东方红 (The East is Red)

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
January 2nd, 1963: Psychiatrist and philosopher Frantz Fanon had been living with Rosalind Franklin in London for several years, fathering several children with her.

g75GYx0.jpg

I boned a Nobel Laureate with my 13" dick and you haven't done either.

This is not particularly relevant to the timeline, except to say that he is in Franklin's residence on January 2nd, 1963.

Meanwhile, Francis Crick had spent the previous day drinking heavily and vowing to kill that "N(expletive) loving Jew" who had "stolen (his) fucking Nobel Prize."

James Watson tries to talk him out of it, so Crick decides to beat him to death first.

EEqAcxM.jpg

James Watson (1928-1963)

Crick then grabs his rifle and drives to Dr. Franklin's house.

Gp123iL.jpg

Francis Crick's rifle. You thought he was going to use Grandpa's old Holland and Holland?

Crick kicks in the door and shoots both Fanon and Franklin. He cannot bring himself to kill their children though and decides to turn the gun on himself instead.

OqzgXWa.jpg

Rosalind Franklin (1920-1963)

PKF4GMK.jpg

Francis Crick (1916-1963)


lfGvTDb.gif

Frantz Fanon (1925-2028)

Fanon somehow survives getting half a drum magazine of 7.62x39mm emptied into his torso without any permanent injury. He will die of entirely unrelated causes at a much later date.

January 3rd, 1963: The second prominent Jewish scientist to be murdered for anti-Semitic reasons in less than 13 months has not exactly gone unnoticed. Although it's unlikely that Francis Crick and William Luther Pierce's crimes were related to one another, many prominent Jews start to become wary of their colleagues.

xvS91b1.jpg

"We've haven't had an anti-Semitic incident since the Bronze Age. Why don't you guys head on over to China?"-Zhou Enlai

January 4th, 1963: Zhou Enlai announces a new visa scheme to attract "skilled immigrants" to China.

January 6th, 1963: One of the first laws passed by the new Republican Congress is the Civil Security Act of 1963, an act suspending Habeas Corpus in the United States. The act also allows secret military tribunals to try civilians, especially those accused of harboring loyalties to Communism.

President Thurmond vetoes the bill for obvious reasons but he is overridden the same day.

January 8th, 1963: Queen Elizabeth travels back to London. She promptly orders Dr. R. Adams Cowley to be knighted for his services.

January 10th, 1963: The first arrests under the Civil Security Act of 1963 occur. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a prominent civil rights activist, disappears all of a sudden.

January 11th, 1963: Exceedingly strict gun control laws are passed in the United Kingdom by Parliament. (1)

January 12th, 1963: Due to the Civil Security Act of 1963, military units are shifted from White to Black neighborhoods in the South. While this prompts rioting, the riots are immediately and brutally put down.

The new policy will have some very nasty side effects in Africa and Latin America if not stopped soon.

Frantz Fanon, who convinced the US to intervene against France a few years ago, is still in the hospital and can't speak out against the Civil Security Act of 1963.

January 18th, 1963: The Civil Security Act of 1963 has its first major backfire when newly elected Governor George Wallace of Alabama, his wife Lurleen and their four children are poisoned by Rosa Parks, a black maid working at the Governor's Mansion.

OvYht2f.jpg

George Wallace (1919-1963)

4hrOcXV.jpg

Hey Governor Wallace, you act like a bitch, you gonna die like a bitch.

January 22nd, 1963: Proving that Communism is indeed a racially inclusive ideology, James E. Kimbrough, a police officer at the US Capitol Building, takes his CAR-15 and empties it into the conservative side of the aisle during a session of Congress.

Several of his colleagues join him in the carnage, intentionally targeting sponsors of the Civil Security Act in both the House and Senate.

Although they are quickly dispatched by FBI SWAT team, the damage has been done: Over 160 Congressmen and 30 Senators are dead.

2erMUN9.jpg

Free fire zone with my M-16

January 23rd, 1963: Zhou Enlai phones the Pentagon and informs the Joint Chiefs of Staff that China is still following Maoist practices but only in spirit. American Maoists on the other hand, are following Mao's teachings as they are written. He says he is powerless to do anything to stop the killing (2).

Zhou says the only way he sees an end to the killing is if Americans do what their Sky Fairy orders them to, which is to Love Thy Neighbor.

January 25th, 1963: With Congress having essentially been decapitated, President Thurmond declares nationwide martial law.

-------
(1) Still won't solve the Irish and Maoist terrorist problem they're about to have.

(2): Massive whopper there.

Rosa Parks?

Really?

You are getting out on thin ice here.

This almost certainly should be a kick, but I will assume that you simply have NO GODDAMNED IDEA of who you just impugned.

You are on notice.
 
Rosa Parks?

Really?

You are getting out on thin ice here.

This almost certainly should be a kick, but I will assume that you simply have NO GODDAMNED IDEA of who you just impugned.

You are on notice.

I don't see why Rosa Parks should be some sacred and untouchable figure on this website, given that half the timelines on Ah.com talk about Hitler and how he could better exterminate the peoples of Eastern Europe. This timeline is transgressive and it will continue to be that way.

Additionally, I *was* going to explain the chain of events that would lead up to Parks' actions but I doubt you'd be interested.
 
Last edited:
I'll admit to being kind of uneasy at seeing a woman who I admire in RL poisoning people. However, at the same time, this site places a lot of emphasis on the Butterfly Effect. And surely, part of that has to be: if a person - even someone who OTL is/was an absolute saint - was exposed to different conditions in their lives, then they have a very good chance of being an utterly different person. Everyone has a breaking point, after all...
 

Sir Chaos

Banned
I'll admit to being kind of uneasy at seeing a woman who I admire in RL poisoning people. However, at the same time, this site places a lot of emphasis on the Butterfly Effect. And surely, part of that has to be: if a person - even someone who OTL is/was an absolute saint - was exposed to different conditions in their lives, then they have a very good chance of being an utterly different person. Everyone has a breaking point, after all...

Rosa Parks wasn´t a saint. She did what she did OTL because she was fed up with being pushed around; it isn´t ASB to imagine that, what with the far more extreme pushing around experienced ITTL she would choose to react in a far more extreme way to being fed up with being pushed around.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yeah, but suggesting she would be a multiple murderer of children?

Rosa Parks wasn´t a saint. She did what she did OTL because she was fed up with being pushed around; it isn´t ASB to imagine that, what with the far more extreme pushing around experienced ITTL she would choose to react in a far more extreme way to being fed up with being pushed around.

January 18th, 1963: The Civil Security Act of 1963 has its first major backfire when newly elected Governor George Wallace of Alabama, his wife Lurleen and their four children are poisoned by Rosa Parks, a black maid working at the Governor's Mansion. (Author - YLi)


Yeah, but suggesting she would be a multiple murderer of children is okay because it is "edgy"...


Seriously, one can't legally libel the dead in the US, but does this board have any standards for this sort of thing?


Presumably, all of these individuals YLi has suggested would commit crimes of various stripes (he seems really fond of cold-blooded murder, actually) have relatives and friends who are alive today and would be somewhat concerned about how some individual on the internet is portraying their loved ones, fictionally or no...


Suggesting Hitler is a genocidal maniac in an alternate history is one thing; suggesting Rosa Parks is one seems a tad over the top, even for someone being "transgressive."


What a great word that is; covers any manner of absurdities...


But that's me; I've actually been held responsible for what I write, professionally.


Best to all,
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I don't see why Rosa Parks should be some sacred and untouchable figure on this website, given that half the timelines on Ah.com talk about Hitler and how he could better exterminate the peoples of Eastern Europe. This timeline is transgressive and it will continue to be that way.

Additionally, I *was* going to explain the chain of events that would lead up to Parks' actions but I doubt you'd be interested.

I can therefor assume you will shortly show Dr. Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy and/or Hubert Humphrey as a deranged terrorist and possibly rapist? Or have Anne Frank and Oskar Schindler running a prison camp?

I will again assume that you simply are not close to knowledgeable about these actual historical persons. I would also point out that individuals who wank to how great Hitler was on this site have the half life of Mt-109.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Rosa Parks wasn´t a saint. She did what she did OTL because she was fed up with being pushed around; it isn´t ASB to imagine that, what with the far more extreme pushing around experienced ITTL she would choose to react in a far more extreme way to being fed up with being pushed around.

Preposterous.

Utterly preposterous.
 
January 18th, 1963: The Civil Security Act of 1963 has its first major backfire when newly elected Governor George Wallace of Alabama, his wife Lurleen and their four children are poisoned by Rosa Parks, a black maid working at the Governor's Mansion. (Author - YLi)


Yeah, but suggesting she would be a multiple murderer of children is okay because it is "edgy"...


Seriously, one can't legally libel the dead in the US, but does this board have any standards for this sort of thing?


Presumably, all of these individuals YLi has suggested would commit crimes of various stripes (he seems really fond of cold-blooded murder, actually) have relatives and friends who are alive today and would be somewhat concerned about how some individual on the internet is portraying their loved ones, fictionally or no...


Suggesting Hitler is a genocidal maniac in an alternate history is one thing; suggesting Rosa Parks is one seems a tad over the top, even for someone being "transgressive."


What a great word that is; covers any manner of absurdities...


But that's me; I've actually been held responsible for what I write, professionally.


Best to all,

Frankly, reading your post, you sound like you seriously need to get a grip. Killing a segregationist makes a person a genocidal maniac?

In any case, I'd thought you'd dropped out of the TL thread pages ago after your feud with YLi; surely you're not following the thread waiting for reportable posts to spring up? Because, to the extent of my knowledge, everyone in this thread is officially supposed to be legally an adult.

I mean, it seems silly to be getting worked up over Rosa Parks poisoning people in this TL; a major feature of the TL is people swinging in different directions (ie, the long-running subplot with Audie Murphy becoming a Maoist revolutionary).
 
I'd argue there is a line, firmly demarcated in some cases and more blur in others, between a person whom we know in OTL resorting to violence when AH circumstances force their hand and going hurtling across the moral event horizon and poisoning children.

I mean, there are fairly few crimes which cast someone in an unambiguously bad light, but premediated murder of people whose only crime thus far is to have a father who's a raging segregationist, and (presumably) holding such attitudes with no means of forcing them on the American people like their father, is probably one of them. I'd have far less of a problem if say, she popped a cap in Wallace's ass and his ass alone.

But that's just my $0.02.
 
Last edited:
Preposterous.

Utterly preposterous.

Idk man seems like you're not really listening to the argument. Historical factors create a persons behavior, i.e. the social circumstances that they were raised in and subjected to, and in an instance where racial discrimination and radicalism are at ridiculously higher levels then OTL, who's to say the individuals subjected to such treatment wouldn't have gone to much farther lengths to stand up for their personal liberties and beliefs?

I'm not even a fan of this TL, like the author has said it's cartoonish and unrealistic and frankly that's not what I like to see in my alt history nor what I believe alt-history should really be, but it kinda seems like you're impeding his free speech based on your personal view and connection to the woman.
 
Idk man seems like you're not really listening to the argument. Historical factors create a persons behavior, i.e. the social circumstances that they were raised in and subjected to, and in an instance where racial discrimination and radicalism are at ridiculously higher levels then OTL, who's to say the individuals subjected to such treatment wouldn't have gone to much farther lengths to stand up for their personal liberties and beliefs?

I'm not even a fan of this TL, like the author has said it's cartoonish and unrealistic and frankly that's not what I like to see in my alt history nor what I believe alt-history should really be, but it kinda seems like you're impeding his free speech based on your personal view and connection to the woman.

Don't justify child murder. That trail only leads to Coventry.

Also, every single message, image and post on these boards is technically allowed here by the grace of God-Emperor Ian the Admin, and theoretically ought to adhere to whichever standards he holds for the boards, as interpreted and enforced by the mods, so "free speech" isn't exactly the best argument to use here.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Idk man seems like you're not really listening to the argument. Historical factors create a persons behavior, i.e. the social circumstances that they were raised in and subjected to, and in an instance where racial discrimination and radicalism are at ridiculously higher levels then OTL, who's to say the individuals subjected to such treatment wouldn't have gone to much farther lengths to stand up for their personal liberties and beliefs?

I'm not even a fan of this TL, like the author has said it's cartoonish and unrealistic and frankly that's not what I like to see in my alt history nor what I believe alt-history should really be, but it kinda seems like you're impeding his free speech based on your personal view and connection to the woman.

I can't deny his free speech as I am not the Government of the UNITED STATES.

What his most recent posts was, and is, is flat out trolling. That was what the action was for, trolling. Could have been for flame baiting, but I went with trolling. This Board does have standards, they may not be much, but they exist. One reason they exist is to prevent things from becoming flame wars. I have had to come into this thread several times and put out fires. I just did it again.

He took an historical figure, an actual person who is revered (to the point that she is being serious put forth to be placed on U.S. currency), who is an icon of passive resistance and turned her into not just a murderer, but a killer of children for shits and giggles (or maybe because he was able to find a picture). My earlier comparison was completely valid, for an encore will he have Anne Frank running a death camp?

If he did, and he was jacked up for flame-baiting would it be the right or wrong thing to do?
 
I'd argue there is a line, firmly demarcated in some cases and more blur in others, between a person whom we know in OTL resorting to violence when AH circumstances force their hand and going hurtling across the moral event horizon and poisoning children.

I mean, there are fairly few crimes which cast someone in an unambiguously bad light, but premediated murder of people whose only crime thus far is to have a father who's a raging segregationist, and (presumably) holding such attitudes with no means of forcing them on the American people like their father, is probably one of them. I'd have far less of a problem if say, she popped a cap in Wallace's ass and his ass alone.

But that's just my $0.02.

Yes, but am I obligated to portray Rosa Parks as a good person? I will accept the argument that Parks' actions may be implausible based on her OTL personality but I will not accept being obligated to frame her in a certain light simply because of her status as a civil rights leader IOTL. Yes Rosa Parks is venerated IOTL as an icon of passive resistance and rightfully so, but do you see passive resistance happening at all ITTL?

Additionally, when's the last time fanatics of any stripe spared women and children? Many of the figures in this timeline are Maoist. Maoists kill women and children. It's an ideology which is supposed to most sane people feel uncomfortable.

Also, given how many children have been killed in this timeline, both explicitly and implicitly, why are you choosing this specific moment to complain? President McCarthy turned Vietnam into a vitrified parking lot earlier (killing millions of children) and I got about 0 complaints.
 
I can't deny his free speech as I am not the Government of the UNITED STATES.

What his most recent posts was, and is, is flat out trolling. That was what the action was for, trolling. Could have been for flame baiting, but I went with trolling. This Board does have standards, they may not be much, but they exist. One reason they exist is to prevent things from becoming flame wars. I have had to come into this thread several times and put out fires. I just did it again.

He took an historical figure, an actual person who is revered (to the point that she is being serious put forth to be placed on U.S. currency), who is an icon of passive resistance and turned her into not just a murderer, but a killer of children for shits and giggles (or maybe because he was able to find a picture). My earlier comparison was completely valid, for an encore will he have Anne Frank running a death camp?

If he did, and he was jacked up for flame-baiting would it be the right or wrong thing to do?

Ask yourself then, would it be implausible if Anne Frank joined the Dutch Resistance instead? She'd pick up a gun and shoot people but that's hardly implausible. How's portraying someone resisting with violence that much different from someone resisting passively?

Your analogy would only apply if I turned Rosa Parks into a staunch segregationist and/or neo-Nazi, which I didn't. And that would be trolling.

As for a flame war, I got no complaints from anyone outside of you and maybe TF121 (who I don't take seriously for a variety of reasons).
 
I think what we've got here is a matter of degrees. If, ITTL, Rosa Parks was pushed so far that she began aiding some kind of African-American-Maquis-type thing, there wouldn't be a problem - people can only take so much. However, murdering children is something that puts anyone, no matter how justified their cause or how monstrous the enemy, beyond the pale. And given that Rosa Parks is such a beloved figure, well, you can see why people are upset. Again, I like the idea of RL figures being shown doing stuff different owing to different conditions - hell, I have Cassius Clay become a Rastafarian - but there are lines.

That's just my feelings, btw, I'm not trying to gang up or anything. I really like the TL, but there are certain things that depicting good RL people doing is problematic.
 
I think what we've got here is a matter of degrees. If, ITTL, Rosa Parks was pushed so far that she began aiding some kind of African-American-Maquis-type thing, there wouldn't be a problem - people can only take so much. However, murdering children is something that puts anyone, no matter how justified their cause or how monstrous the enemy, beyond the pale. And given that Rosa Parks is such a beloved figure, well, you can see why people are upset.
I was going to type a response, but basically this.
 
Top