Thanks for that

Yeah, that summary basically aligns with my understanding of how the extermination of the natives worked

(Replied to myself somehow the first time…)

deleted by creator

Is there a source for that $300 per Native American claim?

Not that I doubt the US gov would pay for such bounties, of course they did, it’s just $300 in 1877 is like… a fuckload. It’s hard to exactly calculate due to the gold standard being abandoned and even if you arrive a direct calculation with inflation and everything factored in there it still doesn’t tell the whole story. Like $3000/yr in 1960 could provide for a household in NYC. It’s only like $30K/yr with inflation and obviously you need like 3-4x that to live comfortably in NYC. So the dollars are sort of irrelevant if you don’t factor in every piece of cost of living (something liberals/conservatives do all the time when you bring up wages, but that’s too much off on another topic)

Anyway, apparently $300 in 1877 is equivalent to about $9000 in today’s money. That seems like an entire year’s salary back then.

I don’t intend this to be callous or insensitive, but I would assume there would be so many bounty hunter assholes bringing in villages of dead natives that it would destroy the US government to pay that much out. Like these settlers were doing a full scale holocaust in the western states at that point with bodies piling up.

Again, while I would like to be hopeful… I really can’t express enough how much I genuinely think they would absolutely push the button. I think a lot of these people are so wrapped up in their ideology (look how Trump is just straight up breaking shit he doesn’t understand. Sometimes even accidentally doing good stuff) and they’re so lost in some fantasy world resulting from like 60 straight years of neoliberal and libertarian jerkoff sessions that they are detached enough and/or deranged enough to do it. Like true radical thought processes of “No, I’d rather be dead than…” insert whatever situation is happening or they imagine is happening. Like if China is just steamrolling every single US Navy vessel within 1000km of China’s shores (which, btw, I personally think is justified. The US would certainly never tolerate the opposite. A Chinese aircraft carrier just setting up anchor 1000km from Hawaii)… I dunno. Maybe the US takes that. That’s the one situation I could see restraint happening.

Any sort of perceived “encroachment” on US territory becomes much more certain in my mind. The “losing abroad” situation also relies on their mindset which, if you listen to them, is basically “Wow, how could China dare have planes and ships in the South CHINA Sea?!”

If their actions follow their ideology and statements… they really do see China having sovereignty and expressing it in much (MUCH) less overt ways than the US does as an affront to the US. I can’t read their minds, but their words certainly indicate that anything China does feels like an existential threat to them and must be responded to.

Unfortunately I see this sentiment escalating and not deescalating. The US media diet is just “Bad things because China china china Russia! China china china cuba russia China Venezuela Iran china china china” 24/7 non stop. The politicians who you’d think would know that the media is bullshit and only exists to help them do evil shit would realize like “Ok, yeah. I want to fuck China over, but… we can’t do this thing.” and yet, I don’t think many of them realize it. They eat the propaganda and gobble it down the same as normal Americans with no political power. Everyone in charge here is a legitimate fucking moron. And we’re only slated to get dumber (less educated)…

I assume you meant win not when

While we can all hope that is the case… I think you misunderstand what nukes are there for. In the US’ case anyway.

There’s no real strategy to the nukes… it’s just “attack us and we’re losing? Nuke. So don’t even think about it.” That’s the entire concept of mutually assured destruction. Nuclear armed nations with properly hardened nukes (which the US absolutely has and China, I assume, has equivalent nukes. In the ground, under the sea, on stand by for planes as well) all exist under the constant implicit and also explicit threat of what I wrote above. They are called deterrence missiles in the US. Deterrence against other nuclear armed nations even thinking about a first strike nuke or invasion.

I suppose the only “what if” is “what if the US loses horribly abroad. But the mainland isn’t attacked by nukes (or something else) and there is no invasion?” Maybe that’s what you meant?

It’s still plausible to me that the US president smashes that button. We aren’t exactly known for having sane, rational people in that position. But that’s about the only scenario I can see direct US/China confrontation without nuclear exchange. If the US fucks around with, I dunno, Taiwan and immediately China shuts it down. Maybe the US takes the L. Still, over the long term if such a conflict begins… nuclear exchange seems inevitable. From the US side starting it due to losing.

I remain doubtful on that front considering the result of forcing a war with China… doesn’t really matter because we’re just all dead then. Like the entire world.

Yeah, “proxy wars” and such. China isn’t taking that bait though. The US keeps whining on about Taiwan, but I see zero evidence of an “aggressive, forced” takeover of the island. (And yes, takeover is loosely used there. If the idea of states and sovereignty is “real” then China “invading Taiwan” is impossible. Yes, I understand… everyone knows what I mean. “Liberals in the walls” moment)

I call them liberals so much and so instinctively at this point that I legitimately get confused when they get all pissy. We should keep forcing it into common American understanding though.

The term “conservative” as it’s popularly used 1) kinda means nothing (which is perfect for them) so 2) is an ever changing term.

A conservative in 1970 US politics vs now are very different in their approach and thinking… obviously some stuff remains unchanged, but in the 1960s/70s you could still just be like a Strom Thurmond KKK guy openly denouncing integration and rights for black people while serving in the senate until you’re 100 goddamn years old… literally. Richard Nixon signed the EPA into law which today would be off the table even for Obama, I imagine. It would never get to his desk whatever his personal philosophy would be.

So their ideas and way of speaking changes since their only true ideology is something boiled down to “support ‘free markets’” or allow capitalists to exploit labor maximumly and use any wedge issues which are beneficial along the way such as racism, abortion, etc. Maintain US hegemonic dominance around the world through soft and hard power, as required, in service to capital.

On the other hand, ask a hardcore fascist/Nazi or even KKK guy their thoughts in 1960 or today and it’s “we want a separate nation only available for white people…” blah blah blah, all the shit. Their ideology remains the same as always. They believe in racial supremacy of white people, however they break that down, and they want a “pure land” for their chosen race. The more politically savvy ones will swap words around for plausible deniability, but the core ideology is basically the same in the end. They hate communists, they hate non-whites, especially being forced to live around and respect them as humans, they blame all societal ills on non-white minorities and/or non-cis, straight minorities. Same old tale.

On the left, if you filter out the liberals LARPing (gotta similarly filter the more libbed up conservatives from their Nazi compatriots as well), you’ll hear the same arguments that communist-types have had since the 1960s, since the 1920s, and further back. Because it’s rooted in an ideology, so specific arguments of the time period change maybe, wording might change, but fundamentals like labor being the source of all value and thus capitalists having no right to the value created by others… remains core and unchanged.

[this isn’t a “give it to the Nazis for ideological purity” argument, btw, to the liberals in my walls. It’s about political terminology and ties to strongly held ideology which American “liberals” and “conservatives” both share in common. Just about the only thing Nazis can ever coherently express is their hatred for non-white people. Beyond that, good fucking luck finding any sense in their statements and beliefs]

“We should challenge students in these schools. We have this notion that somehow if you’re poor, you cannot do it. Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.”

I think at a certain point you have to just assume he’s accidentally saying his real thoughts.

He also praised men like Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd. He gave the eulogy at Thurmond’s funeral after the motherfucker somehow lived to be 100 (LITERALLY).

For those unaware, Thurmond was one of the two senators from SC in the fucking 19 goddamn 50s up until 2003 when he finally croaked despite the daily injections of baby blood serum. His most famous moment in his career (one of them anyway) was vehemently opposing the civil rights bill and filibustered for 24 fucking hours trying to stop its passage. INSANELY RACIST. Dude was born in fucking 1901. He lived through WWI as a teenager and WWII as a full ass adult. Then he opposed rights for blacks which he had always been able to oppress for his entire life. He was in his 50s and 60s (!!!) when the fight for civil rights fully erupted. He saw the rise of Malcolm X and MLK Jr., their assassinations, the rise and fall (!!!) of the USSR. The rise of the US empire after the destruction of the pacific and European nations. He lived his entire life as a dog and a champion of capital. It’s most vile figurehead who not only supported subjugation abroad but also at home.

And Joe Biden eulogized this absolute demonic piece of human dogshit. I seriously cannot describe how big of a piece you have to be to even speak to a man like Thurmond, a living relic of virulent racism and a deeply held conviction that white people like himself are truly superior, much less be friendly enough to eulogize him and defend his legacy.

They don’t call Biden “Jim Crow Joe” for no good reason.

He’s such a piece of fucking shit.

Massive tangent there, but fuck Biden, seriously.

“If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black”

Oh no, the libs who commented here went “bye bye, folks.”

Well this was my response to one of the dummies arguing against “authoritarianism.” You can’t even begin to talk with these people because they don’t understand what authoritarian even means or the control mechanisms under which they already live. One of those control mechanisms is the illusion of freedom, which is rather ironic considering “but freedom!” seems to be this one “anti-tankie’s” entire ideology. Anyway this was my response.

"You took on anarchist esthetics, but all of your political opinions are just liberalism.

Liberals, famously not authoritarian.

You’re a tankie by your own definition. Whomp whomp"

Meanwhile, under capitalism… everything seems fine! Pay no attention to all those homeless people slowly dying on the streets as a warning to the others to never get caught slippin’. Pay no attention to the formerly commonly-owned public works in Eastern Europe and now-Russia sold out from under the people to capitalists at the insistence of other capitalists and now left to rot and serve as something to “warn” ignorant westerners about while they ignore their own crumbling infrastructure.

But hey, the grandkids of some weirdo right wing Soviet citizens who came to the US under dubious circumstances told you communism is bad. So, hey, what can I say against that? Truth? Facts? Objective reality?

“No, no. You don’t understand. These grandkids of a piece of shit said this thing happened and we have to throw away all dreams and hopes of anything better.”

Zoomers gonna zoom

E: Apparently zoomers can’t take a joke. Get over yourselves nerds