Alternate History Ideas and Discussion

Skallagrim

Well-known member
Getting from empire to republic is actually pretty easy. European monarchies have been tending towards real power slipping into the hands of parliaments for most of the 20th century at least so we can rely on that trend and the eventuality of a Kaiser wanting to spite his heir enough to abdicate in favor of the elected government or simply not having an heir due to reproductive issues. Given enough time it can be cast as inevitable.
Given enough time, the termination of every possible system is an inevitability. However, take a look at the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. (There are some other examples, but it may be reasonable to assume that micro-states don't play by the exact same rules as 'big' countries.)

The point is: none of these have abolished their monarchies, in spite of the trend of real power slipping into the hands of parliaments being very much applicable in these countries. Even Spain, despite some considerable turmoil, managed to remain a monarchy. When we look at monarchies actually being abolished, we mostly see two sorts of countries:

-- those that underwent extreme turmoil, usually involving a very horrible war (e.g. Germany, Russia, Italy), and;

-- those that were pretty damn shaky to begin with, and found their independence relatively recently (most examples found in the South-East of Europe).

In some cases, certain countries where monarchy could have survived got screwed because the USSR marched in and imposed communism (whereas otherwise, the monarchy would presumably have continued or been restored, where applicable).

This suggests, at least to me, that the idea of monarchies just getting abolished because they've become functionally obsolete is actually a non-starter. History shows us that they become cereminial window-dressing, but they don't get abolished. I'd say that it is because keeping them has inertia on its side, whereas abolishing them has inertia working against it.
 

stevep

Well-known member
Given enough time, the termination of every possible system is an inevitability. However, take a look at the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. (There are some other examples, but it may be reasonable to assume that micro-states don't play by the exact same rules as 'big' countries.)

The point is: none of these have abolished their monarchies, in spite of the trend of real power slipping into the hands of parliaments being very much applicable in these countries. Even Spain, despite some considerable turmoil, managed to remain a monarchy. When we look at monarchies actually being abolished, we mostly see two sorts of countries:

-- those that underwent extreme turmoil, usually involving a very horrible war (e.g. Germany, Russia, Italy), and;

-- those that were pretty damn shaky to begin with, and found their independence relatively recently (most examples found in the South-East of Europe).

In some cases, certain countries where monarchy could have survived got screwed because the USSR marched in and imposed communism (whereas otherwise, the monarchy would presumably have continued or been restored, where applicable).

This suggests, at least to me, that the idea of monarchies just getting abolished because they've become functionally obsolete is actually a non-starter. History shows us that they become cereminial window-dressing, but they don't get abolished. I'd say that it is because keeping them has inertia on its side, whereas abolishing them has inertia working against it.

Also they can provide a non-political rallying point for the nation as a whole. Provided of course their not too out of touch with their actual populations.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
'Nazi Version of Pol Pot'.

Just when you thought Hitler was the worst of the worst, as it was... 😮

Had the Nazis won WWII and implemented Generalplan Ost, this could have happened, especially if the Nazis would have decided "Why bother deporting tens of millions of Slavs to Siberia and Central Asia when this will simply strengthen our Soviet enemy east of the Urals? Why not simply murder them instead?" And also have the Nazis fall much more deeply in love with Germany's traditional agrarian past, which BTW is also the time when the Ostsiedlung occurred. Maybe force millions or even tens of millions of Germans to become Wehrbauer in the East against their will?
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
The thing is, a balkanized Russia doesn't mean bad relations with the US. The surviving governments in exile would tend to be very cozy with the US and there was basically no chance of a thousand year Reich or even a thousand month Reich. They might have made it to a thousand week Reich, but while Hitler's designated successor wasn't listening to Hitler's private doctor's atrocious medical advice he was obese and approaching the heart disease danger zone. And after Goering passes all the party's senior statesmen are gone and there's no clear successor and it's civil war o'clock. At this point the Russias regain their independence if they hadn't successfully rebelled already and while they probably don't want the governments in exile back if it's been decades, they do want to be friendly with any of the world's remaining great powers that don't want to conquer them, most prominent of which is probably the US.

Are you sure that someone can't quickly consolidate power in Nazi Germany even if it does experience a civil war? Reinhard Heydrich, for instance?

This requires US democracy to be a complete sham by the time Roosevelt dies because there are two parties and "free Europe" is going to be really popular with a lot of voting blocks. Roosevelt might get a fourth term off the back of the Great Depression if he survives, but after that he's going to start looking increasingly like a dictator if he keeps running and if the fix is in he might not get the fourth term because his coalition is going to start shedding the people with family in Europe, people with ties to Asia, people with a Pope in Europe, the Orthodox, the Zionists, the evangelical protestants sympathetic to the Zionists, and probably some others. Long term peace with Communism is not possible so long as the US remains democratic and capitalist and long term peace with Bolshevism is not possible even if the US somehow threads the blind needle and becomes Communist while remaining democratic.

Interesting.

Getting from empire to republic is actually pretty easy. European monarchies have been tending towards real power slipping into the hands of parliaments for most of the 20th century at least so we can rely on that trend and the eventuality of a Kaiser wanting to spite his heir enough to abdicate in favor of the elected government or simply not having an heir due to reproductive issues. Given enough time it can be cast as inevitable. So we only need to prevent Germany from losing a war with France.

Lots of options for this I suspect.
  • The disorder of the Paris Commune spreads and France collapses into civil war after the Franco-Prussian War. This reinforces Monarchy, but this is early enough that it hasn't started its decline. It can stand a few decades of delay since without a time limit we've got until the present.
  • Gavrillo Princip chooses a different sandwich shop and when the Balkans explode they do so in such a way that Russia is the clear aggressor. The Triple Alliance would probably win a war if Italy kept its alliance and the US did not intervene in favor of the nations supporting the Russian aggressors. Franz Ferdinand was planning some measures that would have contributed to the liberalization trend so this is probably the clearest path.
  • Then there are all the myriad answers I'm sure you've seen before about how Germany could win WWI. Those are almost all going to satisfy this challenge.
A constitutional monarchy isn't quite the same thing as a republic, though.

That one might be more of an ASB. At the start of the war, guns have advanced enough to nullify horse cavalry, but internal combustion engines haven't advanced enough to replace horse cavalry. Unless the French fold like a wet newspaper due to internal issues, a sweeping German victory as seen in the Franco-Prussian War or WWII seems impossible. And Russia lacks the industry at this time to win if France collapses. General Winter might drive the Germans back, but the Russians can't follow through.

That makes sense.
 
Last edited:

WolfBear

Well-known member
'AHC: Have present-day Russians (or at least Russians in, say, 2050) breed as much as present-day Israeli Jews do'
 

Atarlost

Well-known member
Are you sure that someone can't quickly consolidate power in Nazi Germany even if it does experience a civil war? Reinhard Heydrich, for instance?
Quite sure. It might be possible someone still alive can avoid a civil war for a little while, but none of them are Methusaleh. Any civil war will certainly have the Reich come apart at the seems with everyone outside the Reich backing the separatists.

The Soviet Union was able to survive the death of Stalin because it could find enough local Communists to lead the SSRs who were loyal to Communism and the cause of International Communism would be harmed by the breakup of the USSR. And after that they had a more orderly succession system.

Nazism can't do that because it's nationalist. You can find a Quisling, and maybe he's rat enough to believe the Norwegians are discount Germans and should be ruled by Germany, but thirty years on you're going to wind up with ambitious people rising to the top instead of collaborators and an ambitious Norwegian, even if he agrees with the Nazi party line in every other particular, is going to think Norway should be if not on top at least have the dignity of an independent sovereign nation. And as for Norway so for France and the Netherlands and Denmark and every other nation incorporated into the Reich. And they're going to take the opportunity of a succession crisis and grab it with both hands. Possibly even creating a succession crisis to get that opportunity.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Quite sure. It might be possible someone still alive can avoid a civil war for a little while, but none of them are Methusaleh. Any civil war will certainly have the Reich come apart at the seems with everyone outside the Reich backing the separatists.

The Soviet Union was able to survive the death of Stalin because it could find enough local Communists to lead the SSRs who were loyal to Communism and the cause of International Communism would be harmed by the breakup of the USSR. And after that they had a more orderly succession system.

Nazism can't do that because it's nationalist. You can find a Quisling, and maybe he's rat enough to believe the Norwegians are discount Germans and should be ruled by Germany, but thirty years on you're going to wind up with ambitious people rising to the top instead of collaborators and an ambitious Norwegian, even if he agrees with the Nazi party line in every other particular, is going to think Norway should be if not on top at least have the dignity of an independent sovereign nation. And as for Norway so for France and the Netherlands and Denmark and every other nation incorporated into the Reich. And they're going to take the opportunity of a succession crisis and grab it with both hands. Possibly even creating a succession crisis to get that opportunity.

The Nazis' biggest prize was Eastern Europe, though. The Western and Northern territories were less important to them so long as they were not a threat.

'Gerald Ford Meets Alexander Solzhenitsyn'.

(Which he refused to do IOTL.)

Ford becomes a lover of Russian literature and is a more active supporter of Soviet dissidents?
 

Zyobot

Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Ford becomes a lover of Russian literature and is a more active supporter of Soviet dissidents?

If so, maybe he'd further give into the advice of James Schlesinger? Heeding the hawkish side of the GOP may go hand-in-hand well with championing Soviet dissidents, as well as helping him better compete with the likes of Jimmy Carter when it comes to human-rights advocacy.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
If so, maybe he'd further give into the advice of James Schlesinger? Heeding the hawkish side of the GOP may go hand-in-hand well with championing Soviet dissidents, as well as helping him better compete with the likes of Jimmy Carter when it comes to human-rights advocacy.

What exactly did Schlesinger advocate?

Anyway:

'AHC: Have Western Europe's immigrants over the last several decades be as smart and well-educated as the immigrants whom the US accepted over the last several decades (other than the Latin American ones)'


1.png


By selectivity:

3.png
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Nah, that's just The End of History thesis by Fukuyama, which even he has rejected nowadays.

It was a nice thesis, though, you have to give him credit for it. A bit too finalistic, but still, the end of the Cold War was certainly very notable from a historical perspective.

Yeah, I don't know how he and Hitler would get along overall, but I get the queasy feeling Sternberg would have a sinister "lightbulb moment" if ASB gave him a look at OTL Holocaust. (His execution might involve somewhat fewer mechanical, highly engineered means, but way more public displays of "Kill, maim, burn!" as if he's Khorne incarnate.)

*Shudder*

'AHC: Give Germany a Jewish population of more than 2 million by the present-day with a PoD of 1910 or later'
 

Zyobot

Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
What exactly did Schlesinger advocate?

Given that he was more hawkish, I assume he'd have urged Ford to prop up Soviet dissidents who can personally attest to the evils of communism. He regularly championed the buildup and "refinement" of US forces even after the Vietnam War and had reservations about SALT, so I don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine him also wanting Ford to employ all the soft power at his disposal. (Having him get along with Ford better and/or be less blunt in his delivery may be a good start.)
 

Circle of Willis

Well-known member
Back in 1971, an alternate-history (or would it have been alternate-future at that time?) pseudo-documentary called Punishment Park was made, depicting a US which had been turned into a far-right police state by then-president Richard Nixon. The McCarran Internal Security Act was invoked; left-wingers of all stripes from anti-war singers to Black Panther expies to feminist college activists were being rounded up and tried by 'special tribunals' comprised of authoritarian politicians, military men and other hard-right-wing locals from the same general area; and those who don't choose to serve out long prison terms get sentenced to a three-day romp through the Californian desert, where their objective is to reach a US flag marking their finish line while being hounded by a team of National Guardsmen + deputies and cops from what I would guess are the LASD & LAPD.

Obviously in hindsight, that didn't happen and Nixon wasn't quite the fascist boogeyman the film made him out to be. (Dude wanted to devolve some powers back to the states via New Federalism, implemented affirmative action and even proposed a sort of UBI in his very unfortunately acronym'd Family Action Plan historically) But, my questions/proposal is: how can the US of the 1960s/70s most realistically and quickly become a right-wing dictatorship of the sort shown in Punishment Park? How long can such a regime last, what would it be up to while in power both domestically & in the foreign arena, and what are the probable aftershocks following its decline/downfall, if it ever falls in the first place?

Figuring out a way to include an uneconomical scheme straight out of a YA novel to deal with opponents of the regime akin to Punishment Park (as opposed to more sensible dictatorship tactics, like just shooting them) is not mandatory, but would be a bonus.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Back in 1971, an alternate-history (or would it have been alternate-future at that time?) pseudo-documentary called Punishment Park was made, depicting a US which had been turned into a far-right police state by then-president Richard Nixon. The McCarran Internal Security Act was invoked; left-wingers of all stripes from anti-war singers to Black Panther expies to feminist college activists were being rounded up and tried by 'special tribunals' comprised of authoritarian politicians, military men and other hard-right-wing locals from the same general area; and those who don't choose to serve out long prison terms get sentenced to a three-day romp through the Californian desert, where their objective is to reach a US flag marking their finish line while being hounded by a team of National Guardsmen + deputies and cops from what I would guess are the LASD & LAPD.

Obviously in hindsight, that didn't happen and Nixon wasn't quite the fascist boogeyman the film made him out to be. (Dude wanted to devolve some powers back to the states via New Federalism, implemented affirmative action and even proposed a sort of UBI in his very unfortunately acronym'd Family Action Plan historically) But, my questions/proposal is: how can the US of the 1960s/70s most realistically and quickly become a right-wing dictatorship of the sort shown in Punishment Park? How long can such a regime last, and what are the probable aftershocks following its decline/downfall, if it ever falls in the first place?

Figuring out a way to include an uneconomical scheme straight out of a YA novel to deal with opponents of the regime akin to Punishment Park (as opposed to more sensible dictatorship tactics, like just shooting them) is not mandatory, but would be a bonus.

Have CRT become more accepted by the mainstream US Left much earlier, combined with a more aggressive focus on things such as forced integration (busing, etc) which liberal elites push on unwilling proles while themselves sending their kids to private schools and living in rich neighborhoods and thus cherry-picking the kind of diversity that they themselves get while forcing unwilling proles to swallow the less desirable kinds of diversity. Then, have some kind of Trump-like demagogue appear in the US, only without ADHD and with a greater willingness to actually focus and to consolidate his own power. The 1970s US was much whiter, so in theory, a MAGA platform could have had much wider appeal there, especially if the mainstream US Left would have went bonkers much earlier.
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
Back in 1971, an alternate-history (or would it have been alternate-future at that time?) pseudo-documentary called Punishment Park was made, depicting a US which had been turned into a far-right police state by then-president Richard Nixon. The McCarran Internal Security Act was invoked; left-wingers of all stripes from anti-war singers to Black Panther expies to feminist college activists were being rounded up and tried by 'special tribunals' comprised of authoritarian politicians, military men and other hard-right-wing locals from the same general area; and those who don't choose to serve out long prison terms get sentenced to a three-day romp through the Californian desert, where their objective is to reach a US flag marking their finish line while being hounded by a team of National Guardsmen + deputies and cops from what I would guess are the LASD & LAPD.

Obviously in hindsight, that didn't happen and Nixon wasn't quite the fascist boogeyman the film made him out to be. (Dude wanted to devolve some powers back to the states via New Federalism, implemented affirmative action and even proposed a sort of UBI in his very unfortunately acronym'd Family Action Plan historically) But, my questions/proposal is: how can the US of the 1960s/70s most realistically and quickly become a right-wing dictatorship of the sort shown in Punishment Park? How long can such a regime last, what would it be up to while in power both domestically & in the foreign arena, and what are the probable aftershocks following its decline/downfall, if it ever falls in the first place?

Figuring out a way to include an uneconomical scheme straight out of a YA novel to deal with opponents of the regime akin to Punishment Park (as opposed to more sensible dictatorship tactics, like just shooting them) is not mandatory, but would be a bonus.
A key issue is that right-wing dictatorships are almost always a reaction to the prior implementation, or imminent threat of implementation, of a left-wing dictatorship.

The constant left-wing pushing of the "evil right-wingers are always JUST ABOUT to stage a coup!" narrative is simply total fear-mongering bullshit. The historical truth is that the right-wing reactionaries are, as the name implies.... reactionary. They react. Specifically, they react to the radical actions of the left.

So, most credibly, what you need is a far more active left wing that actually comes pretty close to implementing its own plans for seizing (near-)absolute power, with a right-wing coup then being launched as a last-ditch effort to prevent this. It would be similar to the events in Chile that led to Allende being overthrown. (The typical left-wing narrative usually leaves out that Allende ruled by decree, ignored the Constitution, had set up paramilitary death squads, and was about to forcibly dissolve the parliament which had issued a resolution ordering him to cease his abuses. They also leave out that Pinochet and his confederates were asked to act by the supreme court of Chile, which was aware that Allende had zero respect for the constitution and was, in practice, already governing as a socialist tyrant.)

Anyway... have an equivalent to Allende arise in the USA, using the same means, subverting the Constitution to the same degree, and ignoring the resolutions of Congress in the same way... and then you can easily see Congress and the Supreme Court explicitly requisting the military to take action to defend the Constitution and the lawful rule that derives therefrom.

Presumably, the left-wing radicals (organised into paramilitary groups) would resist violently, and if the far left has usurped the media, it would lead to a messy affair. In the subsequent period of fighting and martial law, the military Emergency Government could realistically execute quite a lot of left-wingers without trial, on the rounds that they are traitors and enemy combatants and that martial law is in effect.

The thing is, following the restoration of order, the US military would certainly return command to the civil government, with emergeny elections taking place as soon as possible. The (also recurring) left-wing idée fixe that the US military is full of insane colonels who just want to seize power is absurd.

Naturally, it is realistic that in the aftermath, Congress would pass laws disenfranchising anyone who's ever been a member of a left-wing organisation, banning all such organisations, and putting very long prison sentences on various forms of terrorism. And there would presumably be a lot of people getting sentenced to prison for their actions during the recent crisis.

But that would be about it.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
A key issue is that right-wing dictatorships are almost always a reaction to the prior implementation, or imminent threat of implementation, of a left-wing dictatorship.

The constant left-wing pushing of the "evil right-wingers are always JUST ABOUT to stage a coup!" narrative is simply total fear-mongering bullshit. The historical truth is that the right-wing reactionaries are, as the name implies.... reactionary. They react. Specifically, they react to the radical actions of the left.

So, most credibly, what you need is a far more active left wing that actually comes pretty close to implementing its own plans for seizing (near-)absolute power, with a right-wing coup then being launched as a last-ditch effort to prevent this. It would be similar to the events in Chile that led to Allende being overthrown. (The typical left-wing narrative usually leaves out that Allende ruled by decree, ignored the Constitution, had set up paramilitary death squads, and was about to forcibly dissolve the parliament which had issued a resolution ordering him to cease his abuses. They also leave out that Pinochet and his confederates were asked to act by the supreme court of Chile, which was aware that Allende had zero respect for the constitution and was, in practice, already governing as a socialist tyrant.)

Anyway... have an equivalent to Allende arise in the USA, using the same means, subverting the Constitution to the same degree, and ignoring the resolutions of Congress in the same way... and then you can easily see Congress and the Supreme Court explicitly requisting the military to take action to defend the Constitution and the lawful rule that derives therefrom.

Presumably, the left-wing radicals (organised into paramilitary groups) would resist violently, and if the far left has usurped the media, it would lead to a messy affair. In the subsequent period of fighting and martial law, the military Emergency Government could realistically execute quite a lot of left-wingers without trial, on the rounds that they are traitors and enemy combatants and that martial law is in effect.

The thing is, following the restoration of order, the US military would certainly return command to the civil government, with emergeny elections taking place as soon as possible. The (also recurring) left-wing idée fixe that the US military is full of insane colonels who just want to seize power is absurd.

Naturally, it is realistic that in the aftermath, Congress would pass laws disenfranchising anyone who's ever been a member of a left-wing organisation, banning all such organisations, and putting very long prison sentences on various forms of terrorism. And there would presumably be a lot of people getting sentenced to prison for their actions during the recent crisis.

But that would be about it.

You mean similar to Wokeness, CRT, and cancel culture on the Left right now triggering an extreme reaction on the part of American and other Western Rightists in real life?

And Yes, it's quite interesting that some of the worst horrors of the 20th century have been committed in response to other, previous horrors: For instance, the Holocaust was committed in response to the horrors of Communism whereas the Armenian Genocide was committed in response to the horrors of massive expulsions of Muslims from former Ottoman lands in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries:


Tragedies and mass horrors typically don't occur as a result of a vaccum. Though I will admit that the Khmer Rouge's genocidal and murderous nature was truly unprecedented.
 

Circle of Willis

Well-known member
Have CRT become more accepted by the mainstream US Left much earlier, combined with a more aggressive focus on things such as forced integration (busing, etc) which liberal elites push on unwilling proles while themselves sending their kids to private schools and living in rich neighborhoods and thus cherry-picking the kind of diversity that they themselves get while forcing unwilling proles to swallow the less desirable kinds of diversity. Then, have some kind of Trump-like demagogue appear in the US, only without ADHD and with a greater willingness to actually focus and to consolidate his own power. The 1970s US was much whiter, so in theory, a MAGA platform could have had much wider appeal there, especially if the mainstream US Left would have went bonkers much earlier.
I doubt anyone openly proposing CRT would've gotten anywhere back in the '60s-'70s. We have to keep in mind that even the Democrats were still the party of George Wallace and Richard Daley, after all. Maybe if a crypto-Communist or straight up Soviet Manchurian agent gets the nod at the DNC and only reveals their true colors later...
Have the comunist-pedophile infestation in hollywood get blown wide open, followed by the governor of California rebelling to try and protect the old boys club from getting hung for what they were doing to starlets.
In California's defense, back then it was in no way one of the major nexuses of American leftism alongside NYC and DC, and in fact was generally quite conservative. After all, at the time of Punishment Park's filming & release, Reagan was still the governor.
A key issue is that right-wing dictatorships are almost always a reaction to the prior implementation, or imminent threat of implementation, of a left-wing dictatorship.

The constant left-wing pushing of the "evil right-wingers are always JUST ABOUT to stage a coup!" narrative is simply total fear-mongering bullshit. The historical truth is that the right-wing reactionaries are, as the name implies.... reactionary. They react. Specifically, they react to the radical actions of the left.

So, most credibly, what you need is a far more active left wing that actually comes pretty close to implementing its own plans for seizing (near-)absolute power, with a right-wing coup then being launched as a last-ditch effort to prevent this. It would be similar to the events in Chile that led to Allende being overthrown. (The typical left-wing narrative usually leaves out that Allende ruled by decree, ignored the Constitution, had set up paramilitary death squads, and was about to forcibly dissolve the parliament which had issued a resolution ordering him to cease his abuses. They also leave out that Pinochet and his confederates were asked to act by the supreme court of Chile, which was aware that Allende had zero respect for the constitution and was, in practice, already governing as a socialist tyrant.)

Anyway... have an equivalent to Allende arise in the USA, using the same means, subverting the Constitution to the same degree, and ignoring the resolutions of Congress in the same way... and then you can easily see Congress and the Supreme Court explicitly requisting the military to take action to defend the Constitution and the lawful rule that derives therefrom.

Presumably, the left-wing radicals (organised into paramilitary groups) would resist violently, and if the far left has usurped the media, it would lead to a messy affair. In the subsequent period of fighting and martial law, the military Emergency Government could realistically execute quite a lot of left-wingers without trial, on the rounds that they are traitors and enemy combatants and that martial law is in effect.

The thing is, following the restoration of order, the US military would certainly return command to the civil government, with emergeny elections taking place as soon as possible. The (also recurring) left-wing idée fixe that the US military is full of insane colonels who just want to seize power is absurd.

Naturally, it is realistic that in the aftermath, Congress would pass laws disenfranchising anyone who's ever been a member of a left-wing organisation, banning all such organisations, and putting very long prison sentences on various forms of terrorism. And there would presumably be a lot of people getting sentenced to prison for their actions during the recent crisis.

But that would be about it.
Great writeup. I had just been thinking more along the lines of the Weathermen (or any other far left terror group, such as the Symbionese Liberation Army) getting insanely lucky and decapitating the USGOV, throwing the line of succession into chaos, and maybe Fred Hampton (being an especially charismatic & successful would-be revolutionary) surviving the attempt on his life or another similarly popular far-left figure arising to capitalize on the chaos & yell 'Alright bois it's revolution time' at the stunned nation. But having the military ousting a quasi-dictator before s/he can drop the 'quasi' part first, within an entirely legalistic framework and establishing a provisional regime to secure the Constitution with the overt backing of Congress & the Supreme Court at that, works just as well or even better.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
I doubt anyone openly proposing CRT would've gotten anywhere back in the '60s-'70s. We have to keep in mind that even the Democrats were still the party of George Wallace and Richard Daley, after all. Maybe if a crypto-Communist or straight up Soviet Manchurian agent gets the nod at the DNC and only reveals their true colors later...

CRT itself was unlikely to become massively popular in the US back then, though elements of liberal elites disconnect with white American proles in regards to race relations could have already existed back then. For instance, as I previously mentioned, liberal elites sending their kids to fancy private schools and living in the best neighborhoods and thus only getting the best kinds of diversity while forcing white American proles to experience worse kinds of diversity through forced integration, such as with school busing forcing white American proles to share their schools with ghetto kids (as opposed to with the black middle- and upper-classes).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top