thread policyDiscussion of politics that does not directly relate to the Quest or to Quest votes are banned from hereon out. This thread policy will be enforced by the Moderation team. Do not ignore it.
I am not sure we would like to potentially become a client state of the NCR if the NCR is successful. It could mean less freedom to redefine America on our terms and we end up following the NCR's timetables and plans. We could simply be used as a buffer state against Victoria if the Californian nationalists win out. If the USA restorers win out in the NCR, it is currently more likely the NCR would absorb us than the other way around as the NCR is much stronger than us. On the other hand, we realistically need a patron and it is potentially better to have an American patron than a foreign one. Creating an America exactly like our ideological visions, whatever it is, by ourselves or simply surviving by ourselves is likely a pipedream. If I was playing the NCR, I would have quietly modernized and waited for the Tsar's death instead of a risky three year plan but we have to deal with it and hope it works out.
I think we have enough distance and industrial capacity of our own to be more than just a client state.
On the other hand... I consider the "victory condition" for this quest to be "The US reunites under a decent and civilized government, the Victorians go splat, and the Russians are very sad." I'm not picky as to how this happens, and it'd kind of be a nice change of pace for once to have a nation-builder quest that ends well but doesn't necessarily involve the player polity turning into some kind of continent-bestriding juggernaut.
it'd kind of be a nice change of pace for once to have a nation-builder quest that ends well but doesn't necessarily involve the player polity turning into some kind of continent-bestriding juggernaut.
The implication in what I said is that (in the scenario described by the poster I was replying to), well, we'd be the junior partner in a relationship with the NCR. The point being, they might then be the ones reuniting the continent. Fine by me, if so.
Another possible contribution if @PoptartProdigy approves it. My take on what the Victorian Sympathizers- or at least one particular group of them- believe and their methods for recruiting otherwise reasonable people. I stress for the record that the opinions given below are not my own, and that I condemn sexism, racism, antisemitism, and fascism without qualifiers. I may have gone a bit overboard with the footnotes.
As always, I am happy to make any changes the OP may request.
Crokus Sperling
Large parts of Chicago had been abandoned.
There were districts that had been gutted by fire during the fighting with the Neo-Nazis or other conflicts after the collapse of the old United States. The city government had opted not to waste resources on these areas and their adjacent neighborhoods, leaving them without running water, electricity, or basic maintenance. The decline in the city's population meant that they hadn't needed all of room in any case, and it was only now that people had begun swarming into Chicago, seeking stable government and a cause they believed in, that they were inhabited again. Charles could see the smoke of the refugees campfires from the stairwell of the Guilfoyle Building.
"We've taken in too many people." Richard noticed him looking out the window. "It would be kinder to send them back where they came from- there'll be starvation come winter."
"I don't know that most of them have anywhere to go." Charles said as he followed the older man up the steps.
"They all came from somewhere- they're just here because they think that we'll be able to give them an easier life. When we can't they'll riot- just wait and see."
The Guilfoyle Building was part of the urban core where the city government maintained a basic electric grid and working water and sewer. The building itself- once an office building before the fall of the United States- now hosted apartments for middle class Chicagoans, particularly government employees like Charles and Richard. Charles had been with the Housing Department for six years now, but Richard was one of the many new hires- part of the general reorganization and expansion the limited city bureaucracy was undergoing as it absorbed the institutions of the other Free Cities members and transformed into the administrative arm of a real state.
"So, what kind of group did you say you were?"
"Oh, the American Union is a revivalist group for state workers, soldiers, anyone who works for the government. We meet every Wednesday to drink, unwind, and talk politics. We all want to see America become great again, the question is just how to make sure that we don't make the same mistakes that the old America did."
"Sounds fair. What sort of revivalists?" Please don't say communists, Charles thought to himself. He'd only agreed to go to be nice to the other man, who was shaping up to be a friend of his, and Richard hadn't come out straight and said precisely what branch of revivalism his group subscribed to. If they were communists, then Charles would stay as long as was polite and then make his excuses, he decided. They worked together after all, no reason to be rude.
"You're a New Capitalist, right?"
"That's right."
"You'll like these guys- we're pretty conservative for the most part."
"Oh, that's good."
They arrived at one of the apartments and Richard knocked on the door.
"Richard!" A middle-aged woman opened it. "And you brought a friend, how nice. Please come in."
She ushered them both into a surprisingly large space- it looked like the living room had once been a conference room back in the days when the Guilfoyle Building held private offices. There was a large Betsy Ross flag on one wall and framed drawings of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt. And Jesus Christ in pride of place in the center- they were indeed conservatives it seemed.[1]
Richard introduced him to some of the others there- Charles was pleasantly surprised to recognize a few familiar faces. Like he had said, they were fellow government employees, a couple of police officers, some new recruits to the army Burns was organizing. No women, which was odd, except for the one who had opened the door and apparently, she was the wife of their host. Before he could finish introductions there was a call for quiet and the host himself- a man named Crokus Sperling that Charles had seen once or twice working for the Finance Committee- opened the meeting.
There was the pledge of allegiance to the flag on the wall [2], and a version of the Revivalist Oath that most of the right-wing revival groups recited.[3] Then a prayer asking god to bless their cause and rain judgement down on Victoria and her allies led by a man who was a both a pastor and a postal worker. Mrs. Sperling passed around little glasses of corn whiskey and Mr. Sperling led them in a toast to Acting President Ron Burns and a man named Harlan Oates led a second toast calling for "death to Victoria". All quite ritualized and scripted, but Charles found himself enjoying it. The members of the American Union seemed friendly and jovial, and the corn whiskey was good.
"I see," Crokus Sperling said at last, "that we have a newcomer tonight! Rick, why don't you introduce him to the group?"
Richard stood, smiling. "This is Charlie-stand up Charlie- we work together in the Housing Department. Don't play poker with him-" they laughed at that, and Charlie grinned at the memory of a game with the other man one lunch where he had made off quite well "-but he's a good patriot and while he's a New Capitalist I think we're on the same side."
"Wait, you're not New Capitalists?" He was left confused. "I was under the impression this was a conservative Revivalist group."
"We don't like to think of ourselves in terms of left and right- we prefer the term 'Unionists'."[4] Sperling answered. "Rick, do you want to explain things to our guest?"
"Sure." Charles' coworker turned back to him. "Our biggest concern is that the people in charge of rebuilding our new America are making the exact same mistakes that the old one did- the same mistakes that brought the original United States down. We should be trying to recreate America as it was in the middle of the 20th century when it was the most powerful country in the world- instead people like Sara Johnson and Audrey Jameson seem hell-bent on trying to recreate early 21st century America when the country was decadent, divided, and sliding towards collapse."
"Women leaders." Sperling said. "Women in the military." Some of the other Unionists made disgusted noises. "A divided society."
"Wait, wait, wait." Charles raised a hand. "Sara Johnson is a hero and while I may not like all of her policies, she's been a perfectly decent mayor. There are women in the Devil Brigade- one of their company captains is a woman. I don't think there are any grounds for suggesting woman are inferior to men."
Richard smiled. "No one here thinks women are inferior to men. Do you think women are inferior Crokus?"
"Not at all." The apparent leader of the group shook his head. "I wouldn't have married my wife if I didn't consider her my equal. Does anyone think that women are lesser than men?"
A chorus of 'no's' answered him.
"Charlie, I believe- and I think everyone here agree with me- that women are equal to men in the eyes of god. What we believe is that men and women are different, that they have different but equally important roles in society.[5] And history shows that a woman's role is not in the military or leading a government- for thousands of years wars have been fought by men, nations led and shaped by men, and there's a Darwinian reason for this; nations that put women in positions of leadership or in their armies fail. America had exactly one female president, and her administration came less than a decade before the collapse of the United States.[6]"
The young bureaucrat struggled to marshal his arguments. He was very aware that everyone was looking at him, and that all of them seemed to be in agreement with Sperling.
"But there are women who are competent- even excellent soldiers and leaders. Sara Johnson fought the Neo-Nazis to victory and she led Chicago for years- we didn't fail. Hellfire Burns led the Devil Brigade through a thousand battles with women in their ranks- he didn't fail either."
"Can I take this?" One of the other men- he wore the armband of a cadet in the new officer program- raised a hand and Sperling nodded.
"Do you know what percentage of the Devil Brigade are women?" He asked Charles.
"No."
"Take a guess."
"A third?"
"Just over ten percent."[7] The cadet said. "If men and women were equally good at being soldiers as the feminists would have you believe, then that number should be fifty-fifty or close to it. And of those ten percent, they're almost all in support positions. They're medics or they have quartermaster duties- which makes sense as women are naturally better suited than men to nurture, feed, and care for others. Only a handful of the women in Devil Brigade actually have combat roles."
"But some do have combat roles." Should he really be arguing with a cadet on this? The man was training to be an officer in the army, maybe he knew better? "And one of the company captains is a woman."[8]
"Exceptions to the rule." Sperling broke in. "There will always be that one woman in a thousand who is just as good as a man at soldiering or leadership- or even better." He made a gesture that seemed to convey what a concession he was making. "And that includes people like Captain- Levine I believe her name is- and Vice President Johnson, although I'd argue that this population boom she allowed is a perfect example of the dangers of leaving the more compassionate sex in charge. The problem is that you can't build a society for the exceptions, you have to build it for the average man or woman, and the average woman isn't fit for military service or political power."[9]
"That's one of the mistakes the old United States made that we need to avoid in our new one." Richard added. "They tried to create a social system that catered to women who were exceptional and in doing so pushed large numbers of totally uncapable females into their military and political leadership- it was a major factor in the fall of the country."
"This sounds…" Charles licked his lips. "This sounds a little like what the Victorians believe."
It was the wrong thing to say- faces hardened all around the room and frowns replaced smiles.
"Charlie," Richard said with a wounded tone, "you know me. We work together. I can't believe you would accuse me of having Victorian sympathies."[10]
"No!" The younger man waved his hands trying to walk back the comment. "I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm just observing that there are some similarities…"
"Victoria is evil." Sperling interrupted him. "They were and are traitors to their country who sold out America to Russia. They are the enemies of all true Americans and heretics by the standards of all true Christians.[11] They burn people alive. But we have a duty to America to be realistic. When your enemy defeats you, you asses what your enemy did right and what you did wrong before fighting them again. And what we did wrong was create a weak, broken, divided society."
"For instance I have no problem with Jews- Andrew is a Jew-" Sperling gestured to a man who nodded. "But when you have a segment of society not calling themselves Americans but 'Jewish-Americans' and doing their best to influence America to pursue policies not for the good of America but the good of a foreign government then you have a problem.[12] You have a divided society. I have nothing against blacks-" again he indicated one of the other participants "Ian is black. But when you have black people not calling themselves Americans but 'African-Americans' and voting as a block to pursue policies like Affirmative Action and Reparations that benefit their group while weakening America as a whole you have a problem."[13]
"A divided society!" The room shouted the phrase along with their leader.
"America had a divided society when Victoria had a united one, so we lost and they won. America put women in positions beyond female abilities when Victoria didn't, so we lost and they won. America embraced new technologies like the internet, heedless of their social and human cost, when Victoria didn't so we lost and they won."
Sperling was speaking more to the room than Charles now, and they were pounding the table and shouting in agreement. It was a political rally writ miniature.
"America forgot what the founding fathers knew-"
"United we stand, divided we fall!" They cried out in unison.
"But we remember! What do we want!"
"An American Union!"
He didn't agree with them, but as he watched the group surge to its feet, toasting and shouting and laughing, Charles had to admit that they made some valid points.[14]
[1] Fascist groups in the 1920s and 30s liked to appropriate patriotic American symbolism including the flag and the Founding Fathers. I imagine our "otherwise loyal" Victorian Sympathizers would do the same.
[2] See above. The 1939 Nazi Rally in Madison Square Garden opened with a pledge of allegiance and had a huge image of George Washington flanked by American flags as its centerpiece.
[3] An invention of mine, basically swearing to be loyal to America and to dedicate oneself to the cause of reunifying the country. It seems like the sort of thing the Revivalists would go in for, with different versions of the oath being an easy way to spot where on the political spectrum a given revivalist group falls. The conservatives invoke god in their oath, the communists insert a reference to liberating the working classes, etc.
[4] Modern fascists love seemingly inoffensive monikers that are easy for outsiders to misinterpret as something else. See "alt-right" instead of "far-right" (before the term went mainstream) and groups like the Creativity Movement or Act for America. In any case they're hardly going to refer to themselves openly as Victorian Sympathizers.
[5] I've had misogynists use this argument to justify their positions to me before- they don't believe women are inferior to men, they just want to treat them as if they are by excluding them from certain roles.
[6] We don't have much cannon on who the Presidents were post-Trump in this timeline, but I would expect at least one woman.
[7] 14% of the United States Army is composed of women as of 2014. But this has more to do with patriarchal cultural traditions discouraging women from enlisting than some kind of fictitious female inferiority. In any case, don't believe statistics when they are being cited by a fascist- Burns' willingness to recruit anyone as long as they can do the job and a general desperation by civilians to join a group like the Devils for protection, means that the percentage in the Devil Brigade is probably higher.
[8] Don't judge Charles too harshly- he's being put on the spot and surrounded by people that he naturally regards as authority figures (police, government employees, members of the military) who are pushing the same idea on him in unison. There have been some fascinating psychological studies into how humans hate being the only person in a group with a diverging opinion, to the point that many will endorse positions that they know are wrong just because everyone else does. This may be an evolved behavior- if you're the only person in a group with a dissenting opinion it usually means that your opinion is wrong- but it's easily exploited by cults and political fringe groups by isolating recruits and pressuring them to adopt their ideas. Interestingly this effect disappears or declines substantially if even one other person shares the same dissenting view that you do.
[9] Don't debate these guys, they just move goalposts. Sperling is using this argument so that he can dismiss the many examples of successful female soldiers and leaders throughout history as flukes, while citing male soldiers and leaders from history as evidence for his position.
[10] Favorite tactic of cults, fascists, and anti-vaxxers- treat reasonable objections as if the person making them were being rude and unpleasant and rely on their natural inclination towards civility to make them self-censor.
[11] My understanding from the bits I've read of Lind's book are that the Victorian government has a strict definition of what qualifies as "Christian" and suppresses any churches that don't meet said definition. It seems to me that quite a few Christians- even of the fundamentalist or evangelical stripe- might have serious issues with this.
[12] Jews having divided loyalties is a traditional antisemitic canard. See the Dreyfuss Affair, the "Rootless Cosmopolitan", etc.
[13] "I don't have a problem with minorities! Provided of course they're loyal to my group and our interests and not to their own."
[14] See [8]
That sounds so much like real life sexists that I reflexively started getting ready to downvote. I can tell you write from real life experience.
I dont care how much it cripples our government, I dont care how much it betrays democracy, we need to cleanse this filth NOW before their cancer can spread any further.
How do you propose we "cleanse this filth"? I'm curious what, specifically, you have in mind? What steps are you wanting to undertake? What lines are you willing to cross? What lines aren't you willing to cross?
While I agree with your sentiments on the matter, we should be cautious deploying that type of rhetoric to justify government actions against citizens, for reasons I hope should be evident.
So you're saying ignore facts when they are uncomfortable to you? If the facts are accurate then it doesn't matter who is citing them facts are facts. For example it is a fact that the average man is taller than the average woman. It is a fact that the average man produces testosterone in much greater quantities than the average woman and consequently the average man will have denser bones and denser muscles than the average woman. If someone is wrong about facts then you research and find a source which shows they are wrong.
On the other hand if you're just saying to not just believe statistics blindly then why make the distinction of fascists? Anyone can cite false statistics, its just that the far ends of the spectrum do it more.
Implying that their own interests can't align with the group's? If you're advocating for the interests of a group while not advocating against the interests of any minority within the group then what's the problem? Unless you're saying that by their nature of being a minority group they will have different interests which is stereotyping. A rich person who is part of a minority group will have far more in common with another rich person then they will with a poor person in their minority group.
Also because of the nature of my retort I'm sure there will be people who think I'm disagreeing with the general sentiment of these characters being wrong. I'm not. I think their views on women being unfit for political power and positions of authority as a whole is abhorrent. There are just as many men unfit for positions like that as women. I just think that the counter argument was a bit poorly done in places.
So you're saying ignore facts when they are uncomfortable to you? If the facts are accurate then it doesn't matter who is citing them facts are facts. For example it is a fact that the average man is taller than the average woman. It is a fact that the average man produces testosterone in much greater quantities than the average woman and consequently the average man will have denser bones and denser muscles than the average woman. If someone is wrong about facts then you research and find a source which shows they are wrong.
On the other hand if you're just saying to not just believe statistics blindly then why make the distinction of fascists? Anyone can cite false statistics, its just that the far ends of the spectrum do it more.
You know the joke about "if [UNTRUSTWORTHY PERSON] said the sky was blue, I'd go out and check"?
Yeah, @EBR's basically saying the serious version of that is "if a fascist is quoting something, assume it's false and check." Like, it's pretty artfully done that the fascist quotes "10% of women in military" - and the footnote says the real number is closer to 20%.
So you're saying ignore facts when they are uncomfortable to you? If the facts are accurate then it doesn't matter who is citing them facts are facts. For example it is a fact that the average man is taller than the average woman. It is a fact that the average man produces testosterone in much greater quantities than the average woman and consequently the average man will have denser bones and denser muscles than the average woman. If someone is wrong about facts then you research and find a source which shows they are wrong.
On the other hand if you're just saying to not just believe statistics blindly then why make the distinction of fascists? Anyone can cite false statistics, its just that the far ends of the spectrum do it more.
Implying that their own interests can't align with the group's? If you're advocating for the interests of a group while not advocating against the interests of any minority within the group then what's the problem? Unless you're saying that by their nature of being a minority group they will have different interests which is stereotyping. A rich person who is part of a minority group will have far more in common with another rich person then they will with a poor person in their minority group.
Also because of the nature of my retort I'm sure there will be people who think I'm disagreeing with the general sentiment of these characters being wrong. I'm not. I think their views on women being unfit for political power and positions of authority as a whole is abhorrent. There are just as many men unfit for positions like that as women. I just think that the counter argument was a bit poorly done in places.
It's not that the statistics are uniformly uncomfortable - in fact,any are chosen specifically for the opposite purpose. This isn't some case of "ignoring the uncomfortable truth."
The reason we specifically say don't listen to statistics from fascists is because they lie. At best, something they tell you is taken out of context or being used to support something it's not actually evidence of. The fact that they aren't the only group that does this doesn't change the fact that they do it, and since not everyone does so it's a disambiguating factor as well.
I think you misunderstood me. I'm saying the ERB's straw man of the fascist is saying that the minority's interests conflict with the whole's interests in some way.
The quote was "Provided of course they're loyal to my group and our interests and not to their own." which says that the minorities interests are not the in the interest of the whole group in some way.
Which is a weird thing as these guys aren't worshiping some idea of racial or religious purity which means anyone can join them making the only minority political ones. I mean its still bad but while being against someone for how they believe a country should be run can go to bad lengths but its nowhere near as inherently bad as hating someone for religious or racial reasons.
Edit: right forgot the Jesus iconography for a second there but they're accepting of Jews so it obviously isn't an absolute religious purity thing but there is an undertone there.
I'm not sure, I'm kind of just going to wait and see until poptart gives us our next set of choices and see what's available from there. But what I do know, is that we cannot let our social norms become corrupted into victoria-lite (or even regular 20th century for that matter), no matter what.
I imagine that if we do things right, a lot of these sympathizers will start either getting vocal or resorting to genuine subversive activity as our social policy goes in the opposite direction of what they want, so I don't think outright witch hunts will be necessary though.
Could you actually answer my questions? Right now it's just a vague idea of "this is a bad thing" and "something must be done". I'm of a mindset that says not having at least an outline of a response before a crisis (or even just a "crisis") happens is just asking for sloppy decision-making.
So.
What is your proposal? What do you see as appropriate or allowable responses?
What lines do you think we can cross if necessary (from your point of view)?
What lines should we never cross?
What are you willing to compromise for your goal here?
What is an acceptable sacrifice of principles?
How much democracy are you willing to give up?
Another possible contribution if @PoptartProdigy approves it. My take on what the Victorian Sympathizers- or at least one particular group of them- believe and their methods for recruiting otherwise reasonable people. I stress for the record that the opinions given below are not my own, and that I condemn sexism, racism, antisemitism, and fascism without qualifiers. I may have gone a bit overboard with the footnotes.
As always, I am happy to make any changes the OP may request.
Crokus Sperling
Large parts of Chicago had been abandoned.
There were districts that had been gutted by fire during the fighting with the Neo-Nazis or other conflicts after the collapse of the old United States. The city government had opted not to waste resources on these areas and their adjacent neighborhoods, leaving them without running water, electricity, or basic maintenance. The decline in the city's population meant that they hadn't needed all of room in any case, and it was only now that people had begun swarming into Chicago, seeking stable government and a cause they believed in, that they were inhabited again. Charles could see the smoke of the refugees campfires from the stairwell of the Guilfoyle Building.
"We've taken in too many people." Richard noticed him looking out the window. "It would be kinder to send them back where they came from- there'll be starvation come winter."
"I don't know that most of them have anywhere to go." Charles said as he followed the older man up the steps.
"They all came from somewhere- they're just here because they think that we'll be able to give them an easier life. When we can't they'll riot- just wait and see."
The Guilfoyle Building was part of the urban core where the city government maintained a basic electric grid and working water and sewer. The building itself- once an office building before the fall of the United States- now hosted apartments for middle class Chicagoans, particularly government employees like Charles and Richard. Charles had been with the Housing Department for six years now, but Richard was one of the many new hires- part of the general reorganization and expansion the limited city bureaucracy was undergoing as it absorbed the institutions of the other Free Cities members and transformed into the administrative arm of a real state.
"So, what kind of group did you say you were?"
"Oh, the American Union is a revivalist group for state workers, soldiers, anyone who works for the government. We meet every Wednesday to drink, unwind, and talk politics. We all want to see America become great again, the question is just how to make sure that we don't make the same mistakes that the old America did."
"Sounds fair. What sort of revivalists?" Please don't say communists, Charles thought to himself. He'd only agreed to go to be nice to the other man, who was shaping up to be a friend of his, and Richard hadn't come out straight and said precisely what branch of revivalism his group subscribed to. If they were communists, then Charles would stay as long as was polite and then make his excuses, he decided. They worked together after all, no reason to be rude.
"You're a New Capitalist, right?"
"That's right."
"You'll like these guys- we're pretty conservative for the most part."
"Oh, that's good."
They arrived at one of the apartments and Richard knocked on the door.
"Richard!" A middle-aged woman opened it. "And you brought a friend, how nice. Please come in."
She ushered them both into a surprisingly large space- it looked like the living room had once been a conference room back in the days when the Guilfoyle Building held private offices. There was a large Betsy Ross flag on one wall and framed drawings of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt. And Jesus Christ in pride of place in the center- they were indeed conservatives it seemed.[1]
Richard introduced him to some of the others there- Charles was pleasantly surprised to recognize a few familiar faces. Like he had said, they were fellow government employees, a couple of police officers, some new recruits to the army Burns was organizing. No women, which was odd, except for the one who had opened the door and apparently, she was the wife of their host. Before he could finish introductions there was a call for quiet and the host himself- a man named Crokus Sperling that Charles had seen once or twice working for the Finance Committee- opened the meeting.
There was the pledge of allegiance to the flag on the wall [2], and a version of the Revivalist Oath that most of the right-wing revival groups recited.[3] Then a prayer asking god to bless their cause and rain judgement down on Victoria and her allies led by a man who was a both a pastor and a postal worker. Mrs. Sperling passed around little glasses of corn whiskey and Mr. Sperling led them in a toast to Acting President Ron Burns and a man named Harlan Oates led a second toast calling for "death to Victoria". All quite ritualized and scripted, but Charles found himself enjoying it. The members of the American Union seemed friendly and jovial, and the corn whiskey was good.
"I see," Crokus Sperling said at last, "that we have a newcomer tonight! Rick, why don't you introduce him to the group?"
Richard stood, smiling. "This is Charlie-stand up Charlie- we work together in the Housing Department. Don't play poker with him-" they laughed at that, and Charlie grinned at the memory of a game with the other man one lunch where he had made off quite well "-but he's a good patriot and while he's a New Capitalist I think we're on the same side."
"Wait, you're not New Capitalists?" He was left confused. "I was under the impression this was a conservative Revivalist group."
"We don't like to think of ourselves in terms of left and right- we prefer the term 'Unionists'."[4] Sperling answered. "Rick, do you want to explain things to our guest?"
"Sure." Charles' coworker turned back to him. "Our biggest concern is that the people in charge of rebuilding our new America are making the exact same mistakes that the old one did- the same mistakes that brought the original United States down. We should be trying to recreate America as it was in the middle of the 20th century when it was the most powerful country in the world- instead people like Sara Johnson and Audrey Jameson seem hell-bent on trying to recreate early 21st century America when the country was decadent, divided, and sliding towards collapse."
"Women leaders." Sperling said. "Women in the military." Some of the other Unionists made disgusted noises. "A divided society."
"Wait, wait, wait." Charles raised a hand. "Sara Johnson is a hero and while I may not like all of her policies, she's been a perfectly decent mayor. There are women in the Devil Brigade- one of their company captains is a woman. I don't think there are any grounds for suggesting woman are inferior to men."
Richard smiled. "No one here thinks women are inferior to men. Do you think women are inferior Crokus?"
"Not at all." The apparent leader of the group shook his head. "I wouldn't have married my wife if I didn't consider her my equal. Does anyone think that women are lesser than men?"
A chorus of 'no's' answered him.
"Charlie, I believe- and I think everyone here agree with me- that women are equal to men in the eyes of god. What we believe is that men and women are different, that they have different but equally important roles in society.[5] And history shows that a woman's role is not in the military or leading a government- for thousands of years wars have been fought by men, nations led and shaped by men, and there's a Darwinian reason for this; nations that put women in positions of leadership or in their armies fail. America had exactly one female president, and her administration came less than a decade before the collapse of the United States.[6]"
The young bureaucrat struggled to marshal his arguments. He was very aware that everyone was looking at him, and that all of them seemed to be in agreement with Sperling.
"But there are women who are competent- even excellent soldiers and leaders. Sara Johnson fought the Neo-Nazis to victory and she led Chicago for years- we didn't fail. Hellfire Burns led the Devil Brigade through a thousand battles with women in their ranks- he didn't fail either."
"Can I take this?" One of the other men- he wore the armband of a cadet in the new officer program- raised a hand and Sperling nodded.
"Do you know what percentage of the Devil Brigade are women?" He asked Charles.
"No."
"Take a guess."
"A third?"
"Just over ten percent."[7] The cadet said. "If men and women were equally good at being soldiers as the feminists would have you believe, then that number should be fifty-fifty or close to it. And of those ten percent, they're almost all in support positions. They're medics or they have quartermaster duties- which makes sense as women are naturally better suited than men to nurture, feed, and care for others. Only a handful of the women in Devil Brigade actually have combat roles."
"But some do have combat roles." Should he really be arguing with a cadet on this? The man was training to be an officer in the army, maybe he knew better? "And one of the company captains is a woman."[8]
"Exceptions to the rule." Sperling broke in. "There will always be that one woman in a thousand who is just as good as a man at soldiering or leadership- or even better." He made a gesture that seemed to convey what a concession he was making. "And that includes people like Captain- Levine I believe her name is- and Vice President Johnson, although I'd argue that this population boom she allowed is a perfect example of the dangers of leaving the more compassionate sex in charge. The problem is that you can't build a society for the exceptions, you have to build it for the average man or woman, and the average woman isn't fit for military service or political power."[9]
"That's one of the mistakes the old United States made that we need to avoid in our new one." Richard added. "They tried to create a social system that catered to women who were exceptional and in doing so pushed large numbers of totally uncapable females into their military and political leadership- it was a major factor in the fall of the country."
"This sounds…" Charles licked his lips. "This sounds a little like what the Victorians believe."
It was the wrong thing to say- faces hardened all around the room and frowns replaced smiles.
"Charlie," Richard said with a wounded tone, "you know me. We work together. I can't believe you would accuse me of having Victorian sympathies."[10]
"No!" The younger man waved his hands trying to walk back the comment. "I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm just observing that there are some similarities…"
"Victoria is evil." Sperling interrupted him. "They were and are traitors to their country who sold out America to Russia. They are the enemies of all true Americans and heretics by the standards of all true Christians.[11] They burn people alive. But we have a duty to America to be realistic. When your enemy defeats you, you asses what your enemy did right and what you did wrong before fighting them again. And what we did wrong was create a weak, broken, divided society."
"For instance I have no problem with Jews- Andrew is a Jew-" Sperling gestured to a man who nodded. "But when you have a segment of society not calling themselves Americans but 'Jewish-Americans' and doing their best to influence America to pursue policies not for the good of America but the good of a foreign government then you have a problem.[12] You have a divided society. I have nothing against blacks-" again he indicated one of the other participants "Ian is black. But when you have black people not calling themselves Americans but 'African-Americans' and voting as a block to pursue policies like Affirmative Action and Reparations that benefit their group while weakening America as a whole you have a problem."[13]
"A divided society!" The room shouted the phrase along with their leader.
"America had a divided society when Victoria had a united one, so we lost and they won. America put women in positions beyond female abilities when Victoria didn't, so we lost and they won. America embraced new technologies like the internet, heedless of their social and human cost, when Victoria didn't so we lost and they won."
Sperling was speaking more to the room than Charles now, and they were pounding the table and shouting in agreement. It was a political rally writ miniature.
"America forgot what the founding fathers knew-"
"United we stand, divided we fall!" They cried out in unison.
"But we remember! What do we want!"
"An American Union!"
He didn't agree with them, but as he watched the group surge to its feet, toasting and shouting and laughing, Charles had to admit that they made some valid points.[14]
[1] Fascist groups in the 1920s and 30s liked to appropriate patriotic American symbolism including the flag and the Founding Fathers. I imagine our "otherwise loyal" Victorian Sympathizers would do the same.
[2] See above. The 1939 Nazi Rally in Madison Square Garden opened with a pledge of allegiance and had a huge image of George Washington flanked by American flags as its centerpiece.
[3] An invention of mine, basically swearing to be loyal to America and to dedicate oneself to the cause of reunifying the country. It seems like the sort of thing the Revivalists would go in for, with different versions of the oath being an easy way to spot where on the political spectrum a given revivalist group falls. The conservatives invoke god in their oath, the communists insert a reference to liberating the working classes, etc.
[4] Modern fascists love seemingly inoffensive monikers that are easy for outsiders to misinterpret as something else. See "alt-right" instead of "far-right" (before the term went mainstream) and groups like the Creativity Movement or Act for America. In any case they're hardly going to refer to themselves openly as Victorian Sympathizers.
[5] I've had misogynists use this argument to justify their positions to me before- they don't believe women are inferior to men, they just want to treat them as if they are by excluding them from certain roles.
[6] We don't have much cannon on who the Presidents were post-Trump in this timeline, but I would expect at least one woman.
[7] 14% of the United States Army is composed of women as of 2014. But this has more to do with patriarchal cultural traditions discouraging women from enlisting than some kind of fictitious female inferiority. In any case, don't believe statistics when they are being cited by a fascist- Burns' willingness to recruit anyone as long as they can do the job and a general desperation by civilians to join a group like the Devils for protection, means that the percentage in the Devil Brigade is probably higher.
[8] Don't judge Charles too harshly- he's being put on the spot and surrounded by people that he naturally regards as authority figures (police, government employees, members of the military) who are pushing the same idea on him in unison. There have been some fascinating psychological studies into how humans hate being the only person in a group with a diverging opinion, to the point that many will endorse positions that they know are wrong just because everyone else does. This may be an evolved behavior- if you're the only person in a group with a dissenting opinion it usually means that your opinion is wrong- but it's easily exploited by cults and political fringe groups by isolating recruits and pressuring them to adopt their ideas. Interestingly this effect disappears or declines substantially if even one other person shares the same dissenting view that you do.
[9] Don't debate these guys, they just move goalposts. Sperling is using this argument so that he can dismiss the many examples of successful female soldiers and leaders throughout history as flukes, while citing male soldiers and leaders from history as evidence for his position.
[10] Favorite tactic of cults, fascists, and anti-vaxxers- treat reasonable objections as if the person making them were being rude and unpleasant and rely on their natural inclination towards civility to make them self-censor.
[11] My understanding from the bits I've read of Lind's book are that the Victorian government has a strict definition of what qualifies as "Christian" and suppresses any churches that don't meet said definition. It seems to me that quite a few Christians- even of the fundamentalist or evangelical stripe- might have serious issues with this.
[12] Jews having divided loyalties is a traditional antisemitic canard. See the Dreyfuss Affair, the "Rootless Cosmopolitan", etc.
[13] "I don't have a problem with minorities! Provided of course they're loyal to my group and our interests and not to their own."
[14] See [8]
No changes required. It's actually an uncomfortably accurate look at how these kinds of groups tend to operate now (my father held and holds some very uncomfortable political sympathies; growing up I witnessed a few meetings like this).
Victoria doesn't really have specific acrimony for Jews, but their general suspicion for outsiders is something they'd find extremely easy to turn against any attempt at maintaining an organized Jewish identity. In any case, this is not Victoria itself, but a bunch of ultra-conservatives aping Victorian values. I think it fits. Canon!
And the update, folks, will be up today or tomorrow.
I mean, my post was not meant to be a detailed policy proposal, and I do not have an actual detailed plan, so yeah, being vague is to be expected. As for what is to be done, I would say investigation of these groups for possible Victorian ties would be the first step. Of course, I'm sure that many of them dont have these ties, and are genuinely loyal to Chicago, at least in their own minds, so the next step would be to reiterate that we stand against every aspect of Victorian society and not just a few aspects, and to then enshrine things like total gender egalitarianism (as EBR said, mere generic equality is enough as people will hide behind the "equal but different roles" rhetoric) and religious freedom into our founding principles (some of that has already been done) and make its pursuit one of our explicit objectives, especially in this early formative period. This will either rob them of support or radicalize them further against us giving us an excuse to arrest them for, well, planning to act against the government in a violent manner when they begin to do so. If this establishes the precedent of punishing people for their ideas, that is unfortunate but better then the alternative.
I have seen what this kind of rhetoric does to people in real life, how attractive these kinds of appeals to nature can be, and how difficult it is to remove them once they take root, and as far as as I am concerned, if we have a reunited, peaceful, democratic america with victoria-lite cultural ideas, we will have lost.
(Sorry if I came on too strong, I just have some very strong opinions on the subject and couldn't help myself).
2.) So how thoroughly are you enshrining total gender egalitarianism? Are you going to outlaw religious teachings that have even hints of complementarian/"there are differences in genders" sort of teachings?
3.) So you're saying you're okay with seeking to, essentially, drive them to radicalization? Not as a byproduct of seeking to create an equal society, but as an end-goal to give the excuse of arresting them? So in other words, you're okay with entrapment?
4.)
If this establishes the precedent of punishing people for their ideas, that is unfortunate but better then the alternative.
5.) How far are you willing to go to achieve your ideal world? How thoroughly do you wish to stamp out any ideas that are insufficiently progressive compared to your ideas?
That sounds so much like real life sexists that I reflexively started getting ready to downvote. I can tell you write from real life experience.
I dont care how much it cripples our government, I dont care how much it betrays democracy, we need to cleanse this filth NOW before their cancer can spread any further.
So you're saying ignore facts when they are uncomfortable to you? If the facts are accurate then it doesn't matter who is citing them facts are facts. For example it is a fact that the average man is taller than the average woman. It is a fact that the average man produces testosterone in much greater quantities than the average woman and consequently the average man will have denser bones and denser muscles than the average woman. If someone is wrong about facts then you research and find a source which shows they are wrong.
On the other hand if you're just saying to not just believe statistics blindly then why make the distinction of fascists? Anyone can cite false statistics, its just that the far ends of the spectrum do it more.
The thing to bear in mind is, if a fact is quoted, in what context and towards what purpose.
The point of the exercise is to learn to differentiate between "this person has statistics on their side" and "this person is presenting an argument that runs in an intellectually honest direction and generally at least tries to avoid fallacious reasoning and implicit unspoken deeply-flawed assumptions."
That you missed that, especially when it's specifically called out as a lie and then you barge in and go "BUT WHAT IF THE CHILD CONSENTS? THE FASCISTS ARE RIGHT? is showing that you're operating in bad faith don't want to acknowledge the fundamental lie of fascist thought.
The more I read it, the more I am appreciative of how well it was made. Thank you @EBR. It was tough to read because of true it rang which is just an endorsement in its favor.
