It's back!

The guy in black sounded kinda creepy. Would someone really use propaganda in their everyday speech with street kids? And why did it take me hours to figure out that he made the Societist/Illuminati symbol? :D

Poland seemed almost to have been made by God specifically as an ideal battlefield.

SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE... ;(

“Good to see you, Lieutenant Ferenc,” he said in the same language—a trimmed-down version of the ancient Romans’ tongue with additional words for modern inventions and tactics. It was a running joke between the two men that they always deliberately misunderstood the opposing Christian name and surname order of their respective cultures and thus called each other by the former when seeming to mean the latter.

And I thought that Thande made a mistake and thought Ferenc is the surname in this case. How silly of me. (I still got you on the Savoy thing though!)
 
Martial Latin is also presumably a foreshadowing of Novalatina (and, in-universe, it's mention is to make the point that wasn't always just a Combine thing?).
 
So what are the Empire of North America's goals, exactly?

Puppetise Carolina and kick UPSA's ass. Did I miss anything?

Martial Latin is also presumably a foreshadowing of Novalatina (and, in-universe, it's mention is to make the point that wasn't always just a Combine thing?).

Is Martial Latin a form of Latin used by the military? And I don't remember, is Latin (some other form presumably) an official language of Danubia?
 
Is Martial Latin a form of Latin used by the military? And I don't remember, is Latin (some other form presumably) an official language of Danubia?
From part #164, covering the Rudolfine Reforms 40-50 years ago:
The new army was built upon a two-tier system, with regular musket regiments being monoracial and using the language of their nation of origin, while rifle regiments and other elites were deliberately mixed, with a modernised form of Latin being taught and used to give orders—in order to both ensure neutrality and avoid the overuse of German considering the desire to distinguish the empire from the Bundesliga. As Austria slowly and meticulously moved towards an all-rifle army, gradually the traditional regiments would be transformed into the mixed ones and eventually, so the theory went, she would possess a reliable army not subject to specific national concerns, a regiment could be sent anywhere.
I'm not sure what the linguistic situation is at the top level, but lower levels of government are nation-specific, so they have their own tongues to use.
 
Perhaps someone else remember the exact part, but I recall a previous section containing a line that went roughly as "If the cost of Global Societism was the destruction of the human family, perhaps it was not be be strove for after all". If that was the case, in addition to the potential large scale suppression of electoral rights for fully half of the human species and renaming countries and geography on a grid system, it would seem to imply some truly extraordinary social engineering projects. Perhaps an attempt by the Combine to create their own version of the New Soviet Man, but through forced breeding and child seizure from parents as opposed to social evolution.

Come to think of it, given Societism's general emphasis on group welfare over individual concerns, doesn't a forced "it take a village" child upbringing system jive well with their worldview? What better way to truly destroy the idea of independent nationhood, then by raising all the children together? You don't just have one brother, young citizen. All these boys are your brothers!

I swear though, if that bloody match trick turns out to be the inspiration behind the Societist eye flag, I'll throw something.
 
I swear though, if that bloody match trick turns out to be the inspiration behind the Societist eye flag, I'll throw something.
Very interesting point: the three lines of the Societist Eye are indeed intended to imply interconnectivity and drawing strength from each other--they are based on the old puzzle of how do you make three sticks hold up an egg (say) suspended over the rim of a glass, when it is possible to interlock them in this way and have each one held up by the other two.
*shoves pillow into Cynric's arms and ducks*
 
I swear though, if that bloody match trick turns out to be the inspiration behind the Societist eye flag, I'll throw something.

I thought it was the other way around, with the match trick subtly exposing the kids to a somewhat common Societist symbol.

Either that, or the TTL author being a smartass.
 
Perhaps someone else remember the exact part, but I recall a previous section containing a line that went roughly as "If the cost of Global Societism was the destruction of the human family, perhaps it was not be be strove for after all". If that was the case, in addition to the potential large scale suppression of electoral rights for fully half of the human species and renaming countries and geography on a grid system, it would seem to imply some truly extraordinary social engineering projects. Perhaps an attempt by the Combine to create their own version of the New Soviet Man, but through forced breeding and child seizure from parents as opposed to social evolution.

Come to think of it, given Societism's general emphasis on group welfare over individual concerns, doesn't a forced "it take a village" child upbringing system jive well with their worldview? What better way to truly destroy the idea of independent nationhood, then by raising all the children together? You don't just have one brother, young citizen. All these boys are your brothers!

I swear though, if that bloody match trick turns out to be the inspiration behind the Societist eye flag, I'll throw something.

What relatively little we know of Sanchez's ideas matches closely with Plato's Republic (with the critical exception of his universalistic pacifism, as opposed to Plato's heavy focus on military matters) where such ideas are advocated precisely with a similar rationale (EVERYONE is either you brother or father, boy) so abolishing the family and communally raising children would be would make great sense in Sanchez's logic even if he did not openly suggest that. (He is on record, of course, as saying that many before him had seen the same he saw, and he'd be obviously aware of Plato. Some Medieval authors are even closer to his views, downplaying Plato's military perspective, but I'd bet Sanchez couldn't access al-Farabi's works or Averrores' Commentary on Plato's Republic).

I remember the comment being on lines like eternal peace not being worth it if destruction of the "human family" (ambiguous phrase) is the price, quoted in the post about Cythreanism, in an obscure context referencing to a split between Societist Familistas and Garderistas. The passage is strange to me because it is said that Familistas (which I assume from the name, should be the ones who approve of family ties) will be the emerging Societist orthodoxy, while the "it's not worth it" line is implied to be from the losing Garderistas (which I suppose to come from the common Romance -of Germanic origin - word for "to save, keep, preserve", which in Spanish gives a verb "guardar" - but I'm not entirely sure). So the Garderistas should be the ones wanting to preserve the family and Familistas, oddly, against it? Also, the post strongly implies that both the gender relations AND family organization are involved, that potentially gives you fours factions (for gender equality and family, for gender equality but against family -radical Platonists-, against gender equality but for family -standard patriarchy supporters- against both - which I would guess is the Societist Familista approach but then I don't get their name).
 
Last edited:
What relatively little we know of Sanchez's ideas matches closely with Plato's Republic (with the critical exception of his universalistic pacifism, as opposed to Plato's heavy focus on military matters) where such ideas are advocated precisely with a similar rationale (EVERYONE is either you brother or father, boy) so abolishing the family and communally raising children would be would make great sense in Sanchez's logic even if he did not openly suggest that. (He is on record, of course, as saying that many before him had seen the same he saw, and he'd be obviously aware of Plato. Some Medieval authors are even closer to his views, downplaying Plato's military perspective, but I'd bet Sanchez couldn't access al-Farabi's works or Averrores' Commentary on Plato's Republic).

I remember the comment being on lines like eternal peace not being worth it if destruction of the "human family" (ambiguous phrase) is the price, quoted in the post about Cythreanism, in an obscure context referencing to a split between Societist Familistas and Garderistas. The passage is strange to me because it is said that Familistas (which I assume from the name, should be the ones who approve of family ties) will be the emerging Societist orthodoxy, while the "it's not worth it" line is implied to be from the losing Garderistas (which I suppose to come from the common Romance -of Germanic origin - word for "to save, keep, preserve", which in Spanish gives a verb "guardar" - but I'm not entirely sure). So the Garderistas should be the ones wanting to preserve the family and Familistas, oddly, against it? Also, the post strongly implies that both the gender relations AND family organization are involved, that potentially gives you fours factions (for gender equality and family, for gender equality but against family -radical Platonists-, against gender equality but for family -standard patriarchy supporters- against both - which I would guess is the Societist Familista approach but then I don't get their name).

If I remember correctly, my interpretation of Familistas vs. Garderistas was this:

Familistas = children should be raised by their families, so women need to stay home to take care of the children. Pro-family, and against gender equality.

Garderistas = children should be raised in daycares ("guardería" in Spanish), so women can participate in the workforce. Pro-gender equality and against family.

However, it would certainly be the Garderistas who would be accused of 'destroying the family' and not the Familistas. I'd have to look back and find the post to figure out more.
 
Perhaps someone else remember the exact part, but I recall a previous section containing a line that went roughly as "If the cost of Global Societism was the destruction of the human family, perhaps it was not be be strove for after all". If that was the case, in addition to the potential large scale suppression of electoral rights for fully half of the human species and renaming countries and geography on a grid system, it would seem to imply some truly extraordinary social engineering projects. Perhaps an attempt by the Combine to create their own version of the New Soviet Man, but through forced breeding and child seizure from parents as opposed to social evolution.

Come to think of it, given Societism's general emphasis on group welfare over individual concerns, doesn't a forced "it take a village" child upbringing system jive well with their worldview? What better way to truly destroy the idea of independent nationhood, then by raising all the children together? You don't just have one brother, young citizen. All these boys are your brothers!

I swear though, if that bloody match trick turns out to be the inspiration behind the Societist eye flag, I'll throw something.
It's in Part 208 - it was the people who believed that such a price was too high won (...mostly).
 
If I remember correctly, my interpretation of Familistas vs. Garderistas was this:

Familistas = children should be raised by their families, so women need to stay home to take care of the children. Pro-family, and against gender equality.

Garderistas = children should be raised in daycares ("guardería" in Spanish), so women can participate in the workforce. Pro-gender equality and against family.

However, it would certainly be the Garderistas who would be accused of 'destroying the family' and not the Familistas. I'd have to look back and find the post to figure out more.

Yeah, makes sense (so the Garderistas would be indeed taking that page straight from Plato, unsurprisingly) but the Antunez quote would imply the opposite... Unless "human family" and the reference to a "slippery slope" in that context have a different meaning than apparent...
 
It should be noted that the last thread had a mention of the Carolinian Societists banning a town from using horsemeat in their recipes because it made them different from other towns. Doesn't sound very pleasant to me.

Again, though, that's just what the Diversitarian sources say. I can think of a number of reasons there might be a ban on horsemeat, and then the Diversitarians would think "Of course, that's just the sort of thing the Societists would do."
 
If I remember correctly, my interpretation of Familistas vs. Garderistas was this:

Familistas = children should be raised by their families, so women need to stay home to take care of the children. Pro-family, and against gender equality.

Garderistas = children should be raised in daycares ("guardería" in Spanish), so women can participate in the workforce. Pro-gender equality and against family.

However, it would certainly be the Garderistas who would be accused of 'destroying the family' and not the Familistas. I'd have to look back and find the post to figure out more.

So, might the Societists be in favour of, say, Kibbutz-style systems?
 
Top