Rumsfeldia: Fear and Loathing in the Decade of Tears
- Thread starter Drew
- Start date
- Status
I am really hoping people did not believe Rumsfield Batshit insane Propaganda. Speaking of Eisenhower what was Rumsfields teaching of ww2.
Except that flies in the face of Rumsfeld’s support for Israel in this timeline. Coe maybe would argue it depending on his view of Jews TTL but Rumsfeld might marry the Nazi ideology to the idea of it being what inspired the horrors of communist regimes like the Lesser Mao.
Not historically accurate but hey when did that stop Rummy from saying Washington was a Republican?
Not historically accurate but hey when did that stop Rummy from saying Washington was a Republican?
Bookmark1995
Banned
Unfortunately, there is always going to be a population of people that swallow bigoted, lunatic lies. OTL, that isn't that big of a problem. TTL, this unhinged minority has oversized political influence because of the fracturing of the two party system.
Rumsfeld framed the New Deal and a lot of things as a Stalinist-FDR plan to "destroy freedom." At one point, he claimed FDR and Stalin planned Pearl Harbor together.
Rumsfeld didn't actually praise Hitler. I don't think he got away with praising the most openly evil person ever. Hard to call yourself an agent of freedom if you praise a man who was so openly contemptuous of democracy.
As a fan of history and someone who has to deal with parents that think FDR was a communist IRL, this just makes me sick in all the ways.
Bookmark1995
Banned
As a history major, it annoys the hell out of me too.
That's why I don't consider it to be a stretch for millions of Americans ITTL to celebrate the crippling of the constitution: because like your parents, many people choose to follow more interesting fictions that confirm their fantasies over inconvenient truths.
Hey was there a pinky and the brain parody with Cheny and Rumsfeld on this thread?
I keep searching for it but can't seem to find it
I keep searching for it but can't seem to find it
An odd thing is my parents hold the constitution and the founding fathers to such a high prestige I don't think they accept Rumsfield and his well fascism.
Bookmark1995
Banned
Really?
It is nice to believe that. It is comforting to think you or someone you love would NEVER do this or that. But remember, one of Rummy's weapons was not merely the use of mental health to lock people up, but the historical memory of the founding fathers.
Rummy portrayed them as anarcho-capitalists, and that his policies would return America to "their" image.
Could your parents have resisted such an untrue, but nice sounding message? Like you said, they believe FDR's policies were the same as the man who starved millions of Ukrainians in the name of the peasants.
well there is more influenced by the idea the democrats are the literal spawn of satan, and before then they were democrats and thought Republicans were the worst thing ever, so ya...
Bookmark1995
Banned
Again, they seem like the kind of people who simplify politics and its processes into a morality play the way politicians of the last few decades have. So I can picture them and millions of others being caught up in Rummy's fear-mongering.
I think it was a Spitting Image skit, don't think there was a PatB one.
I'd be curious to know the state of gun proliferation at this point.
We know that the Rumsfeld Republicans (Dick Cheney stated that the Second Amendment was the only amendment they would keep) and the Libertarians were certainly opposed to gun control.
In addition, I imagine that a sizable part of the WTP and other radical left parties are opposed to gun control. Keep in mind that the New Left radicalism of the 1960s at best, mellowed, and at worst, intensified throughout the 1970s as it became more politically active. Under Rumsfeldia, this radicalization would only increase, especially with the intense surveillance and social stigmatization of the inner city populations. As the revolution was not to be fought with spoons, radical groups of the OTL 1970s like the Weathermen were certainly opposed to gun (and not to mention explosive) restriction.
The strong African-American tinge of the left in the 1970s and 1980s also increases the likelihood of the attitudes of 1960s Black radicals surrounding guns to persist for longer. The Black Panthers liked to walk in white neighbourhoods with their guns prominent and visible as way to create empathy at the idea of having a hostile outside force (the white racist cops) in black neighbourhoods In 1967, a group of Black Panthers marched on a state legislature announcing, "The American people in general and the black people in particular must take careful note of the racist...legislature aimed at keeping the black people disarmed and powerless Black people have begged, prayed, petitioned, demonstrated, and everything else to get the racist power structure of America to right the wrongs which have historically been perpetuated against black people. The time has come for black people to arm themselves against this terror before it is too late."
The punchline...the legislature was that of California Governor Ronald Reagan!
We know that the Rumsfeld Republicans (Dick Cheney stated that the Second Amendment was the only amendment they would keep) and the Libertarians were certainly opposed to gun control.
In addition, I imagine that a sizable part of the WTP and other radical left parties are opposed to gun control. Keep in mind that the New Left radicalism of the 1960s at best, mellowed, and at worst, intensified throughout the 1970s as it became more politically active. Under Rumsfeldia, this radicalization would only increase, especially with the intense surveillance and social stigmatization of the inner city populations. As the revolution was not to be fought with spoons, radical groups of the OTL 1970s like the Weathermen were certainly opposed to gun (and not to mention explosive) restriction.
The strong African-American tinge of the left in the 1970s and 1980s also increases the likelihood of the attitudes of 1960s Black radicals surrounding guns to persist for longer. The Black Panthers liked to walk in white neighbourhoods with their guns prominent and visible as way to create empathy at the idea of having a hostile outside force (the white racist cops) in black neighbourhoods In 1967, a group of Black Panthers marched on a state legislature announcing, "The American people in general and the black people in particular must take careful note of the racist...legislature aimed at keeping the black people disarmed and powerless Black people have begged, prayed, petitioned, demonstrated, and everything else to get the racist power structure of America to right the wrongs which have historically been perpetuated against black people. The time has come for black people to arm themselves against this terror before it is too late."
The punchline...the legislature was that of California Governor Ronald Reagan!
Rummy had to have been aware that totally unrestricted gun rights meant that people opposed to his regime could arm themselves. Then again, he probably assumed that left-wingers didn't have the courage to handle guns.
I can see the CVs become more two-faced about weapon ownership, allowing loyal citizens and especially those of "proven moral and religious character" to obtain weapons easily, though there'd be some limits on what even they can buy. Those with 'less certified moral character' will have demerits and grey marks against them that would prevent them from getting anything anything stronger than a handgun. Inner city residents would be regarded as criminals and would have to rely on the black market to get anything - which certain corporations and less scrupulous Holy Battalion members would be happy to supply unless the CVs take efforts to stop them.
If anything, though, it just means the CVs make sure the HBs are armed with heavier stuff.
Bookmark1995
Banned
Uhh….
Well...
OTL, the rationale for the right to bear arms is that a group of Americans, armed with weapons, could defend against a federal government that went berserk.
ITTL, that ideal has seemingly come true. Texas, the Libertarian West, and the Northeast are areas that have managed to resist a nightmarishly evil federal tyranny. I imagine the former two places will be especially eager to gloat about how they, a bunch of armed citizens defending against liberty, managed to beat back the Christian Values Party.
But in reality, the success of these resistance movements, like all resistance movements, can't really be credited to the actions of the rebel forces.
OTL, here are the things that make a rebellion successful: staggering military incompetence of the oppressor, aid from outside powers, or the oppressors growing tired of fighting and abandoning the fight.
Rebellions usually fail because the people rebelling, however brave they are, are usually isolated from any kind of help, or their rebel movement is of no interest to any major rebel force.
The OTL American Revolution succeeded not merely because of American know how, but because the French monarchy, oddly enough, sought to weaken British power.
The OTL Soviet-Afghan war was, for a short time, largely in favor of the Soviets, but then American military aid rescued the mujahedeen from destruction.
The OTL Portuguese Colonial Wars and the OTL Vietnam War faltered because Portuguese and Americans were growing increasingly tired of fighting a futile war in the third world, and again those rebel movements only succeeded because of help from the Communist bloc.
The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was an act of incredible bravery, but because it was so isolated from any outside help, it ultimately was futile. The Warsaw Uprising failed because Stalin didn't send any help to the Polish resistance fighters, wanting them weak enough so that he could occupy Poland with ease.
ITTL, Alabama under Wallace tried to resist, but isolated from any meaningful military or economic aid, they were pretty much doomed from the start.
ITTL, the resistance in Texas, the Northeast, and the Libertarian states has succeeded because the outside world found it strategically beneficial NOT to have a deranged theocracy controlling the United States. They also succeeded because Rummy's horrific mismanagement of the military meant that the CV had to rebuild their army from the ground up, hence the use of forced labor by "moral criminals" to rebuild the industrial infrastructure of the United States. Had the army not been desiccated by Rumsfeld's free market ideology, they probably might have had an easier time of crushing these rebellions.
ITTL, Alabama under Wallace tried to resist, but isolated from any meaningful military or economic aid, they were pretty much doomed from the start.
ITTL, the resistance in Texas, the Northeast, and the Libertarian states has succeeded because the outside world found it strategically beneficial NOT to have a deranged theocracy controlling the United States. They also succeeded because Rummy's horrific mismanagement of the military meant that the CV had to rebuild their army from the ground up, hence the use of forced labor by "moral criminals" to rebuild the industrial infrastructure of the United States. Had the army not been desiccated by Rumsfeld's free market ideology, they probably might have had an easier time of crushing these rebellions.
Actually, arming left-wing groups would definitely have served Rummy's purposes well.
Remember, Rummy's propaganda was portraying the Democrats as being controlled by liberal socialist WTP, who are the "ghetto" party in the eyes of most Americans. An uprising by a radical black nationalist party is exactly what Rummy wants, because he can portray it as "liberal leftists supporting anarchy, while Rummy supports freedom through order." Again these black nationalists, for all their good intentions, probably are damaging their communities more then they are damaging Rummy. They would have very little hope to hold out against the largest, most powerful army on Earth.
Right wing militias, like the ones that popped up in the OTL 1990s, are probably not all threatening to Rummy. For a short while, at least, Rummy would be seen as a hero to these right-wing nutcases. Many of them probably ended up in the Liberty Battalions. Any that would rise up would, again, be facing off against the largest army on Earth, and there wasn't any attempt by outside powers to fund a Second American Revolution against the Rumsfeld administration.
Again, it wouldn't really matter. The average person with a handgun, or even of rifle, wouldn't be able to do more then just clip one of two CV agents before being either arrested or killed. And cities that revolted couldn't obviously defend themselves from a nuclear attack.
Pretty much. While arming the populace is a good way to keep an insurgency dangerous, it only works if the other guy isn't willing to just "drain the sea" by killing everyone in the area, or do some really, really twisted stuff.
One of the examples of successful counterinsurgency is the Second Boer War. Tactical victory for the Afrikaaner - followed by mass death by starvation and disease of Afrikaaners in British concentration camps. Killed morale pretty damn quick. Think the CV's would hesitate to do that? Just drag families of suspected rebels to their forced labor camps, let exhaustion and poor conditions kill them off as a message to the others?
In the long run, though, it's counterproductive. The force labor camps may produce tons of goods, but they'll all be low-quality and of inferior make. The forced labor camps under Nazi Germany were supposed to make synthetic rubber, but one survivor reported that they failed to make so much as one pound of it in the time she was there. Granted, the emphasis was on working the prisoners to death, but you need a cooperative, willing workforce to make quality stuff.
Plus, "right to bear arms" doesn't answer what to do when the other guy has SAWs, heavy vehicles, anti-armor weaponry, artillery and air power.
- Status