It was not meant as a slight and you know it. I was simply clarifying that references to (true) Fascism in this context specifically follow the acknowledged Pol-Sci understanding of the word. It might seem unnecessary or pedantic to you , but comments like Critias' about finding fascism in social cliques shows me it needed to be said (and obviously needs to be said again): elitism is not fascism, classism is not fascism and even racism (in the strict sense) is not fascism.

So far you've complained about one line in the GI and the lack of right-wing commentators. You're criticism regarding the GI is valid in my mind. Regarding the commentators I think the absence of openly hardline right-wingers is partially justified, although you can find a fair share of radicals through out.

Critias - I reiterate what I've said above. "Fascists" in this context are clearly and strictly represented by those individuals or groups who advocate most if not all (and never just a couple) of the ideological attributes on the enclosed list. The list paraphrases and simplifies the ideas of several Political Science scholars and historians who've defined the modern understanding of the concept. I was very careful to make this clear in the text. Right from the beginning.

As to the tone of that piece. I think the main text is a relatively contemporary textbook analysis of Fascism - and yes it is biased against. Just like almost any contemporary Poli-Sci literature. I didn't think it plausible that the good Captain would allow a true Fascist airtime, so I went for a relatively neutral approach.

As to the other voices, I've pointed out a couple and there are more right-wingers sprinkled throughout the book, some more obvious than not (see some Mother Earth femininists and the Anti-metas but also IOND and the DIVErs). This is also a common trait in fascists, they don't often (less so than Antifas who believe they have right on their side) fly their colors publically because of the potential backlash and negative perception the various true fascist movements have developed (again far more so than antifas).

You're right. It wasn't someone's college paper, or something. People got paid to write this book, and it's being presented as fact to a much broader, and generally less well-educated (and as such more likely to accept opinion as truth), base of people than a research paper would be.

Does that make it more or less important to be neutral/impartial/fair when discussing real world politics, religion, etc? Honestly?

What the hell are you on about? These are pieces of (i) fiction, put together by (ii) a self-confessed neo-anarchist and set in a world which is (iii) a future dystopia. Plus people are griping about a one line editorial comment (which might or might not have been appropriate).

I stand by everything I wrote in the fiction, and if you have any criticism regarding the actual content of the Fascist/Antifa chapter, its plausibility, its tone and its factual accuracy from a Pol-Sci standpoint or my research references in writing it, I'd be more than happy to take that debate on (in another thread).

Personally I don't even see the Eurocentric aspect to this book that Crimson mentions, other than the fact that the general approach to politics is more fragmented and multifaceted and less monolithic than the traditional US view and so might be percieved to have a liberal European tinge.

However its been a long-established fact that even in the UCAS politics are no longer monolithic (something that's been part of canon since NAGNA) and that policlubs and politics in general are more radical in their views than contemporary ones.

Regarding the groups detailed, Crimson's even further off base. A simple head count gives almost two thirds of the groups mentioned a strong basis in North America. They may not be the ones he wanted, but the North Am influence is there anyway.

Torturi - Whether a book on politics would go over well with the fans is something I've been wondering since I wrote this, but honestly I find it refreshing and ballsy that a roleplaying game even addresses such topics and their impact in everyday life in this day and age. Like someone said, this is one book which doesn't go for the lowest common denominator.

In short: Fascism is the ideology of choice for people who feel uneasy, insecure or humiliated by someone whom they consider inferior. Also, the combination of sassy uniforms, war and witch hunts for "enemies of the people" is a really easy way for a junta or dictator to keep in office.

Oh, well maybe the idea came to me that the California human supremacists and MPA and their ilk would fight Saito because it was suggested in YotC and Threats 2 and I'm sure other references have been made in the last 3 1/2 years for amongst other reasons because some of the racists in Cal hate Saito because he's an Asian military occupier who is engaging in tactics against metas and "collaborators" (including placing them into internment camps) that were once used against the Japanese, specifically. It's not like I pulled the idea out of my ass.

Why do I find it hard to believe there aren't any runners whose political ideologies approach or are fascist? Probably because if they are human (and even moreso white) and ever went to prison then they are virtually assured to have been approached by neo-fascist and/or racist gangs at the very least for "mutual protection." If they were runners in any way when they went in, and with the possibility of being imprisoned in a country run by metas or Indians or foreign occupiers, that just raises that likelihood to assured. WR or A20K would be a feared presence in, for example, Tir prisons even so far as to comprise Rinelle cells in and outside, and every human who enters is a fresh recruit. Just because Rinelle is a revolutionary body doesn't mean all of the cells want a new Tir to be a democracy. Runners don't know these people, work with or for these people, or have any contact with racists or fascists in T6W? I can't buy that, but that's how it reads.

As a self-described "well-informed student of political science" I personally find the political ideology no more evil than anything else. Evil is an immensely relative term (my interpretation has boiled down to what offends the righteousness of the offended person). The application of it is completely different, and I can say capitalism is evil as well because some aspects of its application are screwed up.

And it's not one character's opinion! It's in the Game Information! It's the author's opinion, and by extension the line developer's by letting it in. My concern isn't with fascism. It's with telling SR players how to think.

Were it Critias' example I'd raise the same concerns. I don't like Fascist regimes, but I don't play a Tir Ghost like someone else might either.

Where's the problem with that when you consider how fascist TT is (and it's even mentioned as being such in LA)? One can say that playing a Tir Ghost is morally equivalent to playing a SS officer (Read some of Critias' Tir fiction for an idea of how fascist and "evil" the Tir Ghosts can be sometimes). That is my point. I knew this book was about politics--the TOC in the preview listing a chapter as "Political Agitators" as well as descriptions about LA going back to 2004 pretty much warned me as much. But it's wrong, and it's disingenuous to say such a thing especially in light of my example. Is every GM a fascist now because the runners are in the Tir and being hunted down like dogs (literally like dogs if they're non-elves, foreigners, or especially if they're non-elf foreigners)? Please.

But the quote you pulled from LA is about Alamos 20K, not just any California supremicists. Alamos 20K is especially virulent.

And since you brought up YotC, here's a line from it: "Even worse, the [CalFree] troops suffered occasional home-brewed terrorist attacks from racist locals--locals who now want to see Saito's regime clean up the metahumans once at for all." (p. 112)

Here's another line from YotC: "Our intelligence also indicates that Saito is receiving backing from elements within international human supremicist organizations." (p. 109). Human Nation is identified as one possible collaborator.

I don't have time at the moment to scan the entire document, but for now I haven't seen the quotes you're referring to. I submit, though, that based on these quotes and based on Alamos 20K's extreme opposition to metahumanity, that they would be far more likely to partner with Saito than against him. Again, I'm referring to Alamos 20K, not all human supremicist groups.

As for where you get your ideas, I'm not about to speculate.

Jason H.

Yes, there was clearly a massive uprising of the entirety of even anti-meta racist and racist group forming a massive fifth column united to strike at all metahumans and serve Gen. Saito. It could be that, or it could be that there were elements of them who may or may not have been aligned with Japanese racists before Saito came on the scene and there were others who held back and said, "WHOA! EfF this! I'm not bowing down to some <litany of anti-Japanese slurs>!"

I can't seem to find what I'm looking for, but my ideas at their core come from the idea that people aren't one-dimensional, and the world isn't black or white, even for A20K. To be honest, I am incredulous that SR authors don't or can't see this in the shades of grey it should be. Like I said, there are reasons why a racist or hate group in California would oppose Saito even if it meant dealing with the MPA or their ilk in the short-term because there are people out there who'd also share ethnocentric racist qualities, xenophobia, and an intense hatred for a foreign dictator backed by his corporate cronies. And all the better if you can ally yourself with metahuman terrorists, arm them, and send them out to die like the cannon fodder they are.

Or, maybe I'm just speaking crazy.

Yes, of course, people aren't one dimensional, but we're not talking about individuals--we're talking about two organizations, one with a purpose of killing all metahumans, the other with a purpose of defending metahumans. Sure, they may have different individuals within each org who, in one way or another, might find personal sympathy with each other. But the organizations, as a whole, are diametrically opposed to one another. It's one thing to see shades of grey (which I'm all in favor of, BTW), but another to make an organization act in opposition to its primary purpose.

And while it might be nice to give the MPA weapons and then have some metas go off and be killed, wouldn't it be better to just kill them without arming them first? I still don't see any convincing reason why A20K, as an organization, would choose to work with the MPA instead of Saito. Especially given what YotC said on the matter.

Jason H.

Okay, now you've lost me or you've been reading a different book. I can understand Crimson's point of view although his criticism seems to be a single line in one chapter (and the fact that he thinks the right wingers are under represented), which right or wrong, is getting blown out of proportion and allegedly reflecting something about the tone of the entire book.

I fail to see characters in the Fascist chapter portrayed as caricatures, either those mentioned in the fiction and those in the shadowtalk. In fact the right-wingers actually come off as being less rabid and better thought through than the antifas and others. Maybe you could enlighten me?

I'll agree to disagree, several chapters including the Fascist bit go in length into what makes these ideologies appealing and where the groups get their power from. I'm particularly fond of Rat's Humanis piece, because what it presents is someone far different from the hooded-KKK goons with which Humanis has so often been previously associated with in SR.

I suggest you go back and take a closer look at each of the Fascist groups presented, their agendas, MOs and tactics since these ground the theory presented in the first couple of pages.

The possible absence of political references in the reader is exactly why the intro to most sections in the "Political Agitators" chapter is intended to define the (academically accepted understanding of the) ideology in the simplest and most straightforward terms.

While a lot of the shadowtalk inevitably (SL is an open board and we all know what talking politics on the net degenerates into) involves sermonizing (on both sides), I fail to see where this is a major component in the Fascist section in particular (whether or not it is in the GI is something else). Even the most radical groups like Aktion Nationale (who are responsible for more deaths in the Sixth World than Al Quaeda is in ours) are a fairly unbiased profile.

Again, I'd really appreciate hearing which elements you think were caricatured...

Go check the Fascist section under White Resistance at least some of the groups you're looking for coalesce into that - both the survivalist factions and the urban militia.

That's one possibility. Others include anti-corpers, neo-anarchs, deep greens/luddites, etc...
The problem here is that many of those are actually micro-groups and we didn't have the space to cover them unless they had a significant overall impact.

Crimson, you're generalizing and blowing this out of all proportion (again).

Even you will agree there are plenty of shades of grey in all the other unholy alliances mentioned. Don't they pretty much illustrate the type of situation you're commenting on?

However, this doesn't mean that there are cases where cooperation is implausible.

A real life comparison would be for Al Qaeda and the CIA to work together today. Yes, elements worked together in the past but that doesn't mean the two organizations will ever knowingly work together towards a common goal because their natures are diametrically opposed. Other appropriate situations would be Neo-nazi militias teaming up with Zionist radicals. Or a skinhead gang allying with an all-black gangsta crew. Is it concievable? Yes. But it stretches believability to breaking point.

Had FanPro produced an adventure where the players found out Alamos 20000k and Sons of Sauron were actively allied against Saito, most fans would be all over it because it is counter to everything we know about the organizations. This doesn't mean members of Human Nation cells aren't providing arms to the militant MPA and Oct.25th in the hopes Saito will wipe them out but the organization as a whole isn't going to make a cooperative move (which is what that section is all about).

Uhhh yeah.

Nothing in SR fiction is presented as fact. Nothing. It's all fiction.

Now, there's a criticism against the use of absolutes in the Game Information. I'd agree with that. I think saying things like "players can never understand these people" or "this group will never work with this group" in game information should be avoided. I've always preferred guidelines over absolutes. Absolutes in the in-character fiction is less problematic, since it consists of in-character voices which may have their own absolute opinions. If a biased voice is used for the primary voice of an in-character piece, though, I usually try to counterbalance it with shadowtalk presenting the middle and other end.

So, like I said, some of the criticism are definitely well-warranted. Some of them are nuts, though.

I have two wholly separate gripes.

1. The GI sections. I've said all I'm going to say about that.
2. I was under the impression when this book was announced, hinted at, referred to, and previewed that all of the organizations were ones a PC might run for as well as against. I mean, there are plot hooks for running for Tanamous, right? Where are the run ideas for Humanis? I thought SR was about greys, about the shadows between the stiffs and the extremists, between everyone. Like Rask mentioned though, I only have to worry about it to the extent that I'm stuck within canon. I am also perfectly capable of working within canon but beyond the book. But that's me. What about everyone else? I feel like I, but moreso others, got cheated to a certain extent. This is my primary concern.

And, yes, a secondary concern about the omission is wholly out-of-thin-air suspicion that it's personal politics. That in and of itself is not a bad thing, and I am a great deal less concerned about it. Like I once told someone in explaining a decision made at my urging in a certain body under circumstances that shall remain unsaid-- It now serves as the only permanent text on my userpage beneath the image of the OOOs kidnapping some poor schmoe in SoE I got off wiredreflexes. I said, "Everything we did-- Everything was political." And I have no problem with that, and was expecting it in this book by its very nature. I just wanted to have my say about it, and now that I have, I have nothing more to say.


Ah, yes, the VE. I posted my initial reactions to the parts of the book I had read. My initial reaction was bordering more on the Horrors because... It did quickly occur to me about the same time Rask asked if I was serious that, duh, there are forces at work that go back to SR2 (the Black Lodge). That said, I'm not going to discount it because it works on its own and as subtext for conflicts with Aztlan (besides the purely political reasons why the RCC should oppose Aztechnology and Aztlan). The funny thing is that I hate the Horrors and the Horror plotline that dominated SR2, but I have less hesitation about using their followers.

BTW, just because Cap is a neo-A doesn't mean SL is a neo-A BBS anymore than because Dave Hyatt worked for Netscape, the Mozilla Foundation, and now Apple that he designed Shadowland so that it crashes if you try to logon with IE or when using Windows.

Site examples please.


Thanos

And they seem to be differentiated as

Corporate politics
Religious politics
Progressive politics
Single-Issue politics

You don't see groupings like anarchists and communists and fascists and antifa like in the book here. Those groups are the extreme fringe. And in many cases, they taste differently here, such as the Latin American socialist-communist groupings, groups who sing the praises of Che Guevara or support the ideas of liberation theology. But they're still the fringe. The most recognized amongst them are musicians, especially in L.A. White supremacists and neo-Nazis are the fringe except in prisons, and the Internet is their greatest recruiting tool outside of that. The parallels between WR and its RL counterpart weren't exactly incognito. And the anarchists. They're the boogeyman of the WTO. They get news coverage during the RNC, but they're outnumbered by conventional protestors like 1000 to 1, if that, and aside from that ... they're ghosts.

But what you do have, and what is amazing in that it garners a whole page and then disappears are guys (and they are mostly male) like the Humanis poster whose uploaded file reads like an excerpt of any of the hundreds of conservative talk radio hosts. And then there are people like Michael Savage who are even more blatant, and they have millions of listeners every day... Listeners who vote. The media is the most influential aspect of politics in this country, but as the grassroots churches are becoming more and more influential (perhaps you heard about the pastor who said that Democrats had no place in his church) they are still eclipsed by the megachurches and their pastors like Tim LaHaye (57 million copies of the Left Behind series sold to date, IIRC) and the mass medias reverends like Falwell and Robertson (who ran for President in 1988) and their allies like Gary Bauer (ran in 2000).

Where were they?

But that's only wrong because you were personaly offended by it.

List examples of where "they" just came to your house because you were mentally ill or retarded and just threw you into a state hospital. Those are the examples I want to hear about. You know, the ones that were happening just a generation ago.

But then again by your own admission there's nothing offensive about it unless you your self are offended.

I don't think it's any surprise that the mentally ill and retarded have been subject to abuse while in the care of hospitals/mental health facilities. You can throw in the elderly while your at it. You are right about one thing though. There is a special place in hell for people like that. And people people who's personal code of ethics prevents them from judging people or

Thanos

Edited for content

Loose Alliances is not the place for full write-ups on fascist states, or any other government for what matters. If you want additional details, the "Shadows of ..." books are what you're probably looking for.

Hint: Shadows of Asia and Shadows of Latin America.

Sorry, I should have been a little clearer -- most of my irritation comes from this quote, rather than any game presented in an "In Character" (for lack of a better term) fashion. From the opening:

Maybe a few more of my posts will make a bit more sense, now, when I complain about one person's political opinions being stated as fact. I understand that Facism isn't cool. I do. I'm not, personally, attracted to it in the much the same I'm not personally attracted to some movie star hot chicks (at the same time, however, I can see how someone else might fight Angelina Jolie's freakishly swollen lips attractive, or what-have you). I'm capable of understanding, similarly, why some people could find Facism cool -- the examples I gave of elitist social cliques are, if expanded to a national level, weird little mini-Facism groups (I even called them "mini-Facists" or something, when stating the examples). You've got elitism, racism, and a likeable fella heading up the group. That's easy to find all around you (was my point).

Facism is easy to fall into -- it involves feeling good about your group, looking down on someone else's group, kicking that other group's ass (which is not only a further method of unifying your group, but also a way to prove their group was inferior, and get a great confidence boost), and doing all of it while being part of a rigidly structured para-military organization (read: neat uniforms with lots of cool medals), while following a charismatic leader. Facism is attractive to a lot of people. Statement of fact.

But, oh, wait. I'm not allowed to acknowledge that Facism might be attractive, or the game designer thinks I need to get my head checked.

A game designer stating his political opinions as facts bothers me. Imagine the uproar if he'd said "Democrats" instead of "Facists," or something. I don't think he needs to be using the fact he's a game designer as his chance to stand on a soap-box and tell anyone they are right or wrong. It's the same way it bothers me when movie stars or singers use their celebrity status to make political statements, I guess it just pisses me off to see Rob do it, too. We don't need to read about his personal views of who "needs their head checked" to read about Shadowrun.

That's what bugs me. Not the setting-specific made-up stuff in book itself.

Sorry for any confusion.

Well, as someone who isn't an American, I can do without even more background on US culture required to understand the books. In fact, more makes them less useful for me. We may have an inkling at what the writer wants, but it takes time while we could better absorb the book while I explain things to my players. It also doesn't really help cutting down on stereotypes and such (believe it or not, I'm the pro-US person in my group).

I wouldn't go so far as calling it cultural imperialism, but SR literature has been biased only one way. I guess both sides should get used to the fact that they're not the only clientele these books try to serve. I don't envy the writers who have to balance this.

Ah, so we need to take care not to step on your feet, while you walk all over our interests? Isn't that just a bit selfish?

..... eh? Can't you decide to agree to disagree for the time of a gaming session? If you cannot, just don't use this book. Noone is forcing you to.

Read 'Mein Kampf' and then tell me again this is a rational ideology.

Because they want to actually sell this book in the states?

Again.
And this is my point of view, that you don't have to share.
Some characteristics of fascism might be attractive to a normal person in a social group.
If people are attracted to a *politically-motivated* (ie with a whole society project) group presenting all/most of the characteristics of fascism listed above (and I support those are the definition widely accepted by Poli Sci researchers), then I'll stand to my point and say they have a big issue.

As for why is it so attractive: is it ? I agree it used to be, earlier this century. Back in the post-WW1 era people had never experience what the world was like with massively fascist or totalitarian regimes (except maybe 1791-1793 France), and couldn't easily "learn from history".

Without being overly moralist, I'd dare say the 20th century has had its fair share of fascist shit and hopefully most people and nations got a lesson from that.

There are still fascist groups - there have some nice ones here, believe me - but IMO to mainstream Western society this is no longer appealing. Except for people who really have issues.

What do you mean regarding cultural imperialism ? Europe to US or US to Europe ?
If the latter, maybe it's good then no ?

So European should anticipate and take into consideration the sensitivity of American readers, and refrain from writing what they think, to be careful not to offense American sensitivity ?
I must confess I don't see what you're talking about. Can you explain so I understand your point (this last sentence without the slightest touch of irony, mind you).

Same thing. You don't want to start a fight in your group ? Don't start a debate on politics there. That's not this book's point.
And if you want SR to retain a more "American" feel (whatever this means), just have more American people write for it. Don't expect Europeans not to write as Europeans (since you feel such a big difference). The reason why many Europeans wrote in this book is that many Americans didn't.

Wow, that's not specifically intended to turn this into a nationalistic flamewar. By your logic, I presume you interpret the book's writeup on the government of the United Kingdom as an attempt by Fanpro to alienate and drive down sales in the UK market?

The major problem with debate inclusive of the idea of fascism is that the term "fascist" has become a dirty word. No one likes a fascist.

People, in particular, tend to associate fascism with the regimes of Pinochet, Franco, and Mussolini. Yet almost no one immediately thinks of the Roman Empire as having been a fascist state, let alone the prototypical one upon which modern definitions of fascism were largely derived. The term "fascism" is an evolution on the term "fasces", which harks back to the Roman times. The latin term itself is based upon the word fascio, or bundle. Fasces were a grouping of rods around a central ax, a symbol of authority employed by lawmakers in Roman times. Mussolini's state symbolism was rife with references to Rome, especially useful given Rome's quasimythical and heroic historical background as an Italian empire that controlled the known world and passed on a legacy that's felt to the modern day (and boy, do we like to use their words!)

Anyhow, now that my trip down memory lane is done with, Fascism is more common than most polite or deluded people like to admit (sometimes to themselves). When you, for example, imply that the United States is full of crazies who would not buy books, even the liberal leaning ones who tend towards roleplaying games, because a fictional government resembling their own is described as having fascist tendencies, you're implying inferiority. Congratulations, you're a fascist.

Support the troops? Put a flag on your car? On your lawn? Other nations need your nation's guiding hand? Things are better in your nation than anywhere elsewhere? Land of the free, home of the brave? Freedom fries? National symbols. National superiority. Fascism.

America is uncultured, their cuisine and history are the products of a microsecond of historical mishmashing and empowered by their nuclear weapons and cruelty? There's your inferior "other". Your culture is by implication superior, older, it has a history. A heroic history. Fascism.

The West is the enemy, our holy lands will not be impeded by the globalism-guided conquest of the imperial Christian oppressors? An unthinking culture-destroying enemy, an "other". A unified religious identity, and an associated historical tie to the land. A spiritual superiority of your people. God has chosen you. Fascism.

Congratulations, we are all fascists from time to time. It's a natural response, a natural tendency. It's basic group behavioral models on a national level. When you deny this potential, and blind yourself to the fact that it's arisen many times in many forms and gotten distressingly far, that it is arising even now in any number of places, and that it is in place in a great deal of locales, you're leaving the door open for it to progress and advance. Fascism is the result of a lack of capability to analyze one's own and one's culture's beliefs and actions on a large scale.

Writing off fascism as an evil thing that other people did but you've never tasted or engaged in from time to time is, as I mentioned earlier, not calling people on it because you're polite, or not observing it in yourself because you're engaging in an equally slippery slope: self-delusion.

But, my sociopolitical observations aside, here's my opinion on Loose Alliances: It's good. It doesn't cover all the bases everyone wanted to cover, but that's impossible and unwanted. It creates a good solid framework for a picture of how the Shadowrun world works, sociopolitically, on a microscale. There are places where it's a little weak (the covering of propagation/sustension of real evil organizations, such as racists and fascists, which resulted in this massive tangent I've gone on, being one such area), and leaves a little too much to be filled in.

Think of it as a pattern. Points that can be sewn together to form an overall tapestry. Some of the lines and points in the pattern are a little thin, a little indistinct, making the tapestry a bit slipshod in those areas, but I'd say overall that it is a good flavor book. I'll gladly add it to my hardcopy collection when prints hit stores.

Understood. I was just wondering where the comments on caricatures was coming from.

There are several things I'd point out here which are obviously the focus of misunderstanding.

First this is a book about organizations and groups rather than countries and institutional power. Specific examples of many of these groups and their powerbases are littered through out the Shadows of books (thru to Shadows of Latin America which will carry some particularly glaring and relevant examples), Whereas those books get into the specifics of what these organizations (fascist and all the rest in this book) are doing and how they do it, they generally lack the space for anything about what their ideologies in the Sixth World are (which is where Loose Alliances comes in).

Also what the text does say, and then only in the subsection "Boot Parties to Boardrooms", is that it isn't getting into "entrenched fascist regimes" especifically. There's passing mention of a number of fascist political parties and movements from the Azatlaner, the National Soviet Reconstructionists, the British Greens, the UCAS Archconservatives, etc

The introduction of this chapter (p.40-41) like several others presents the basic outline of the ideology and its ramifications and impact on society at large (pretty much any society, whether North American or African doesn't matter). Then "Breeds of Fascism" describes the best known variations of fascism in the Sixth World... you may note that this includes references to major political forces in several nations like the UCAS which have strong fascist leanings (namely the Archconservatives)- while it doesn't go into particular detail it does explain what tendencies make them proto-fascists.

I can see where you're coming from but I disagree. Neither the Stormfront Network nor the Volksfront are inherently violent fringe movements (well, no more so than any fascist organization).

As Jong has said above specific movements and organizations especially those with local agendas fall beyond the focus of Loose Alliances and are more the realm of the Shadows of books. Most (but not all) of the groups chosen for the Political Agitators chapter were picked for their transnational relevance and agendas, so that they would be of interest to people playing in a variety of different settings and not pidgeonholed into a single country or place and so limiting their use. The exception are mostly at the end of the chapter which focus on organized rebellions.

For instance White Resistance is a relatively small group with a specific agenda by any standards, but as described in the book players could cross paths with them in any of the NAN, the UCAS and CAS.

Funny you should say that, two of the groups that were left on my drawing board due simply to the lack of space was a CAS talk-radio/trid station (associated with the New Revolution and Human Nation), sort of an ultra-right wing Fox and a self-defense/survivalist neo-fascist collective in the Seattle Barrens. But again both were very location specific and I was out of space.

I for one am interested in what you think after you've read the whole section.

Wireknight - Thanks for the evaluation, you've hit the nail on the head I believe. The book is meant to provide a framework and a reference rather than be encyclopaedic. Regarding your observations, which in my mind at least are all correct, I will underline the fact that the book refers to (and only to) Fascism in its acknowledged socio-political form, and even goes on to specify what qualifies as true Fascism in a strict sense.

Critias - I did not mean to single you out but I reiterate that the Pol-Sci understanding of the concept of Fascism means a group or organization fulfills the majority of the characteristics on the list published. If you can find a social clique or any other proto-fascist that qualifies (by fulfilling 6-7 of those 11 aspects) please let me know cause so far I've only been able to nail down true radicals like the Black Panthers, Al Qaeda, Blood & Honor and the Aryan Brotherhood.

Any chance of posting it on-line or anything? Sounds nifty.

I do.
Because we're not talking about fascism as a whole, we're talking how fascism can be appealing to SR players and more largely to young RPGers who, I'd dare say, are mostly Westerners.

I'll see what I can do about getting both of them on the website, after I wrap my current assignments.

Well...sort of.

Rome isn't really a prototypical fascist state; it wasn't even fascist itself (the term isn't applied to pre-industrial governments). But it was farmed heavily by Mussolini for its symbology, including his ripping off of the fasces when he wrote his 1919 manifesto. Hitler did the same with Germanic history and his infamous appropriation of the swastika, an ancient religious symbol which had nothing at all to do with fascism.

that would be accurate if we were discussing how SR players vote. what we're discussing is the characters that SR players play, and whether or not an SR player who wants to play a fascist character "needs to have his head examined".

Okay, then we're not exactly talking about the same thing. I was still on "being attracted to this ideology can be attractive".
As for playing a SR character, this is a different thing. But again I'm not sure what kinds of people would actually enjoy playing a convinced fascist character in the long run.

Nothing absolute against playing one. They just don't recommend it. Had they, I think they'd be in some serious trouble.

EDIT: corrected sentence

A roleplayer?

A convinced fascist what? Runner? Terrorist? Fixer? Dock worker? Tir assassin hunting a Rinelle cell in Seattle? OOO?

Just because you're not convinced that there are people out there doesn't mean there aren't people out there, player or GM.

Well, recommending any particular group would put us back in an equivalent position as we're in now.

The Roman empire conformed to virtually every one of the qualifiers that determine whether a national/imperial entity is considered to be fascist or not. Just because the term is in and of itself something that evolved from the post-industrial government of Mussolini (who originally employed the term as a name for his political party) does not mean that there is no basis for applying it to governments which conformed to its tenets prior to Mussolini's introduction of the term itself.

"Pre-industrial nationalistic expansionist dictatorial government entity with stringent socioeconomic stratification" just doesn't roll off the tongue in the same way as just saying "fascist", either.

People who enjoy exploring the depth of the human psyche, and try to understand how such people work. People like me. Most gamers like to essentially play themselves. I don't. My characters are actually always *different* from myself.

As for what type of character my fascist is ... well, he's a shadowrunner and terrorist, using his running job to gain money and information for his organisation. He also is desgined to act as a group's face, and might supply them with jobs for his organisation, though they would not be told he uses them as pawns for the Sons of Sauron. But I never got to play him that far, sadly.

And as for the fun part? Well, being evil IS fun, in a way. At least in a game world.

That more expanded quote though is okay. Though ... well, I couldn't imagine playing with a nazi anyway. All I ever got to know are more interested i getting drunk anyway. And they'd be unable to peacefully talk to half the group (who hate nazis; that includes me, by the way).

In essence, though, if a group of SR loving nazis decide to play a game, and, proving themselves to be thoroughly unimaginative, decide to play a humanis hit team, or Tir Ghosts, or maybe a NA group? What can be done against this?

Nothing. And I doupt this quote will help a lot, either.

Actually, I would guess it's more intented for the 'concerned' parents who read the part about fascists and think this book incites their overprotected little princes (and princesses) to become nazis, to see this is not the case.

Nope.

For one, Rome was far from centralised. Aside from technical difficulties (centralised government is really difficult if the emperor's order takes up to a year to reach the frontier), rome always worked more like a franchise chain than a fascist national state (Rome wasn't even a national state to begin with!). It often made pacts with local warlords, allowing them access to Roman technology and ressources, in exchange for allowing Legionnaires and troops into their lands and paying tribute to the City. And as Rome was a very, very attractive civilisation in it's glory days, a lot of Germanic, Iberian, and Greek lords and warlords made such pacts, rather than face Rome's wrath.

But, let's go with Skarn's list:

Nope. Rome didn't know nationalism as we know it. Goes for both the Republic and the Empire.

Yes. It's the mother fo all imperialist Empires. Goes for both the Republic and the Empire.

The Emperors, at least those in the beginning, allowed for some democracy to remain (the senate). The Republic was a democracy of notable pluralism, even though it was rough in a way that makes American politics look like a hugfest.

Also, Rome had no national or religious ideology to begin with. Especially religiously, Rome was very tolerant, to the point of adopting foreign gods into their pantheon (Isis in particular had a very large following in Rome).

No.

Republic: No.
Empire: Yes.

Yes. Goes for both.

No.

HELL YES!!

Yes.

Yes.

Rome? Strict social values? ROME????

Yes, but almost all other peoples were far worse. Excluding the celts, who'd make scandinavians happy if their culture had survived the Dark Ages.

Score:

Republic: 5/5 Yes/No
Empire: 6/4 Yes/No

Not overly high, considering the US score at 6/4 too.