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 100% sure what the best approach is to be honest. However, I will say that when I say the best approach, I mean the approach that will result in the smallest possible amount of spread of their ideology. If I denounce some form of political suppression against them, whether it be mob violence or secret police, it will only be done in the context of that method being counter-productive or not being as effective as a more "lenient" method.
So in other words, mob violence and secret police are not inherently negative/bad, but only in the context of whether it maybe has negative long-term results?
So in other words, mob violence and secret police are not inherently negative/bad, but only in the context of whether it maybe has negative long-term results?
To be honest, police action against fascists is bad because they're secret police; you shouldn't have those as an institution even if it somehow will never be subverted.
Normal police action can be used to deal with Fascism's just like any other kind of hate speech and conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity.
Dealing with fascist sympathizers of various stripes is tricky. Fascism is a fundamentally dishonest ideology that is ultimately about its followers pandering the prejudices of the local population or groups to create oppressive authoritarian rule, absolute loyalty, and grant the power to impose their bizarre delusions on the world. It is a stubborn idea that always adapts to new times and places to have another go at spreading. We can't truly ever get rid of fascism for good because its an idea that appeals to the inner darkness that lives in the human heart but we can limit and marginalize it.
We should avoid inquisitorial scares. We do not need a Grey Scare to go with the Red Scare. Inquisitorial scares and witch hunts on the street or government level are counterproductive on a moral and practical level because they sweep up lots of innocent people, they overly focus on apparent ideologues when many spies are motivated by purely non-ideological motives like money, blackmail, or personal vendettas, and allow real sympathizers and spies cover because people would assume that an accusation was just another witch hunt. These scares also risk allowing the government to justify repressive measures to attack political opponents. Undermining democracy and the rule of law to destroy fascism is missing the point.
The issue of Victorian or Fascist sympathizers is that they are ostensibly loyal citizens who claim to hate the Nazis or the Victorians and they may genuinely do so. It is a poor idea to send the government after "loyal" citizens and we should not deliberately radicalize people with the goal of entrapment. We should firmly educate people on what fascism is and why it is evil. We should attack mindless bigotry or racism. We should work as hard as possible to reduce economic hardship that makes people desperate for easy answers. We may consider banning overt fascist gatherings and parties. We should create a political culture where no politician would dare pander overtly or quietly to bigotry. We can marginalize it.
We must recognize that we cannot purge or blacklist every single fascist sympathizer in Chicago or future territories we capture or annex. We probably should not let war criminals off the hook but we should not blacklist a random janitor or shop worker forever from society because they attended a fascist club once out of curiosity during a desperate winter nine years ago.
To be honest, police action against fascists is bad because they're secret police; you shouldn't have those as an institution even if it somehow will never be subverted.
Normal police action can be used to deal with Fascism's just like any other kind of hate speech and conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity.
Dealing with fascist sympathizers of various stripes is tricky. Fascism is a fundamentally dishonest ideology that is ultimately about its followers pandering the prejudices of the local population or groups to create oppressive authoritarian rule, absolute loyalty, and grant the power to impose their bizarre delusions on the world. It is a stubborn idea that always adapts to new times and places to have another go at spreading. We can't truly ever get rid of fascism for good because its an idea that appeals to the inner darkness that lives in the human heart but we can limit and marginalize it.
We should avoid inquisitorial scares. We do not need a Grey Scare to go with the Red Scare. Inquisitorial scares and witch hunts on the street or government level are counterproductive on a moral and practical level because they sweep lots of innocent people, they overly focus on apparent ideologues when many spies are motivated by purely non-ideological motives like money, blackmail, or personal vendettas, and allow real sympathizers and spies cover because people would assume that an accusation was just another witch hunt. These scares also risk allowing the government to justify repressive measures to attack political opponents. Undermining democracy and the rule of law to destroy fascism is missing the point.
The issue of Victorian or Fascist sympathizers is that they are ostensibly loyal citizens who claim to hate the Nazis or the Victorians and they may genuinely do so. It is a poor idea to send the government after "loyal" citizens and we should not deliberately radicalize people with the goal of entrapment. We should firmly educate people on what fascism is and why it is evil. We should attack mindless bigotry or racism. We should work as hard as possible to reduce economic hardship that makes people desperate for easy answers. We may consider banning overt fascist gatherings and parties. We should create a political culture where no politician would dare pander overtly or quietly to bigotry. We can marginalize it.
We must recognize that we cannot purge or blacklist every single fascist sympathizer in Chicago or future territories we capture or annex.. We probably should not let war criminals off the hook but we should not blacklist a random janitor or shop worker forever from society because they attended a fascist club once out of curiosity during a desperate winter nine years ago.
I was going to write a long post about how those tools are inherently corruptable and a bunch of other stuff, but all of it can be boiled down to, in this case? Yeah, pretty much. I am hoping that the end result can be a free and equal society where all can express their views without fear, but in the long term undoing an authoritarian government is usually sonewhat easier then altering basic cultural assumptions so if we must choose between damaging ourselves in some way, the former is preferable.
Yeah, no, gonna fight you on this 100%. Mob violence and secret police in specific, and intentionally constructing a non-democratic/authoritarian state more generally, are bad things in and of themselves. I will not flex on this point.
I sincerely apologize- I skimmed your original post pretty quickly and I didn't reread it before responding to your comment..
Yeah, that seems pretty typical and is also core to Victorian (and real life fascist) mentality.
Blacks are only okay as long as they directly benefit whites; they aren't seen as having any value as people, only instrumental value as field hands or whatever. Women are okay as long as they directly benefit men; if they try to do things on their own then that's bad because they're arrogating intrinsic-worth-as-people when under the ideology they only get to have worth-as-instruments-of-male-happiness. And so on.
Exactly. Their talk about putting an American identity over any other identity may sound reasonable, until you realize that they define "American" as "white Christian" and they're basically demanding that other groups serve them.
Yeah. It's like, the Victorians probably won't have a state-coordinated pogrom against Jews, and Rumsford actually does bother to go "uh, yeah, I guess it was probably a bad thing that the Nazis killed like six million Jews, that's kind of a downer, shrug" in his chapter on the Wisconsin Nazis. But there's this tone of "yeah I don't really get why people complain about this so much" (which makes sense coming from a serial mass murderer).
So as noted, I doubt the Victorians ever bothered to have state pogroms against Jews. But if you're a Jew and you complain about no one being willing to give you a permit to build a synagogue, or about nobody being willing to stock kosher food, or about no one being willing to employ Jews at equal wages to do the same work, that's "identity politics" and therefore bad. In extreme cases it's even "identity politics" to complain about the mob firebombing your synagogue while apparently NOT identity politics to firebomb the synagogue in the first place.
I don't think Jews in Victoria are a tolerated minority in any normal sense of the word.
Oddly enough, Lind specifically singles them out as generally acceptable. Now, he does this in the same conversation as he makes a Jews and money joke, so I'm fairly sure that in practical terms they suffer prejudice all the same, but there's no state imperative to make them suffer.
A lot of neo-fascist alt-right types like to make a point of how they don't have a problem with Jews, therefore they can't be Nazis. I'm not surprised Lind engaged in the same behavior- it's part and parcel with his "token good black guy therefore I can't be racist" schtick.
To be honest, police action against fascists is bad because they're secret police; you shouldn't have those as an institution even if it somehow will never be subverted.
Normal police action can be used to deal with Fascism's just like any other kind of hate speech and conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity.
Dealing with fascist sympathizers of various stripes is tricky. Fascism is a fundamentally dishonest ideology that is ultimately about its followers pandering the prejudices of the local population or groups to create oppressive authoritarian rule, absolute loyalty, and grant the power to impose their bizarre delusions on the world. It is a stubborn idea that always adapts to new times and places to have another go at spreading. We can't truly ever get rid of fascism for good because its an idea that appeals to the inner darkness that lives in the human heart but we can limit and marginalize it.
We should avoid inquisitorial scares. We do not need a Grey Scare to go with the Red Scare. Inquisitorial scares and witch hunts on the street or government level are counterproductive on a moral and practical level because they sweep up lots of innocent people, they overly focus on apparent ideologues when many spies are motivated by purely non-ideological motives like money, blackmail, or personal vendettas, and allow real sympathizers and spies cover because people would assume that an accusation was just another witch hunt. These scares also risk allowing the government to justify repressive measures to attack political opponents. Undermining democracy and the rule of law to destroy fascism is missing the point.
The issue of Victorian or Fascist sympathizers is that they are ostensibly loyal citizens who claim to hate the Nazis or the Victorians and they may genuinely do so. It is a poor idea to send the government after "loyal" citizens and we should not deliberately radicalize people with the goal of entrapment. We should firmly educate people on what fascism is and why it is evil. We should attack mindless bigotry or racism. We should work as hard as possible to reduce economic hardship that makes people desperate for easy answers. We may consider banning overt fascist gatherings and parties. We should create a political culture where no politician would dare pander overtly or quietly to bigotry. We can marginalize it.
We must recognize that we cannot purge or blacklist every single fascist sympathizer in Chicago or future territories we capture or annex. We probably should not let war criminals off the hook but we should not blacklist a random janitor or shop worker forever from society because they attended a fascist club once out of curiosity during a desperate winter nine years ago.
I actually missed the technology thing somehow. And yeah, I did get the sense of the banning women from the military for sure and authority at least somewhat, and the subsuming of every identity in service of The State.
It's some pretty terrible stuff. I'm just concerned about the...vigorous...nature of some responses here.
I agree with the three of you. As disgusting as this ideology is, suppressing otherwise law-abiding citizens simply for holding it sets a bad precedent and isn't healthy. We do need to monitor them however- putting agents inside of political extremist groups to report who's a member, what they're planning, and whether or not they meet with any foreign agents strikes me as a perfectly reasonable step. Particularly if we're at war with a country whose ideology they share. And not promoting members of the civil service or military to sensitive positions because they share views with our enemies is a valid counter-intelligence policy.
If we detect any signs that they're a danger to the public- say they're organizing a coup, or their political activities are being funded by Victoria, or that they're planning violence against political groups that they regard as dangerous- then we can legitimately act.
So debate them, expose their corrupt ideology, and if necessary disallow them to have mass gatherings, especially rallies, protests, etc.
However, I hope you're not also calling for vigilante mob "justice" and/or things like secret "facist hunter" police, or just witch-hunt-type approaches in general.
To be perfectly blunt if debate in the public square could've stopped these guys the Collapse wouldn't have happened.
I'm not saying we set up a secret police or anything but I'm totally ok with things like proscribed fascist organizations are banned from having public rallies, running for office and otherwise operating openly and publicly. The measures necessary to stop them from meeting in the privacy of their own homes are too intrusive to be worth contemplating and open to abuse but it would be entirely justified to say, "Hey your bunch is saying women shouldn't be in public office and hypenated Americans are traitors. You hold a rally in the public square you'll be finishing it up behind bars for a solid prison sentence." That's well within the bounds of hate crimes legislation as is enforced in most of Europe and the EU isn't some sort of dystopian hellscape.
To be perfectly blunt if debate in the public square coould've stopped these guys the Collapse wouldn't have happened.
I'm not saying we set up a secret police or anything but I'm totally ok with things like proscribed fascist organizations are banned from having public rallies, running for office and otherwise operating openly and publicly. The measures necessary to stop them from meeting in the privacy of their own homes are too intrusive to be worth contemplating and open to abuse but it would be entirely justified to say, "Hey your bunch is saying women shouldn't be in public office and hypenated Americans are traitors. You hold a rally in the public square you'll be finishing it up behind bars for a solid prison sentence." That's well within the bounds of hate crimes legislation as is enforced in most of Europe and the EU isn't some sort of dystopian hellscape.
Very different context, very different social environment. Selling a minority of assholes on fascism when everyone else is unaccustomed to fighting back against it in 2025 is different from selling it in an environment where everyone is strongly accustomed to both literally and rhetorically fighting it in 2073.
I'm not disputing the merits of hate speech legislation, but a lot of the damage done during the Collapse was done by things other than Victorians winning arguments, or even Victorians at all. They strike me as the Kaposi's sarcoma to the AIDS that was general governmental collapse and Russian infiltration.
Very different context, very different social environment. Selling a minority of assholes on fascism when everyone else is unaccustomed to fighting back against it in 2025 is different from selling it in an environment where everyone is strongly accustomed to both literally and rhetorically fighting it in 2073.
I'm not disputing the merits of hate speech legislation, but a lot of the damage done during the Collapse was done by things other than Victorians winning arguments, or even Victorians at all. They strike me as the Kaposi's sarcoma to the AIDS that was general governmental collapse and Russian infiltration.
Considering how things went in this timeline, we need to come down on these guys hard. Bigots can believe whatever they want in the privacy of their own home, but spreading their bile in the public space is an act which demonstrably gets people thrown into ovens in this timeline.
Oh I agree. All of those things are horrible and I sincerely hope we never get to that point. It's just that if the views of these Victorian sympathisers start spreading into the general population, they will become the lesser of two evils.
To be perfectly blunt if debate in the public square could've stopped these guys the Collapse wouldn't have happened.
I'm not saying we set up a secret police or anything but I'm totally ok with things like proscribed fascist organizations are banned from having public rallies, running for office and otherwise operating openly and publicly. The measures necessary to stop them from meeting in the privacy of their own homes are too intrusive to be worth contemplating and open to abuse but it would be entirely justified to say, "Hey your bunch is saying women shouldn't be in public office and hypenated Americans are traitors. You hold a rally in the public square you'll be finishing it up behind bars for a solid prison sentence." That's well within the bounds of hate crimes legislation as is enforced in most of Europe and the EU isn't some sort of dystopian hellscape.
I will fight tooth and nail, IC and OOC, to oppose these things:
1.) Using nuclear weapons
2.) Encouraging or inciting (officially or unofficially) vigilante "justice"/mob violence
3.) Instating (officially or unofficially) secret police of some kind or another
With that said, measures I am perfectly willy to support or see enacted:
1.) Hate speech laws
2.) Restrictions on organizations allowed to hold public rallies/demonstrations
3.) Having "is practically a Victorian in outlook" as a factor in refusing hiring or promotion.
Well, the trick is that right now, the "Victorian sympathizers" are as vehemently opposed to the nation of Victoria as we are. As presented by both @PoptartProdigy and @EBR , these people hold many similar views on matters, but consider themselves loyal citizens of our nation, and despise Victoria and what they've done.
That is why this is not quite as cut-and-dry as some are acting. It also means we have a chance to, hopefully, convince some/many/most/all of where they're going wrong and why, instead of just driving them to Victoria's arms.
Statements like these are pointless unless you want to start back up deontology vs. consequentialism. People who share your stance need no convincing, and people who don't will find "but it's eeeeeeeevil" singularly unpersuasive.
Statements like these are pointless unless you want to start back up deontology vs. consequentialism. People who share your stance need no convincing, and people who don't will find "but it's eeeeeeeevil" singularly unpersuasive.
My point is that if your position on a subject is known, and you aren't aiming to persuade, then it might be best to avoid statements which seemingly exist exclusively as incitement to reopen a contentious and likely unproductive debate.
Very different context, very different social environment. Selling a minority of assholes on fascism when everyone else is unaccustomed to fighting back against it in 2025 is different from selling it in an environment where everyone is strongly accustomed to both literally and rhetorically fighting it in 2073.
I'm not disputing the merits of hate speech legislation, but a lot of the damage done during the Collapse was done by things other than Victorians winning arguments, or even Victorians at all. They strike me as the Kaposi's sarcoma to the AIDS that was general governmental collapse and Russian infiltration.
You seem to be forgetting a key part of that context called the Vickies won and have spent the better part of a generation culling any segment of the US population outside of the NCR, which lies under Russia's boot, who looks a little too restive. The main differenes of opinion that seem to exist, like in the recent omake, are ones of ways and means rather than ends. Quite frankly different shades of fascist scum are still, ultimately, murderous fascist scum who have already done enough damage.
Even though we're in a specific society that is actively opposed to and resisting them from the perspective of entirely too many people the Vickies have proven, through a variety of means, that their way works in some fashion or another and are the top dogs. That actually makes it even more crucial to utterly crush any attempts at public organizing, mobilization of sympathy or anything that leaves the privacy of a person's home of anything that is or resembles Vickie sympathies.
My point is that if your position on a subject is known, and you aren't aiming to persuade, then it might be best to avoid statements which seemingly exist exclusively as incitement to reopen a contentious and likely unproductive debate.
What, because it's better to nod meekly and pretend that one is resigned to embracing Evil A over Evil B, almost no matter how bad Evil A is, because it's time to make a Hard Decision?
I think it's perfectly defensible to register a bit of honest dissent on points like this.
Especially since, so far, this debate hasn't been about specific object-level policy choices. It's entirely rhetorical: do we say "we must crush the Victorian sympathizers at all costs," or do we say "we need to break up the Victorian sympathizers," or do we say "the Victorian sympathizers are a threat we need to watch and wear down?" Depending on what exactly is going on in the secret hearts of individuals, three different people could each be saying one of these three sentences to describe exactly the same policy proposal- the policy proposal itself being innocuous. Or they could all be describing something sinister that will in the long run turn us into a dictatorship.
Rhetoric about how important it is not to tolerate the continued existence of political groups that advocate for evil things is an extremely vague, and therefore unhelpful thing, in general.
@KnightDisciple here is so far the one most focused on specific ways and means of doing or not doing these things, which I respect. At least he's listed his limits and some of the things he IS prepared to countenance.
You seem to be forgetting a key part of that context called the Vickies won and have spent the better part of a generation culling any segment of the US population outside of the NCR, which lies under Russia's boot, who looks a little too restive. The main differenes of opinion that seem to exist, like in the recent omake, are ones of ways and means rather than ends. Quite frankly different shades of fascist scum are still, ultimately, murderous fascist scum who have already done enough damage.
Even though we're in a specific society that is actively opposed to and resisting them from the perspective of entirely too many people the Vickies have proven, through a variety of means, that their way works in some fashion or another and are the top dogs. That actually makes it even more crucial to utterly crush any attempts at public organizing, mobilization of sympathy or anything that leaves the privacy of a person's home of anything that is or resembles Vickie sympathies.
Suffice to say that you think the Victorians are a political threat, in that you expect them to convince enough of the electorate that through a combination of force and votes they can take over our government.
I am more concerned with the Victorians as an intelligence threat- as a vector for infiltration and betrayal.
I believe that the general political climate of Chicago is sufficiently robust and contains a sufficiently activated and anti-fascist population that the Victorian sympathizers will not enjoy much direct political success. All the more so since we appear to lack an Internet, which means that no small political faction widely despised by much of the population can use online activity to inflate its apparent numbers and loudness.
But on the other hand, I am very, VERY concerned with infiltration via the sympathizers; I think there's a good reason it was listed as an Intelligence malus. I think we're going to need to infiltrate these jerks pretty extensively... which presents its own issues. If anything, outright banning them from meeting may make them harder to infiltrate, too.
Suffice to say that you think the Victorians are a political threat, in that you expect them to convince enough of the electorate that through a combination of force and votes they can take over our government.
I am more concerned with the Victorians as an intelligence threat- as a vector for infiltration and betrayal.
I believe that the general political climate of Chicago is sufficiently robust and contains a sufficiently activated and anti-fascist population that the Victorian sympathizers will not enjoy much direct political success. All the more so since we appear to lack an Internet, which means that no small political faction widely despised by much of the population can use online activity to inflate its apparent numbers and loudness.
But on the other hand, I am very, VERY concerned with infiltration via the sympathizers; I think there's a good reason it was listed as an Intelligence malus. I think we're going to need to infiltrate these jerks pretty extensively... which presents its own issues. If anything, outright banning them from meeting may make them harder to infiltrate, too.
The Vickies have also consistently demonstrated they do not distinguish between intelligence gathering and political action. If anything they have a tendency to use the formr as a springboard for the latter. Any measures dealing with Victorian sympathizers needs to take into account that the Christian Marines see sympathizers as potential assets to be used in very direct, painful ways and not just as quiet saboteurs or information sources.
The Vickies have also consistently demonstrated they do not distinguish between intelligence gathering and political action. If anything they have a tendency to use the formr as a springboard for the latter. Any measures dealing with Victorian sympathizers needs to take into account that the Christian Marines see sympathizers as potential assets to be used in very direct, painful ways and not just as quiet saboteurs or information sources.
My definition of "intelligence threat" does indeed include "potential risk of them acting as an armed fifth column," yes- in what is very much the original meaning of the phrase "fifth column."
One of the reasons to infiltrate the shit out of these guys (as the FBI did the Ku Klux Klan) is to get a good sense for if there are any arms caches being prepared for violent action. This is also one of the arguments for not spreading arms around the civilian population freely.
My definition of "intelligence threat" does indeed include "potential risk of them acting as an armed fifth column," yes- in what is very much the original meaning of the phrase "fifth column."
One of the reasons to infiltrate the shit out of these guys (as the FBI did the Ku Klux Klan) is to get a good sense for if there are any arms caches being prepared for violent action. This is also one of the arguments for not spreading arms around the civilian population freely.
Not their style, at least not initially. Rumford and Lind are all about 4th Generation Warfare's obsession with winning first on the moral level so that your opponents can't use violence without discrediting themselves. The extent to which that works in the book is questionable and a bit bullshit in places but that doesn't mean they won't go for that or seek catspaws to serve as fronts for that.
Which is also why I think it's a good idea to focus on scattering any attempts at above-ground organizing both by Vickies and other fascist groups. They need such groups to build plausible deniability for such actions and keeping them from achieving that thwarts the first stage of their general plan of action. As far as other fascists go they're notorious for acting deceptiely, using front groups and the like in a similar fashion to the Vickies and quite frankly I don't see any reason to treat other fascists any differently from Rumford's bastard offspring especially since they'd be likely catspaws or unintended allies of the Vickies in any such campaign.
(I wrote this before @EBR's was posted, but wasn't sure how it would be taken in the middle of a vote.)
Jan. 3, 2074
My dearest,
Chicago is, as I had expected, a den of iniquity. No man (let alone woman) knows his proper place. Hateful modernity is ever-present: the 'churches' are filled with blasphemy, everyone partakes in the fruits of Tubal-Cain's sin 1 without a thought for his soul, and the women (even at the Convention) dress in ways that back home even the Jezebels would never dream. I see that my task of winning souls will be far more difficult than I had thought, but I must persist. As the Great Founder Rumford told us, wars are won at the moral level, and what could be more moral than bringing the stray sheep back into the fold? What could be a more Christian way of waging war than to convert the enemy to the true Church?3 And yet.
Yet, I find what we were taught as children challenged on every turn. No man knows his place, but far from the strife we were told to expect, I have seen friendship between White and Black; true friendship, not merely the thinly-veiled resentment so common to the children of Ham 4. The women dress in ways that no man could resist, yet resist the men do, even faced with dress provocative even by the standards of Chicago. The 'churches' preach every manner of heresy imaginable (even, in some quarters, Mohammadeanism or faiths outside those of the Book, and openly as well), but they show aid to the stranger, charity to the poor, and all the other highest virtues of Christianity. (I can name several pastors back home who could learn from their example.) Everyone carries the toys of modernity, but I have seen little vice come of it. The 'intellectuals' are throughly poisoned with Marxism, but are quick to debate, and honestly (and I must admit, quite well) on everything but said poison.
Which brings me to the Convention. Imagining themselves the true successors to the America that was (and let them burn like it did), they have drafted a Constitution and elected Devil Burns their leader, as though to crush my thought that there might be virtue here. They are heavily divided, with the overwhelming majority some flavor or another of Marxist, though even capitalists (or as they called themselves, New Capitalists) were represented. Their new Constitution passed with less support and more argument than even the least favorable of propositions back home; I cannot understate how little agreement there is here.
Pray for me, my Prudence. Pray for my safety, pray that I find souls to win, pray that I keep the true faith, pray for our homeland's victory, and pray that victory be swift that we may be united soon.
Ever yours,
Obediah Jackson
Name: Obediah Jackson Description: Born in the early 2050s, Obediah is a third-generation Victorian. Following a farming accident that left him unable to reach his dream of fighting abroad, he became a missionary. Having stealthily entered Chicago under a forged identity, he seeks to spread the true faith. Eventually. For now, he's content to observe until he can argue without blowing his cover. Politics: Nearly textbook Victorian, though currently shaken and will probably change. Obediah has a curious streak that a Victorian upbringing failed to completely crush, and holds his beliefs more by default than anything else.
1 Certain denominations in the former NC considered (and still consider) invention of all kinds to be inherently sinful, and even pre-1900 technology to be a necessary evil. While by no means universal or even common (especially because they resemble the "Hard Green" ecoterrorists described in Rumford's memoirs 2), they were vocal enough that their terms were in common use to describe post-1965 technology. These sects, usually calling themselves "Edenites", were tolerated mostly because they were fanatical about reporting Retroculture violations. 2 A children's adaptation was used as a primer in most schoolhouses, and the original (as well as Kraft's "On the Frankfurt School, and Other Enemies of Civilization") is still required reading for all University of Victoria students (although the context has changed: the "foundational Victorian writings" are now presented in their full historical context, and ruthlessly dissected as propaganda). Non-Edenic teachers usually made the comparison explicit. 3 Sections of this letter were inked over by the Association for the Protection of Public Virtue, a group unofficially part of the CMC. CT scanning has reconstructed the censored portions. 4 Most religions innovated to some extent following the Collapse. In true Victorian fashion, many 5 NC churches innovated by recycling old justifications for atrocities to excuse Rumford's own. It was also common to "discover" scriptural mandate for Victorian policy, inventing low-church mythology as needed. 5 Increased in no small part by a demonstrated CMC willingness to burn clergy on fabricated blasphemy charges.
