understanding is that Europe lacks any kind of river system akin to the Mississippi (where transport from a lot of different branches is feasible which is why cities like St. Louis, Vicksburg, and New Orleans were so important). The “biggest” river system is probably the Loire and that pretty much gets you across France. It doesn’t get you from France down to Rome. It doesn’t get you from Berlin to Rome. Now, rivers and coasts were vital for trade in the era before the internal combustion engine was invented. Yes, yes, Rome had good roads for people using actual horses for horsepower but that still doesn’t mean that it’s cheap or easy to travel from Rome up to Paris or over to Madrid. Europe had a lot of forests, a lot of floodplains, and a lot of mountains that made travel overland difficult and expensive.

It's Constantinople and I will die mad about the other name
It’s Constantinople and I will die mad about the other name

But Asia Minor (which is where the Byzantines were) had fewer of these problems. The Silk Roads were fairly well-established with plenty of stops for food and water. Coasting along India and Arabia was easy enough. Constantinople, founded on top of Byzantium, was located on the European side of the Bosporus which is the strait linking the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. This put it in the best possible position to control trade between Asia and Europe. It also had the benefit of not having been a major settlement until Constantine decided to move there so it didn’t have loads of pagan temples. Constantine wanted to weaken the political power of the pagan families who still had a lot of influence in Rome and he wanted to assure that Christianity would be ascendant.

After all, he owed the Biggest C for giving him victory at Milvian Bridge.

So, based on the fact that Rome the City had been pagan far longer than it had tolerated Christians and that most of the major trade routes were in the East, Constantine decided it was time to move the capitol to his new city. It helped that there was already a good colony there with enough infrastructure and secure walls (Byzantium). Add in the fact that Constantine was the one and only Emperor now and that he was consolidating political control into his own hands and one capitol and moving from Rome made a lot of sense. It also put him much closer to three of the four ancient churches (Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch). Once the city had been consecrated on May 11, 330, it was considered the New Rome.

Constantine could still kick your ass
So great he had a city re-named after him

However, Old Rome wasn’t quite ready to give up its power and influence so easily. But we’ll deal with that next time.

— G.K.

Byzantium — Signs, Co-Emperors, and Confusion

So, when we last met, I said that we would get to our boy Constantine.

And boy howdy, we are!

First, a little bit of housekeeping. We’re dealing with an era where everyone had the same few names it seems. So, the cast of characters is this:

Flavy-Flav — Flavius Valerius Constantinus the Father of Constantine the Great
Dio — Diocletian the Douchecanoe, Emperor of Rome
Max-Man — Maximian, Dio’s junior co-Emperor
Gal — Galerius, Flavy-Flav’s co-junior Emperor
Sev — Valerius Severus, a junior Emperor once Max-Man and Flavy-Flav became Senior Emperors
Minmax — Maximinus Daza, a junior Emperor with Sev
Max-T — Maxentius, son of Max-Man, who didn’t like Sev at all
The Big C — Constantine the Great
Licey — Licinius, a co-Emperor with The Big C for a time and the guy who wrote the Edict of Milan with him

Roman Names Are Weird
Why did everyone need to have the same few names? I’ll bet everyone having the same name had something to do with all the wars that broke out.

The Big C was born to a Greek Christian mother (Helena) and a Roman father who had been part of the Tetrarchy. The Tetrarchy was an attempt to make the very large, very complex, very gi-freaking-normous Empire a little less of an unwieldy kludge. And, it worked okay for a little while. Basically, there was a Senior Emperor who ruled the Eastern section of the Empire (Dio the Douchecanoe being the first) and a Junior Emperor who ruled the West (Max-Man). The Emperors appointed their own successors. Dio and Max appointed Gal and Flavy-Flav (Constantine’s dad) to Junior Emperors. When they Dio and Max retired, Gal and Flavy-Flav became Senior Emperors and appointed Sev and Minmax to be junior Emperors.

However, when Flavy-Flav died and The Big C was proclaimed to be both Senior and Junior Emperor by his dad’s army, things got dicey. It didn’t help at all that Minmax’s own son, Max-T disliked his dad’s co-Emperor Sev. When Minmax retired, he named Max-T to be junior Emperor. Sev bowed out in 307 and Max-T and The Big C were proclaimed to be Seniors by Max-Man. Meanwhile, Gal, who was just chilling out, appointed Licey to be the Senior in the West and Minmax to be Senior in the East.

A Not Inaccurate Depiction of What Happens When You Have Four Emperors
A Not Inaccurate Depiction of What Happens When You Have Four Emperors

Four Senior Emperors does not a stable government make. That’s way too many chiefs and not enough Indians. So, the four Emperors did what men with armies have done — they sat down and discussed their differences rationally and then came to an agreement.

If you believe that... well, here's this bridge for sale...
If you believe that… well, here’s this bridge for sale…

Yeah. Right. No, they went to war. The Big C was fighting Max-T for control over the Western Empire while Licey chilled and ruled in the East after Minmax died. The Big C and his armies were gathering to throw down with Max-T and his armies near the Tiber at a bridge called the Milvian Bridge. It was late October. The armies were preparing for battle. The Big C has a vision from The Biggest C (Christ) that tells him if he fights under The Biggest C’s sign, he’ll win.

So The Big C does what anyone would do if The Biggest C told them that: he ordered his men to paint this on their shields and to know that the Christian God was on their side.

Guess who won the battle of Milvian Bridge? 😉

Constantine could still kick your ass
Duh. Who did you think won?

So, with Max-T out of the picture, The Big C rules the Western half of the Roman Empire exclusively, with no co-Emperor in the West, from 312 to 324. The Big C and Licey wrote the Edict of Milan in 313, which ended the persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire and granted them official toleration. However, that was probably the last time the two agreed on anything. In 314, The Big C went after Licey because he thought that Licey was hiding Senecio (who wanted to overthrow the Big C). The Big C won that war and he and Licey tired very hard not to piss each other off. However, Licey had to go and appoint a co-Emperor for himself: Valerius Valens.

That did not sit well with The Big C. We’re talking it flew like a lead balloon (and not the cool one that Mythbusters made). The Big C invaded the Balkans and wiped the floor with Licey at the Battle of Cibalae. Licey fled south all the way to Adrianople and then tried to smooth things over with The Big C. However, our boy Constantine wasn’t about to surrender victory to the jaws of defeat and told Licey to get bent and marched on him, resulting in the Battle of Mardia. The Big C let anger get the better of him and this battle was kind of a stalemate. Licey and The Big C came to terms where Licey agreed that The Big C was the boss of all of Rome and of him and The Big C agreed to let Licey keep Thrace to rule. Licey also agreed to put a cap in Valens.

Things settled down for about seven years until the Sarmatians started causing problems. Licey had been dealing with them for a while but they crossed the Danube into The Big C’s turf and started wrecking stuff. Of course, our boy Constantine got ticked off and went after them. He crossed the Danube chasing them which meant that, technically, he had invaded Licey’s turf. Again.

Oops! My bad!
Oops! My bad!

Oh well.

The Big C followed this up with another invasion, sending the Goths into Thrace. Licey pointed out that The Big C had broken their agreement and war broke out again in 323. The Big C proceeded to roll up Licey’s forces at the Battle of Adrianople, forcing Licey to flee to Byzantium and hide behind its walls. Our boy Constantine then proceeded to beat the tar out of Licey’s fleet, which was supposed to be a really good fleet, at the Battle of the Hellespont. The final fight of this war was the Battle of Chrysopolis where Licey got his rear end handed to him. The Big C’s sister, who was married to Licey, begged her big bro to spare her husband so into exile Licey went with Constantine being the Sole Boss of All of Rome.

It's Good to Be The Big C
It’s Good to Be The Big C

But the Big C didn’t just chill and rest on his laurels. No, he had a city to build.

It's Constantinople and I will die on this hill
It’s Constantinople and I will die on this hill

But we’ll get to that next time.

— G.K.

Byzantium — The Pre-Founding

Okay, so, pretty much everyone knows what Rome was, that it was originally a Republic and then Caesar took control and got stabbed on March 15 and there was a war and Augustus took over and then it was an Empire. We all know that Rome dominated much of the known world at that era, having taken control of most of the Mediterranean, north Africa, the Iberian peninsula, and the Hellenic world of Greece and the Holy Lands in Asia Minor. We all know about Augustus or Tiberias doing a census, Mary and Joseph going to Bethlehem, Jesus being born, His growing up in Judea, His earthly ministry, and His death and resurrection followed by His ascension and the descent of the Holy Spirit.

I founded a whole entire empire and this is how I'm remembered...
I founded a whole entire empire and this is how I’m remembered…

Still with me? Good.

We all pretty much know that after Pentecost, the Apostles went around evangelizing and founding churches. Peter founded the churches in Alexandria, Antioch (with Paul), and Rome. Jerusalem had a church from the beginning and it was run by James the Less. Paul went to the Gentiles and spread word of the Word around Greece founding churches in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, Colossae, and Hieropolis — among others. Andrew went to the Scythians, James the Greater headed out to Spain, Philip and Bartholomew hung around in Greece with Paul for the most part, Thomas went to Babylon and then on to Persia and India, Matthew headed out to Egypt and Ethiopia, Jude went to Syria and to Armenia with Matthias, and Simon the Zealot headed out towards Carthage and then up to Britain. From the mid-30s to the mid-90s of the first century, the Gospels and Epistles were written with Revelation being the last one in the 90s.

Country Roads... take me home...
Country Roads… take me home…

During the first century, Christianity was just assumed to be another branch of Judaism by the Romans and since the Romans had finally come to terms with the Jews following a whole lot of revolts and riots and bloodshed1, Christianity at first just kind of slid by under the Roman radar. When the Romans realized that Christians were not some subsect of Judaism, well… Bad Times Started.

So, much of the first, second, and third centuries AD saw periodic persecutions of Christians (some Emperors were more chill than others). These centuries also saw a lot of Christian writings being penned. Out of these years we get things like The Didache, Polycarp’s letters, Ignatius of Antioch’s letters, Irenaeus’s writings like Against Heresy, and Tertullian’s Apologies. However, we also get a lot of garbage out of these centuries like the Gnostic gospels (“ooh, lookit me, I have spechul, sekret knowledge and you have to do what I say before God will whisper it to you” make up the vast majority of this dreck which I had to read while working on my MA. It doesn’t even rise to the level of good fanfiction like what Milton and Dante would later write). We also get a lot of heresies out of this era like Arianism.

I hate Gnostic bs
If I ever have to read Gnostic writings again, I’m going to compare them to the “spechul magickal” crap from the Mists of Avalon and start a drinking game.

As Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and to parts beyond, it started to be a movement to be reckoned with. The emphasis on charity and helping the community wasn’t something found in the Roman (pagan) religion. I mean, Jupiter the Best and the Greatest at everything but keeping his libido under control didn’t exactly tell his followers “hey, build some hospitals and schools.” 😉 Even Apollo seems to have been too busy chasing random nymphs to have told his followers to build the odd doctor’s office (and he was the god of healing… among other things). But Christians built schools and taught the beginnings of literacy. They donated to help the poor. They tried to help heal the sick through prayer and through providing spaces for people to be nursed through their ailments. So, eventually Christianity caught the eye of this one guy. I mean, he wasn’t anyone super important. He was just an army dude.

Constantine could still kick your ass
Don’t make Constantine come down and smack a b*tch

His name? Constantine. Flavius Valerius Constantinus. And he was getting ready to throw down with Maxentius at a little place known as “Milvian Bridge.”

But we’ll get to him next time.

— G.K.


[1] With the Jews, the Romans finally stumbled across a people who they couldn’t subsume their gods into the Roman pantheon with the whole “oh, yeah, that god? Totally Jupiter,” shtick. So, when the Jews wouldn’t make sacrifices to Jupiter the Best and the Greatest (at everything except being faithful to his wife) for the Emperor, the Romans assumed they were rebelling and Bad Times Ensued until they and the Jews settled for sacrifices being made on behalf of the Emperor to the Jewish God (who was not Jupiter the Best and the Greatest at everything except keeping it in his pants).

Jupiter, the original douchecanoe
Jupiter, the original douchecanoe

The Great Divorce

The Great Divorce

As someone who has spent a considerable amount of time studying history, I have my personal theories about why societies and civilizations fall apart. And, I think we are in the last few years of our current globe-spanning Western civilization. Whether those years will be counted by actual years or by decades is still up for debate. But, the end of the world as we’ve known it is upon us and I believe it is for the same reasons that Rome, Greece, Egypt, China, and Mesopotamia failed.

We are divided into two major groups: the urban group and the agricultural group. Each has its own discrete set of interests based on location, lifestyle, and local culture. Neither group is better or worse than the other and, in many cases, there is considerable overlap in interests. No, the true division is in prioritization and in means of achieving those interests. And therein lies the reason why I no longer think this divide can be bridged.

Civilizations have fallen in the past when the urban elites overruled and ignored the plight of the agricultural base that made their lives possible. Think about it: the city of Rome (or Constantinople or Athens or Beijing or Cairo or Memphis or Baghdad) does not have enough arable land attached to it to support itself. It needs to bring in wheat, meat, and wine from the outlying agricultural districts. Therefore, it needs the people working that land to either 1) feel like they have a vested interest in supporting Rome (or wherever) or 2) be serfs who have no choice. The most successful civilizations have been those that were able to convince the agricultural regions to continue to support the urban regions and who, to some extent, ennobled the idea of the citizen-farmer (such as in the case of Cincinnatus). But, when urban interests and priorities caused the ruling class to ignore, disparage, or enslave the agricultural workers, things started to go downhill very quickly.

That’s not to say that there was some kind of conspiracy or mass strike where food didn’t get sent to the urban regions. Instead, there became less interest in working the land and more in moving to the city where franchise was possible. Sons no longer remained to work the farms of their fathers and instead moved to the cities. Some places tried to undo this or force people to remain on the farms (a la the Roman tax-farmers who were a precursor to later European serfdom). Others sent soldiers to force the farmers to keep working the fields (and that usually led to a lot of other problems since soldiers weren’t paid well and often used their authority to enrich themselves).

But, when the divide gets too big, the society breaks down. And we’ve reached that point.

So, what do we do? In the natural course of things, one group or the other or both take up arms against each other, there’s a series of bloody wars that span decades, then one group triumphs over the other and the civilization restarts. In this case, I don’t see things working out too well for the urban group in the United States. They’ve helpfully (to those they term their enemies) isolated themselves in small easy-to-destroy zones. For instance, a few years ago, while writing my Zombie Apocalypse Survival Compendium, I worked out exactly how to make it impossible for anyone to survive in Los Angeles. It’s surprisingly easy and would require no more than a few hundred people and some commercial-grade explosives. Taking out Las Vegas is almost as trivial. New York City is a bit more of a challenge but not overly difficult — especially not Manhattan island. Chicago presents a definite challenge but, again, if you control the zones around it, it’s not difficult to use standard siege tactics and a small strike team to shut down air access within the city itself.**

And if I, working with no resources and only a few maps, can figure out how to do it, chances are someone who doesn’t view it as a mental exercise to contain zombies has worked it out in far greater detail. And it won’t be pretty. We’re talking tens of millions dead inside a few months from starvation, dehydration, lack of sanitation, lack of access to electrical power, and then the plagues that seem to follow from such disasters.

Meanwhile, the agricultural region is not going to be easily conquered. The population density is low and living off the land is not only a cultural expectation, it’s a real possibility. There are no high-impact damaging targets to hit that are the equivalent of even one of the urban cities. I mean, sure, taking out some monuments would make people mad but it wouldn’t lead to the deaths of millions. Then there’s the fact that most of the current armed forces are culturally inline with the agricultural regions — they are more likely to refuse to obey orders or even kill their commanders if ordered to take control of what the urban dwellers call “Flyover Country.” And then, within those regions, while there are those who sympathize with the urban regions, they are generally well known and if they started trying to begin a grassroots terrorist campaign, they will find themselves woefully outnumbers and outgunned. Even if you could take out the entire electrical grid in “Flyover Country” and wrest control of the ports and rivers from them, it’s still difficult to conquer them. You’re dealing with people who routinely lose access to power and water for days or weeks on end and who have cultural expectations that they will be able to deal with it. So, short of killing mass numbers of them and sending the rest to re-education camps, there is no easy way to destroy the current agricultural region or its political movements.

So, what can be done that will not result in massive death?

The Great Divorce.

I propose that we break into two nations — an urban nation and an agricultural nation. Further, I propose that the current national debt be divided by the number of total people and that each new nation take that percentage of debt as theirs to pay off. If the urban group refuses this, then the agricultural group should assume 100% of the debt but, in return, retains access to all armaments — nuclear and otherwise. In this case, the new urban nation starts with no military assets. Urban sympathizers living in agricultural areas can either move to the new nation or can opt to give up citizenship in their local zone and become citizens of the urban zone but will no longer be allowed free access to services supported by local taxes. Same with agricultural sympathizers living in urban zones. So, if you’re an urban citizen who has chosen to live in the agricultural belt for whatever reason, your taxes go to support your urban nation and not to support the local schools. Therefore, you would have to pay to send your children to state-funded schools. Same for agricultural sympathizers living in the cities.

Trade and treaties between these two nations can be hammered out but any current agreements between regions will be null and void and will have to be negotiated fresh. That means that if the agricultural region wants access to a West Coast port, they’ll have to negotiate for it. It also means that if the urban region wants access to fresh water from the agricultural region, they’ll have to negotiate for it. Same with electrical power generation, mining rights, etc. The agricultural group could, as a gesture of good faith and good will, agree to cede a certain amount of arable land non-contiguous with an urban region to the urban nation to use as a breadbasket for itself. However, that land and free access to it would be contingent upon the urban citizens finding people with the know-how and willingness to go work on the farms and on them not spitting on the agricultural citizens who have graciously given up their land.

After that, the citizens of one nation go their way and the citizens of the other go a different way. Neither gets to rule over citizens of the other. If citizens of the agricultural nation are up in arms because citizens of the urban state can have abortions, well, they have as much say in that as the US currently has in abortion laws in Finland. If the citizens of the urban nation are up in arms because the citizens of the agricultural nation decide that the drinking age should be fourteen, well, again, they have as much say in it as the US currently does in British tax rates.

Both nations, if they chose to remain open to each other, could conduct various campaigns to try to win hearts and minds to their nation. Children born in either nation would not have citizenship rights until at least eighteen and at eighteen could very well decide to go live in the other nation. Immigration policy between the two will be up to the new governments, of course, but I would propose that there be a cooling-off period of five years between settling in a new nation and receiving franchise rights.

The only real issue of contention I see that is not easily resolved is that relating to the broadcast spectrum but, with the airwaves becoming less important due to the advent of the Internet, I don’t see it as a major stumbling block.

So, people on the left and right — what do you think? Are you willing to give up power over those who disagree with you in order to have your own nation? Or is all your caterwauling and hand-wringing just the same tired clichés that all tyrants trot out whenever they decide that they need to rule over people “for their own good?”

A house divided cannot stand but then a marriage where the parents do nothing but fight and scream at each other doesn’t last very long either.

— G.K.

**I am not going to post details of how to do any of these things here since I don’t want to give any local wackos ideas. Suffice it to say, I ran it past several of my friends in the military and the words “Yes, it would work. What is wrong with you that you think this shit up?” were uttered.