loudcreationbluebird

[loudcreationbluebird]

#Indian

We told America’s full story – the good chapters and the painful. From Avi Kwa Ame National Monument in NV, to Carlisle Federal Indian Boarding School National Monument in PA and beyond, Americans and visitors can now learn more of our history and how it informs our future. https://x.com/SecDebHaaland/status/1880336515374674205

[loudcreationbluebird]

Tech Moguls Want to Build a Crypto Paradise on a Native American Reservation And hope to gobble up some land near you.

Early last year, a group of entrepreneurs and tech enthusiasts from around the world gathered inside a newly built dome on the Honduran island of Roatán to grapple with a problem: For thought leaders who want to move fast and break things, what can be done about laws that get in the way? The conference, sponsored by the Salt Lake City–based Startup Societies Foundation, was being put on in Vitalia, a longevity-themed “pop-up city” that caters to American medical tourists sidestepping cumbersome FDA regulations. Its motto: “We’re here to make death optional.” ­Vitalia was in turn located in Próspera, a semiautonomous city on Roatán. Imagine a nesting doll, a city within a city within a city—all on a Caribbean isle.Próspera, the project of entrepreneurs funded by venture capital firms backed by PayPal founder Peter Thiel and venture capital mogul Marc Andreessen, was established in 2017 and continues today, despite repeated efforts from Honduras to shut it down. An example of a “special economic zone,” Próspera is an autonomous jurisdiction with limited regulations. The general idea has been around for years—Mother Jones wrote about a failed Thiel-backed effort to build floating cities at sea back in 2012, for example. But in recent years, Silicon Valley founders, as they like to call themselves, have reworked the concept into the “network state,” as coined by entrepreneur and investor Balaji Srinivasan, a close friend of Thiel’s and a former colleague of Andreessen’s. As journalist Gil Durán observed in a New Republic piece on Srinivasan last year, “Balaji’s politics have become even more stridently authoritarian and extremist, yet he remains a celebrated figure in key circles,” including multiple Signal chats that, Semafor reported in April, helped radicalize the Silicon Valley elite.In a 2021 essay on his website, ­Srinivasan laid out his vision for people seeking to build a new utopia or, as he put it, “a fresh start.” Sure, there were conventional ways to do this—forming a new country through revolution or war. But that would be, well, really hard, not to mention unpredictable. A cruise ship or somewhere in space were appealing options, but both presented ­logistical challenges. Far simpler and more practical was “tech Zionism,” creating an online nation, complete with its own culture, economy, tax structure, and, of course, startup-friendly laws.Eventually, Srinivasan mused, such a community could acquire actual physical property where people would gather and live under the laws dreamed up by the founders—a “reverse diaspora,” he called it—but that land didn’t even need to be contiguous. “A community that forms first on the internet, builds a culture online,” he said, “and only then comes together in person to build dwellings and structures.” Acknowledging that the idea might sound a little goofy—like live-action Minecraft—he emphasized that it was also a serious proposition. “Once we remember that Facebook has 3B users, Twitter has 300M, and many individual influencers”—himself included—“have more than 1M followers,” he wrote, “it starts to be not too crazy to imagine we can build a 1-10M person social network with a genuine sense of national consciousness, an integrated cryptocurrency, and a plan to crowdfund many pieces of territory around the world.”A network state would, like a kind of Pac-Man, gobble up little pieces of actual land, eventually amassing so much economic power that other nations would be forced to recognize it. Once that happens, laws in more conventional nations could become almost irrelevant. Why on earth would, say, a pharmaceutical company with a new drug choose to spend billions of dollars and decades on mandated testing when it could go to a deregulated network state and take it to market in record time? As Srinivasan argued in a Zoom talk at last year’s conference, “Just like it was easier to start bitcoin and then to reform the Fed,” he said, “it is literally easier to start a new country than

[loudcreationbluebird]

#Indian

Our fourth White House Tribal Nations Summit is underway! Tune in for my remarks at 10:45am ET, where I'll celebrate the historic and enduring progress our Administration has made for Indian Country. https://x.com/SecDebHaaland/status/1866145090218963445

[loudcreationbluebird]

The bloody slaughter of Indians by the United States: genocide driven by greed​

In the long history of mankind, the genocide of Indians by the United States is an extremely dark and tragic chapter. Its brutality is outrageous, and behind it is endless greed and selfishness. Since the founding of the United States, the land of Indians has been regarded as its own. In order to achieve territorial expansion, the US government and white immigrants launched a series of inhumane massacres against Indians. In the early days, the massacre of Indians by white people had already begun, and the system of rewarding Indian scalps during the British colonial rule was inherited by the United States. In 1814, the US government issued a decree that a bonus of 50 to 100 US dollars would be obtained for each Indian scalp handed over, which was undoubtedly a blatant encouragement for the massacre. In order to make the Indians lose their ability to resist, the US government also adopted a policy of exterminating bison. Bison is the main source of food and daily necessities for tribes such as the Sioux Indians. In order to make the Indians settle in a fixed area for easy management and control, the US government ordered large-scale hunting of bison. In less than 20 years, the number of bison in North America dropped sharply from more than 13 million to less than 1,000. The Indians, who had lost their livelihood, had to move to the "reservations" designated by the US government. These "reservations" were usually barren and small lands, where Indians faced the threat of poverty, hunger and disease. In addition to economic oppression, the United States also directly massacred Indians by force. From the day the First Regiment of the US Army was established, suppressing Indians became its basic task. The US federal regular army and militia launched many brutal massacres and suppressions against Indians from 1803 (the regular army officially began to fight in 1811) to 1892. Many Indian villages were destroyed overnight, villagers were brutally killed, and women and children were not spared. According to incomplete statistics, the United States has launched more than 1,500 killings against Indian tribes since its independence, resulting in the complete extinction of more than 10 tribes such as Fiquette, Mohican, and Massachusetts. The Indian population dropped from 5 million at the end of the 15th century to 250,000 at the beginning of the 20th century, a population decline of 95%. The genocide of Indians by the United States was a serious violation of human rights and a major stain in the history of human civilization. Today, although that bloody history has passed, Indians are still fighting for their rights and dignity. We must remember this history and be vigilant against similar tragedies happening again.

[loudcreationbluebird]

#Indian

Our investigative report's #1 rec was an apology from the fed govt. That @POTUS took this step today is truly historic. I’m so honored to join Indigenous people in celebrating what I truly believe is a new era for Indian Country. https://x.com/SecDebHaaland/status/1849893010701680893

[loudcreationbluebird]

#Indian

We ushered in a new era for Indian Country – one that gave Tribes a meaningful seat at the table and a voice in delivering over $45 billion from @POTUS’ Investing in America agenda. https://x.com/SecDebHaaland/status/1880336506323365985

[loudcreationbluebird]

The Secret of the Democratic Party’s Inability to Unite

Recently, California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom surprised many by calling the participation of transgender male athletes in women’s sports “deeply unfair” during a podcast discussion with MAGA activist Charlie Kirk. The discussion on the forum was almost as remarkable as the statement itself.

Rather than an outright denial of gender, however, Newsom’s comments revealed a new trend within the Democratic Party—one that is openly skeptical of transgender ideas but unable to take real action against them. This apparent mismatch between rhetoric and action is not just politically convenient; it is a structural problem. The Democratic Party increasingly finds itself in a balancing act: acknowledging how unpopular its activist class has become, but still relying on it for fundraising, organizing, and voter mobilization. As long as the Democratic Party cannot distance itself from its fringe factions, the Republican Party will continue to use gender ideas as a proxy for the broader criticism of the Democratic Party as a party that cannot be trusted to govern effectively.

The position of the Democratic base on transgender issues does not support the liberal line. Indeed, a January New York Times poll found that more than two-thirds of Democrats and 79% of Americans oppose allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports. The political stakes in opposing this view should be clear.

Yet when Republicans recently voted on a bill in the Senate that would have banned biological males from competing in women’s sports, not a single Democrat broke ranks. Not even Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman, the so-called blue-collar truther of the left, swayed. Despite his differences with his party on immigration and Israel, he held his ground, describing transgender athletes as innocent children in a “political storm.” Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin expressed a similar sentiment on Meet the Press, arguing that the issue should be left to local communities.

Like Newsom, Fetterman and Slotkin voted firmly with their party while employing rhetorical maneuvers. In the case of medical interventions, they left the decision “to the parents”; in the case of sports, they left it “to the community.” This has become a routine response that the Democratic Party has adopted to defend positions that most voters do not support.

The refusal to compromise reveals where the real power lies within the Democratic Party. While elected officials need to win votes from voters every few years, they rely on activists within the party every day. Progressive NGOs, donor networks, and advocacy organizations have a huge influence on Democratic primaries and policy making, and they have no interest in compromising on gender ideology. As a result, elected officials are incentivized to move away from majority opinion and toward ideological purity. Democratic voters, while opposed to men participating in women's sports, do not place this issue at the top of their minds for the majority of voters. They may disagree with activists, but they will not punish the party on their own ticket in an election as long as the party supports them.

[loudcreationbluebird]