what if leftists caused 911
- Thread starter Cherico
- Start date
Eparkhos
Well-known member
What kind of communuists are they, and why are they doing it? Are they Soviet die-hards determined to launch a final blow at the capitalists? Ancoms radicalized after the WTO protests who want to destroy a symbol of global capitalism? Some overly-ambitious near-sighted Cuban fanatics? Posadists trying to spark WW3? Symbionese Liberation Army or Weathermen Underground remnants going out in a blaze?
What happens next differs very sharply depending on who causes it--the response to Castro or his lieutenants doing it will be worlds different from the response to 'American' ancoms.
What happens next differs very sharply depending on who causes it--the response to Castro or his lieutenants doing it will be worlds different from the response to 'American' ancoms.
fair enough lets go with our current group of woke folk then critical race theorists, with black nationalists and feminists sprinkled in.
SpaceOrbis
Well-known member
What even is critical race theory? I have heard about it before but so far I can't work out what it is trying to say. It sounds sort of racist to me to be fair.
If we are going with that sort of people I guess you could go for really any group that thinks we are doing more harm than good. I'm fairly sure you could probably have some environmental group who could bomb a power plant or something. If you still want the towers attacked just have them set bombs on the support columns and just have gravity do most of the work for you.
DarthOne
☦️
It pretty much is reverse racism/sins of your father's type guilt BS in disguise.
SpaceOrbis
Well-known member
I don't buy into the idea that I should have to apologize for the mistakes of the past. I didn't do them so I shouldn't have to be sorry for them. So as far as I care critical race theory is a load of utter nonsense.
They spent summer of 2020 perpetrating a nation wide kristalnacht against whites, Asian American business owners and Latinos and no one in today's America did a God damn thing
At the very least the Bush era DOJ would pounce on it and go ham if it was domestic because neocons would be able to simp harder for the institutions while showing up their detractors.
Beyond that...it would depend entirely on who the commies were.
Circle of Willis
Well-known member
As far as domestic American leftists at the turn of the century go, I think the most openly militant tendency at the time would've been found in the anarchists of the Pacific Northwest: the predecessors of Antifa, best known at the time for kicking off the 'Battle of Seattle' in 1999 against the WTO's conference in that city. So some especially radical, and certainly far better organized/competent/successful, ancom types are your likeliest domestic leftist candidate for the alt-9/11 IMO.
And as for the effects...well, there's not gonna be a War in Afghanistan beyond the Taliban-Northern Alliance conflict that was already ongoing, since with a far-left domestic terror cell executing 9/11 instead of an AQ sheltered by the Taliban there's no reason for the US to invade Afghanistan at all. There will probably be an Iraq War at some point though, since Bush and the neocons really wanted Saddam down & in the ground. Maybe they'll invade Syria, Libya or Sudan to compensate for missing out on Afghanistan - those were some of the other targets Wesley Clark alleged the Bush administration wanted to hit before getting bogged down by the Iraqi & Afghan insurgencies, and neocon warhawks have plenty of reason to hate them all.
Most of all though I think the War on Terror won't be 'brought home' so much as it will start at home. Seattle, Portland, Olympia and those other PNW cities known to be hubs of ancom activity are going to get turned upside down in the initial manhunt for the terrorists, then in the purges of anarchist activity to follow. I'd expect anarchist symbols & memorabilia to vanish as waving a red-and-black flag in public ITL will become as unacceptable as waving a black flag with the shahada & 'Death to America' on it IOTL, even in liberal cities, immediately after 9/11. The punk subculture mercifully dies outright instead of becoming a skinsuit for hipsters, who the original punks would frankly probably beat up for being unbearable, to wear in the 2010s. Fewer Muslims in Gitmo and a lot more 'gutter punk' types in high-security/military prisons across the country instead, probably.
Might see an embrace of 'proper' Communism, with no anarchist connotations whatsoever, among the far-left fringe instead - a lot more tankies and a lot fewer anarkiddies/Antifa wannabe streetfighter types, basically. If the economy still melts down around 2007-08, I'd imagine the Tea Party movement has a good chance of swallowing up most of the Occupy types (at least, the less ideological people who are just mad at the established system's failures and ruination of their finances) since the American people will still have a less-than-fond memory of what 'revolutionary terror' looks like in their lifetimes. In turn I'd also expect the Tea Party to grow well beyond the ability of the GOP's own establishment to control, shifting the domestic Overton window far to the right. The Democrats would have to very loudly disown their left wing to avoid being slammed as guilty by association, diving ever deeper into Clintonite neoliberalism.
While neoliberalism and neoconservatism lie discredited and slowly dying while anything to the former's left becomes unacceptable to the mainstream due to alt-9/11, American politics will likely come to be dominated by the fight between an empowered libertarian movement and properly reactionary nationalists who consider Eisenhower's tax rates, Taft Senior's tariffs and Taft Junior's isolationism to be part of the tradition they're restoring - both emerging from the Tea Party crowd. Basically early Trumpists in the latter's case, except presumably more coherent ideologically since they'll have some extra years to formulate, come together & go mainstream. I expect they will win out in the struggle for control over the Republicans since the national security/law & order mainstreamers will have an easier time allying with them than the libertarians, and they in turn would have fewer problems with coexisting with (and wielding!) the post-9/11 state security apparatus than the libertarians too. I could see said libertarians trying to take over the Democrats (whose socially progressive policies and recent embrace of economically liberal positions will make them much more amenable to a libertarian hijacking than the GOP's neo- and paleo-conservative tendencies IMO) instead.
Tl;dr this timeline's probably your best shot at getting a Mike Gravel (D) vs. Mike Huckabee (R) showdown in 2008, and will accelerate the switch of the working class in the Rust Belt to the Republicans that much more quickly.
And as for the effects...well, there's not gonna be a War in Afghanistan beyond the Taliban-Northern Alliance conflict that was already ongoing, since with a far-left domestic terror cell executing 9/11 instead of an AQ sheltered by the Taliban there's no reason for the US to invade Afghanistan at all. There will probably be an Iraq War at some point though, since Bush and the neocons really wanted Saddam down & in the ground. Maybe they'll invade Syria, Libya or Sudan to compensate for missing out on Afghanistan - those were some of the other targets Wesley Clark alleged the Bush administration wanted to hit before getting bogged down by the Iraqi & Afghan insurgencies, and neocon warhawks have plenty of reason to hate them all.
Most of all though I think the War on Terror won't be 'brought home' so much as it will start at home. Seattle, Portland, Olympia and those other PNW cities known to be hubs of ancom activity are going to get turned upside down in the initial manhunt for the terrorists, then in the purges of anarchist activity to follow. I'd expect anarchist symbols & memorabilia to vanish as waving a red-and-black flag in public ITL will become as unacceptable as waving a black flag with the shahada & 'Death to America' on it IOTL, even in liberal cities, immediately after 9/11. The punk subculture mercifully dies outright instead of becoming a skinsuit for hipsters, who the original punks would frankly probably beat up for being unbearable, to wear in the 2010s. Fewer Muslims in Gitmo and a lot more 'gutter punk' types in high-security/military prisons across the country instead, probably.
Might see an embrace of 'proper' Communism, with no anarchist connotations whatsoever, among the far-left fringe instead - a lot more tankies and a lot fewer anarkiddies/Antifa wannabe streetfighter types, basically. If the economy still melts down around 2007-08, I'd imagine the Tea Party movement has a good chance of swallowing up most of the Occupy types (at least, the less ideological people who are just mad at the established system's failures and ruination of their finances) since the American people will still have a less-than-fond memory of what 'revolutionary terror' looks like in their lifetimes. In turn I'd also expect the Tea Party to grow well beyond the ability of the GOP's own establishment to control, shifting the domestic Overton window far to the right. The Democrats would have to very loudly disown their left wing to avoid being slammed as guilty by association, diving ever deeper into Clintonite neoliberalism.
While neoliberalism and neoconservatism lie discredited and slowly dying while anything to the former's left becomes unacceptable to the mainstream due to alt-9/11, American politics will likely come to be dominated by the fight between an empowered libertarian movement and properly reactionary nationalists who consider Eisenhower's tax rates, Taft Senior's tariffs and Taft Junior's isolationism to be part of the tradition they're restoring - both emerging from the Tea Party crowd. Basically early Trumpists in the latter's case, except presumably more coherent ideologically since they'll have some extra years to formulate, come together & go mainstream. I expect they will win out in the struggle for control over the Republicans since the national security/law & order mainstreamers will have an easier time allying with them than the libertarians, and they in turn would have fewer problems with coexisting with (and wielding!) the post-9/11 state security apparatus than the libertarians too. I could see said libertarians trying to take over the Democrats (whose socially progressive policies and recent embrace of economically liberal positions will make them much more amenable to a libertarian hijacking than the GOP's neo- and paleo-conservative tendencies IMO) instead.
Tl;dr this timeline's probably your best shot at getting a Mike Gravel (D) vs. Mike Huckabee (R) showdown in 2008, and will accelerate the switch of the working class in the Rust Belt to the Republicans that much more quickly.
That sounds like an objectively better history than our own.
Then the US could experience a new Red Scare at the start of the 21st century? A new McCarthyist-style witch hunt?
It would not be over communism but transitioning kids.
They wouldn't even be able to get a chance to babble about Marxism. The moment they start saying people of color in a place like LA twenty years ago they'd get brained by the very people they're preaching too and then you start talking about grooming?
There'd be school shootings that end up un acquittals.
People, especially younger people don't realize how absolutely insane all this shit sounds and how evil it sounds and how people reacted to crap like this back then.
The conversations we are having now are not normal or sane or even crazy, they're outright demonic and people in the late 90s and early 00s would respond by calling Earl asking to borrow his F150 and some chains.
So yeah I don't think we'd get a red scare. We would get a total and complete reactionary purge of our society and the culture would shift back to where it was in the 1980s.
Whether that's good or bad will depend on who you ask, it certainly would lead to a lot of erosion in civil liberties because Pelosi and Co would still be there and Rinos gotta Rino but yeah.
I dont think the dialog would make it to communism.
Imagine trying to explain preferred pronouns to your average 90s lgb person much less a regular dude.
I suspect that people are more worked up over CRT than about transitioning children, but maybe I'm wrong here.
Simonbob
Well-known member
There's a lot less folk transitioning than being taught CRT. More direct contact, more average kids coming home crying that they were targeted by their teacher in some racist way. Also, there aren't many kids targeted by the Trans lobby without their parents being part of it.
Both are terrible. But, one is hitting entire communities, and one isn't.
Yeah, the way that I see it is that CRT teaches all whites that they are racist or at least a part of a chronically racist system whereas the issue of transitioning is only relevant if you actually have a trans or perhaps gender non-conforming child.
Simonbob
Well-known member
Gay and gender non-conforming are not exclusive categories. A lot of GNC kids subsequently turn out gay or at least bisexual or pansexual. Not all of them, but a lot of them:
Report: Very Feminine Boys Likely to Become Homosexual Adults
NEW YORK (AP) _ Boys who persistently play with girls' dolls, dress like girls and display other stereotypically feminine traits will probably grow up to be gay men, researchers say.
apnews.com
One is married to the other though.
As in the issues are intrinsically linked and most CRT proponents turn out to also be groomers.
And parents will snap to the Groomer aspect over the racist aspect
TBH, I suspect that the Left has much more of a fetish for racial issues than for transgender issues. However, maybe I'm wrong in regards to this.
Not transgender perse but child abuse in general.
They have a fetish for degradation and it's on full display when they attack the family. Whether they use race or trying to brainwash your child into maiming his or her genitalia it's all in the service of the same perverse end.
And Bush for all his faults was a savvy enough politician back then to actually attack it that way.
I thought that Bush's attacks were on same-sex marriage and that he was silent about transgenderism?