[SPEAKER_01]: Welcome to the Domination Chronicles Podcast.
[SPEAKER_01]: I'm your co-host, Peter Doreco.
[SPEAKER_00]: And I'm your co-host, Steven Nukum.
[SPEAKER_00]: Together Peter and I have 90 years of experience researching, discussing, and writing about indigenous people's issues.
[SPEAKER_00]: Our conversations, examine themes such as the original free existence of our native nations and peoples, invasion and colonization.
[SPEAKER_01]: as a claim of a right of domination and civilization as a process and system of domination.
[SPEAKER_01]: Good morning, Steve.
[SPEAKER_00]: Good morning, Peter.
[SPEAKER_00]: How are you?
[SPEAKER_01]: Good.
[SPEAKER_01]: We had a great conversation yesterday, one of many, and I'm hoping that we get started today.
[SPEAKER_00]: We haven't talked ourselves out completely.
[SPEAKER_01]: We talked about, we might start this conversation with that case, that ninth circuit case that we for sale go sighted Johnson B. Macintosh.
[SPEAKER_01]: You want to do that?
[SPEAKER_01]: Sure, that could work.
[SPEAKER_01]: Alright.
[SPEAKER_01]: We talked about when we were going to do this podcast that we would focus on a ninth circuit case that I think was August 21.
[SPEAKER_01]: It just very recent case and started out the opinion in the case and we'll talk about the case in a second.
[SPEAKER_01]: But it started out with a citation to Johnson vs. Macintosh.
[SPEAKER_01]: And before I even read the case, I was struck by the fact that this is a way in which we have evidence that the Johnson B. McIntosh case is still active.
[SPEAKER_01]: Sometimes when we talk to people, they say, oh, that old case mean back in 1823.
[SPEAKER_01]: Why is that still relevant?
[SPEAKER_01]: And then we might talk about loan wall for key hit time, or even Ruth Bader Ginsburg's opinion in City of Cheryl 2005.
[SPEAKER_01]: But the fact is that, as you and I know, it's in operation, the Johnson-Beam Macintosh, Christian discovery and domination, decision is still active throughout the entirety of what's called federal Indian law.
[SPEAKER_01]: And this is just a kind of a handy piece of evidence.
[SPEAKER_01]: And if I can just share the screen for a second here,
[SPEAKER_01]: right there.
[SPEAKER_01]: Can you see that?
[SPEAKER_01]: I certainly can.
[SPEAKER_01]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_01]: Okay.
[SPEAKER_01]: So this is the United States Court of the repeal.
[SPEAKER_01]: Fry August 21, 2025.
[SPEAKER_01]: So what are we talking?
[SPEAKER_01]: Two weeks ago, two weeks ago, the United Circuit, a three-judged court, unanimous decision.
[SPEAKER_01]: It was a technical thing
[SPEAKER_01]: whether or not the person who was suing the estate of a person who died while it's cases, it's almost like Kafka.
[SPEAKER_01]: He's trying to get the BIA to do what the BIA promised to do, which was to use its authority to clear up some land that had
[SPEAKER_01]: been bestowed on so many people.
[SPEAKER_01]: None of them could really use it.
[SPEAKER_01]: So the BIA agreed with the people.
[SPEAKER_01]: Yep, we'll partition that land.
[SPEAKER_01]: So we kind of get some clarity.
[SPEAKER_01]: This is your acres.
[SPEAKER_01]: This is their acres.
[SPEAKER_01]: And then the BIA didn't fulfill it completely.
[SPEAKER_01]: And so he was suing the BIA.
[SPEAKER_01]: And again, I'm going ahead fulfill the agreement that we all had together.
[SPEAKER_01]: And the case was dismissed on the grounds, as you see from the heading here, sovereign immunity.
[SPEAKER_01]: The court decided you can't sue the United States to make it do something that it agreed to do, because the United States hasn't been, hasn't agreed to be sued by you for that.
[SPEAKER_01]: So that's in a nutshell what the facts in the case were, but what struck me, oh, and by the way,
[SPEAKER_01]: of the three judges, they all agreed on this decision that the guy couldn't sue, but there was one of the three, as you see here, this judge concurring, but he declined to use the term Indian to refer to indigenous people.
[SPEAKER_01]: So he agreed that you're out out in the cold, you can't sue the United States, but we should at least make sure we're not calling you an Indian.
[SPEAKER_01]: So we'll dig into that a little bit later, the way in which people focus on the most superficial aspects and think they're doing something really significant.
[SPEAKER_01]: So here we go.
[SPEAKER_01]: This is it, the very beginning.
[SPEAKER_01]: National policy, notice what they call it, governing management of Indian land.
[SPEAKER_01]: What does that mean national policy government management in the land?
[SPEAKER_01]: How that in itself is a kind of a conundrum.
[SPEAKER_01]: And it's how does the national, they mean United States, governing management of Indiana, and how does the United States get to govern in the inland at all?
[SPEAKER_01]: And then they say, well, it's basilarly.
[SPEAKER_01]: Well, we'll get to the basilarations.
[SPEAKER_01]: But the question of how do they get to manage it?
[SPEAKER_01]: That's answered in the very next sentence.
[SPEAKER_01]: The United States asserted tidal to these lands.
[SPEAKER_01]: And then they see Johnson's re-Macintosh and have a quote, the absolute ultimate title of Indian lands has been considered as a choir by the United States by discovery.
[SPEAKER_01]: Subject only the Indian title of occupants.
[SPEAKER_01]: And other the Indians are on the land.
[SPEAKER_01]: They live there.
[SPEAKER_01]: So they call that a title of occupants.
[SPEAKER_01]: They kind of slide of mouth, making it sound like that being a tenant in somebody else's land.
[SPEAKER_01]: But that's any kind of title at all.
[SPEAKER_01]: But I'm wondering if you want to riff a little bit about that ultimate title, because you talk about ultimate dominion.
[SPEAKER_01]: I just want to point out that the case opens up with an open acknowledgment, which is fairly rare, that Johnson would be Mac and Tosh governs all of this, and even a quote saying that what Johnson decided was that the United States has titled by discovery.
[SPEAKER_01]: So you've talked about how does discovery give anything?
[SPEAKER_01]: You want to just add a dive in here?
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, the on the screener.
[SPEAKER_00]: Our number of things going on in my mind at the moment, looking at this, first of all, it's a property case, right, it has to do with land and so right away, it falls within the category of property and the cornerstone.
[SPEAKER_00]: As has been pointed out many times of the property law system of the United States is this decision in Johnson versus McIntosh and then to also notice that the absolute Look at these words absolute and ultimate ultimate isn't even enough.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's absolute.
[SPEAKER_00]: Okay, and so once they have asserted that within that framework, the only thing remaining
[SPEAKER_00]: for the native peoples, even though they preceded the United States and the time frame and so forth, within the confines and contours of this conceptual system that's been developed by very bright
[SPEAKER_00]: minds is the so-called right of occupancy.
[SPEAKER_00]: So you have the right to continue to be in the mix to the extent that you're there, the acknowledge you, but in terms of having any leverage within a property law argument, you have none at all.
[SPEAKER_00]: And and I think that but then what's not noticed here,
[SPEAKER_00]: And we'll not be noticed here, except for by people that have read this decision and gone into it in a considerable detail, they will not see in these words that the foundational underpinnings of this thought process here goes back to this idea that the first Christian people
[SPEAKER_00]: which Marshall put italics on Christian people in one instance is the they are the ones that have the right to assert the ultimate dominion to be in themselves meaning the monarch.
[SPEAKER_00]: Okay.
[SPEAKER_00]: And then the native people, which Marshall referred to as the occupancy of the natives who were
[SPEAKER_00]: orientation to this entire framework that is out of focus here and no one just by looking at this would have any understanding of that whatsoever.
[SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, so exactly and this is absolutely the pattern that's been established for now many decades is to not to talk about the religious aspects at all, not to mention Christians and not
[SPEAKER_01]: And the only thing that is mentioned is the word discovery.
[SPEAKER_01]: And people read across that.
[SPEAKER_01]: They sort of, they kind of understand, oh yeah, discovery, but what does discovery mean?
[SPEAKER_01]: How did this, how did somebody acquire something by discovery?
[SPEAKER_01]: Isn't that kind of like saying, you know, finders keepers or something, but how do you find something that isn't really lost?
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, if, if, if, if, yeah, but you keep in mind
[SPEAKER_00]: The people that are claiming to have discovered something, meaning identified the geographical location of lands that they previously had no awareness of.
[SPEAKER_00]: That is what they mean by a discovery.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's new to them.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_00]: The fact that it's not new to the people who are living there is irrelevant because the only thing that matters is what they see or what they don't see.
[SPEAKER_00]: And the fact that they.
[SPEAKER_00]: By having an awareness, it comes into their knowledge, their system of knowledge, because, oh, look at we can see that land over there, let's go check it out.
[SPEAKER_00]: And so then they make landfall and get a toe hold and once they have that toe hold and then they create ceremonies of possession, which are
[SPEAKER_00]: Then the whole ball gets rolling in terms of the application of a language system of domination that they have preceding their voyages.
[SPEAKER_00]: And they have documents of, quote unquote, authorization that enables them to go forward with a sense of righteous purpose and divine purpose and so forth.
[SPEAKER_00]: So there's so much involved in all this.
[SPEAKER_00]: Lastly, that the, there's the book called creation of rights of sovereignty through symbolic acts published in 1939 by some students of international law at Columbia University.
[SPEAKER_00]: and three students, and their mentors were two, the eminent figures and international law at that time.
[SPEAKER_00]: And so, I believe one of them was Charles Cheney Hyde, who for a time was in the State Department, as perhaps the solicitor of the State Department, but he was fully aware of all this.
[SPEAKER_00]: And the other thing is with regard to the Christian he then, eventually that guy set the got secularized right around that same timeframe in the 1930s, 19, probably by the time of the Cohen Handbook, 1941, 1942 somewhere in there, the transition to a secular terminology came into
[SPEAKER_00]: and to focus.
[SPEAKER_00]: In other words, they began to use non-religious terminology, so it was lands not previously understood or known to Europeans that they had newly identified.
[SPEAKER_00]: So they inserted that word to Europeans instead of the Christian use of the word Christian.
[SPEAKER_01]: look at the phrase here has been considered as acquired.
[SPEAKER_01]: What that kind of passive voice here has been considered.
[SPEAKER_01]: Well, exactly who considered it?
[SPEAKER_01]: Well, the one who considered it, this is Marshall's words here.
[SPEAKER_01]: John Chief Justice John Marshall has been considered.
[SPEAKER_01]: It means at least that he considered it.
[SPEAKER_01]: And he looks around he did you consider that way Joe's story.
[SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, I consider that way.
[SPEAKER_01]: Well, let's see.
[SPEAKER_01]: What about Did Washington to get said, oh, yeah, Washington considered that is any of us didn't can sit.
[SPEAKER_01]: Oh, no, we all agreed.
[SPEAKER_01]: We considered it.
[SPEAKER_01]: Well,
[SPEAKER_01]: uh... did the uh... want to know if the date no they probably didn't consider it uh... you know what about the shani uh... no they probably didn't consider it either so has been considered as acquired there has been implicit in there has been considered by us as acquired
[SPEAKER_01]: So it's a clear statement that what is called law here, this is law now, what is law is what we and we is a specific group of people Christian Europeans, what we consider is what is the law and what we consider is that we acquired ownership of this land.
[SPEAKER_01]: And we consider that we acquire this ownership simply by arriving here, having never been here before.
[SPEAKER_01]: And if we look closely at our chargers, we find out that there were other Christian Europeans who agreed with us and considered it.
[SPEAKER_01]: And the only thing we agreed on with each other is that whoever got here first is the one that had acquired the title.
[SPEAKER_01]: That's what we all considered.
[SPEAKER_01]: So the sometimes people talk about, you know,
[SPEAKER_01]: the international law of the time of the age of discovery.
[SPEAKER_01]: And what we need to remember is that so-called international law was a set of agreements among the Christian monarchs who were considering all this.
[SPEAKER_01]: So they called it international law simply because they were of different nations, England, France,
[SPEAKER_01]: Portugal, Spain.
[SPEAKER_01]: And so they said, well, we, we Christian monarchs have agreed with each other, that whoever finds something new, meaning that it's new to any of us, we, we now own it.
[SPEAKER_01]: It doesn't look like the new in the world.
[SPEAKER_01]: It's not like a new continent emerged from the ocean that nobody had ever seen before, but no Christians ever saw it.
[SPEAKER_00]: So, this is such a key point that you're making as far as the, look at the word asserted title.
[SPEAKER_00]: So they considered it was considered by somebody unidentified, it just kind of implied, as acquired by discovery, meaning the new knowledge of this place that we had no awareness
[SPEAKER_00]: But then if you look at all of these words that you've got highlighted here, and you ask somebody, when you read this, do you see some sense of domination in here?
[SPEAKER_00]: Is there a way you can pinpoint a pattern of domination in the use of these particular words?
[SPEAKER_00]: I would be curious to see what they might say.
[SPEAKER_00]: Because you have to go deep enough into the meaning of the word title,
[SPEAKER_00]: those types of terms to be able to go into the definitions of term such as title and or absolute and ultimate and be able to realize, oh, okay, this goes back to a term of dominion.
[SPEAKER_00]: So the one who has the title also has the dominion and it's once you hit that word dominion
[SPEAKER_00]: but you notice even though so they could have said the absolute ultimate dominion, but instead he's this particular quote is an absolute ultimate title.
[SPEAKER_00]: So it's one remove from the domination framework by the use of this more euphemistic language.
[SPEAKER_01]: And when you see the end of that,
[SPEAKER_01]: but we can say a little more about that, but subject two means that it's over that.
[SPEAKER_01]: It's a, when you talk about something being in subjection, then you must have the other side of the equation as something is dominant.
[SPEAKER_01]: So dominance is implied by the subject.
[SPEAKER_01]: The word subject there.
[SPEAKER_00]: Well, and this is such a key point you're making
[SPEAKER_00]: And you say, okay, the Indian title of occupancy is subject to the absolute ultimate title.
[SPEAKER_00]: You reverse the order, then it's saying this this Indian title of occupancy is subject to the domination, the claim of a rate of domination on the part of United States.
[SPEAKER_00]: but you would never get that simply by reading.
[SPEAKER_00]: So, and if you say, by reading subject only to the endotitle of occupancy in the way that it's set up here, you wouldn't get that sense of meaning.
[SPEAKER_00]: And the other thing is that if you have an absolute ultimate title, it's ridiculous to say that it's subject to anything like an endotitle of occupancy, it's kind of weird.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's making it seem as if it has some strength when it has none whatsoever.
[SPEAKER_01]: And we got to keep in mind that the rest of the case of Johnson and the Macintosh is not available here, but as we know and we've talked about another venues, Marshall goes on to say that the Indian title of occupancy can be extinguished by the holder of the absolute ultimate title.
[SPEAKER_01]: And we see that it's so called extinguishment in a number of different forms in the history of the last couple of hundred years meaning they can be wiped out.
[SPEAKER_01]: So we have a situation in which there's a land in which people are living.
[SPEAKER_01]: There's some other people outside arrive on that land.
[SPEAKER_01]: To them, they say, oh, we discovered this.
[SPEAKER_01]: Our theory tells us that we now own it.
[SPEAKER_01]: Now we are now the lords of this land.
[SPEAKER_01]: We are the dominant leaders of this land.
[SPEAKER_01]: And lords of land sometimes have tenants.
[SPEAKER_01]: And we look at, oh, we already have tenants here.
[SPEAKER_01]: Isn't that wonderful?
[SPEAKER_01]: We've already got people that are going to work this land for us if we want them, and if they don't want to work, we're going to extinguish their right to stay here.
[SPEAKER_01]: So when they try to live here, we're going to just say, no, you don't have any right to live here anymore, your occupancy is right of occupancy has been ended by us.
[SPEAKER_01]: All of that whole framework.
[SPEAKER_01]: Emerges out of the Johnson V. McIntosh case, and as you said a few moments ago, Generalist is all out of sight.
[SPEAKER_01]: So what makes this particular 9th circuit case from two weeks ago interesting is that they bring this up right here.
[SPEAKER_01]: It's in the very first paragraph.
[SPEAKER_01]: It's a little bit of a court that is in my experience and today's time, this is embarrassing stuff.
[SPEAKER_01]: It's clearly what they call the law.
[SPEAKER_01]: And the case, as we saw in the beginning, they dismissed this guy, his case saying, you can't serve as sovereign.
[SPEAKER_01]: What is sovereign means sovereign is another word for the one that holds absolute ultimate dominion.
[SPEAKER_01]: So you can't do the dot
[SPEAKER_00]: And so the dominator, that's the good son of them for sovereign dominator.
[SPEAKER_01]: Right.
[SPEAKER_01]: So you can sue the dominator and we're going to dismiss the suit and in explaining why they're going to start to lead up to why they dismiss the suit, they open up right at the top by reminding you, saying you have to remember that this is what the U.S. is the dominator.
[SPEAKER_00]: Well, what's interesting is the way in which the clean, euphemistic language masks, what's actually going on here.
[SPEAKER_00]: So the use of the word asserted.
[SPEAKER_00]: So if we were to go into the Johnson decision itself and look for the word asserted, where would we find that?
[SPEAKER_00]: And then if we look for the phrase subject
[SPEAKER_00]: where would we find that phrase?
[SPEAKER_00]: All right, okay, so I have the exact passage from John Sversus McIntosh in the draft,
[SPEAKER_00]: document that we were working on yesterday that you kindly helped at it.
[SPEAKER_00]: While the different nations of Europe respected the right of the natives as occupants, they asserted the ultimate dominion to be in themselves.
[SPEAKER_00]: There you go, that domination framework right there.
[SPEAKER_00]: claimed an exercise as a consequence of this ultimate dominion, a power to grant the soil while yet in possession of the natives.
[SPEAKER_00]: These grants have been understood by all to convey a title to the
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, he's not something.
[SPEAKER_00]: So you have the word asserted and the subject only to the end and right of occupancy, nearly identical to what's what the clue decision, right?
[SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, no, no, go ahead, go ahead.
[SPEAKER_01]: Okay, well, I just wanted to point out the very first sense, if you want to talk about how all of this is submerged,
[SPEAKER_01]: It's much more frequent to have a court completely.
[SPEAKER_01]: Eliminate any reference to John Johnson B. McIntosh and just say national policy governing management of Indian land has escalated throughout history.
[SPEAKER_01]: Well, there's a lot packed in that because you say national policy, that means U.S. policy, U.S. policy governing management of Indian level, wait a minute, how does the U.S. get to manage Indian land?
[SPEAKER_01]: I thought that was Indian land.
[SPEAKER_01]: and has best laid so most people read over that and they don't really understand they know they're a little bit puzzled by it but they just read past it and then they will since usually you're not going to get Johnson Me Macintosh to the next sentence would be then in the 19th century through treaties the federal government sought to confine
[SPEAKER_01]: Tribes to reservations.
[SPEAKER_01]: All right.
[SPEAKER_01]: So that that's your typical person on the street shallow understanding of what's going on.
[SPEAKER_01]: It's like, oh, yeah.
[SPEAKER_01]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_01]: There's been the U.S. Yeah.
[SPEAKER_01]: The Indians.
[SPEAKER_01]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_01]: Oh, treaties.
[SPEAKER_01]: Oh, yeah.
[SPEAKER_01]: Reservations.
[SPEAKER_01]: Without any context, no detail, no understanding of what's going on, certainly unless the person is actually a tune to what you call your your domination trend translator,
[SPEAKER_01]: they're not even going to have a toe hold here.
[SPEAKER_01]: You talk about a toe hold.
[SPEAKER_01]: You don't have the word.
[SPEAKER_01]: If you understand the word policy governing management is a synonym for domination.
[SPEAKER_01]: You're not going to see it.
[SPEAKER_01]: You won't have confined to reservations as a synonym for domination.
[SPEAKER_01]: You're not going to see it.
[SPEAKER_01]: So it's your reading more is that you understand.
[SPEAKER_01]: Do you think you
[SPEAKER_01]: You think you know what Indian land is, but you don't really have any grasp at all of what's going on.
[SPEAKER_01]: So when you and I read this, we're able to unpack it, we're able to dig through the words that are used here to actually expand them and say, this is what they actually mean.
[SPEAKER_01]: And then suddenly by saying it in a different way, I've been thinking about this phrase you and I talked to you yesterday,
[SPEAKER_01]: Back a few years when I remember it was in New York on the subways, you know, crime on the subway so they had signs.
[SPEAKER_01]: see something say something so it was encouraging I'm writing on the subway and I see somebody being molested I'm I see that I'm supposed to say something say something men I was supposed to call nine one one okay see something say something when we talk I get the sense that we've reversed that we have now said say something see something so what the court says national policy governing management in the land
[SPEAKER_01]: That kind of puts people to sleep.
[SPEAKER_01]: Oh, yeah, okay, we're talking about something here about the BIA, probably the BIA, okay?
[SPEAKER_01]: There is sleep.
[SPEAKER_01]: If you say national policy governing domination of the original occupancy of the continent has best laid before you even get to pass it, you say, wait a minute, wait a minute, what are you talking about domination?
[SPEAKER_01]: So now they see the domination because we have said that policy governing management is equivalent to domination.
[SPEAKER_01]: that then I think by by our working with opening up the language, we're enabling people to see what's really being said.
[SPEAKER_00]: Well, Richard Harvey Brown and his book, a poetic for sociology that a book that I just find so extraordinary and amazing, which I've been reading for a couple decades.
[SPEAKER_00]: But he is certainly, and ever since,
[SPEAKER_00]: what he has a statement whereby he says, the thing, the thing itself, whatever that thing might be, becomes the emergent, meaning it emerges in awareness as a result of being named.
[SPEAKER_00]: So what's its name?
[SPEAKER_00]: Then suddenly, you know, if we start talking about oranges,
[SPEAKER_00]: of an orange and we have that conversation but just that quick we could switch to apples and oranges or out of focus and now apples are in focus and it's so lightning fast.
[SPEAKER_00]: But until we actually use the word domination, then it will not come into focus.
[SPEAKER_00]: Even though you can see a word such as Dominion, the average person will not look at that
[SPEAKER_00]: and say, oh, yes, domination.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's not going to happen.
[SPEAKER_00]: And there's something within the English language that is able to use domination and yet have it be completely out of focus.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_00]: So, so now this makes me curious, this judge is reading the Johnson ruling.
[SPEAKER_00]: I assume
[SPEAKER_00]: So it would be curious to know how they look at any of this kind of language in the Johnson ruling itself.
[SPEAKER_00]: But notice how this judge said a certain title, even though in the ruling it's talking about asserted the ultimate dominion to be in themselves.
[SPEAKER_00]: So he kind of easily said asserted the ultimate dominion or absolute ultimate dominion.
[SPEAKER_00]: The word is ultimate.
[SPEAKER_00]: what this judge wrote, because Marshall's using the term ultimate dominion.
[SPEAKER_00]: So it seems to me that this judge is aware of all this kind of detail, maybe not aware of a domination framework and the way that we're using it, but just going on the most surface level understanding of this terminology, there were decisions that were being made in the
[SPEAKER_00]: So I don't know, it's just interesting.
[SPEAKER_00]: And then to think the apology grant, the soil, while yet in possession of the natives, they're acknowledging a form of possession, which ordinarily would be a form of property.
[SPEAKER_00]: But yet the form of property that they have is not a form of property because it's occupancy to make sure they don't have a form of property in the mix.
[SPEAKER_00]: And as someone else who has the authority,
[SPEAKER_00]: to grant the land away even though they're living there.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, if that's not a domination, you know, being subject to the external will of arbitrary external will of someone else is a definition of domination.
[SPEAKER_00]: So they're just arbitrarily going to grant the land that you live on to someone else, those Spanish land grants and many other land grants from other monarchies are examples of all that, right?
[SPEAKER_01]: You know, you made an important point that I want to come back to which is that this paragraph had was a considered paragraph and the fact that there were three judges means that it definitely got talked about the when an opinion is going to be signed by more than one judge and in this case there were three of them.
[SPEAKER_01]: uh... they have to talk about it and they're we don't know maybe the first draft of this opinion uh... had more in here from johnson be macontosh talking about dominion and what you know et cetera and maybe one of both of the other judges is no i don't want to go into that that opens up a can of worms it's also possible that there wasn't johnson in here and that there was just this
[SPEAKER_01]: National policy governing management in the land and one of the one or the two of the other judges said now wait a minute you got to explain that how did How did the government get the power to manage in the land this oh, yeah, let's put Johnson in so the point is I'm just expanding what you said this is considered this language
[SPEAKER_01]: has been discussed and edited and put together in such a way that at least these three judges agree.
[SPEAKER_01]: Yes, we'll all sign that.
[SPEAKER_01]: We all agree with that.
[SPEAKER_01]: So this is not an accident.
[SPEAKER_01]: It's not just off the top of somebody's head.
[SPEAKER_01]: It's been something that had to be discussed and thought about.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_00]: Well, the fact that they don't use the word dominion,
[SPEAKER_00]: In that opening paragraph and avoid that term even though that's such an important concept within the Johnson ruling and I don't know how many I've never actually counted how many times he uses the word dominion have you ever done a search on that.
[SPEAKER_00]: No, Marshall.
[SPEAKER_00]: So that would be interesting in itself, okay?
[SPEAKER_00]: I'm sure it's more than 10 times.
[SPEAKER_00]: I would venture to say that.
[SPEAKER_00]: But in any case, when you look at that word dominion, how is someone supposed to interpret that word?
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, so what does that actually mean?
[SPEAKER_00]: And then you have scholars who have delved into that, who have gone into Latin dictionaries
[SPEAKER_00]: looked at Latin scholars that have traced that word in English, Dominion back to the Latin word Dominion.
[SPEAKER_00]: And one of the scholars to investigate that, his name is William Brandon.
[SPEAKER_00]: And he made a very important statement after providing a lot of background detail based on
[SPEAKER_00]: statement that political power grown from property, dominium, was any fact domination.
[SPEAKER_00]: So you've got property, which means domination, you've got dominium, which means domination, and you've got the idea of political power, which is all about who has the, who's going to be on top, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: And so that's such a key point was any fact domination.
[SPEAKER_00]: So then once we have that,
[SPEAKER_00]: identification between those two the linkage between those two terms.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now every time we see dominion we know that is accurate to interpret that as being domination.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah that looked with the definition of property several of them but one in particular by it's a legal textbook by
[SPEAKER_00]: And they look at William Blackstone's commentaries on the common law from 1765, where Blackstone, based on Genesis 128, defines property as despotic dominion.
[SPEAKER_00]: And then leave men and har have a sentence that the opening of their textbook basically defining property as the first establishment
[SPEAKER_00]: over some part of the natural world.
[SPEAKER_00]: And Lance Leaveman told me over the phone that that was based upon William Blackstone's commentaries on the common law.
[SPEAKER_01]: Well, OK, well, all of this stuff that you're pointing to that comes from past decades and even past centuries is washed out of contemporary language for the most part.
[SPEAKER_01]: It doesn't mean that it's been washed out of the reality.
[SPEAKER_01]: It's just washed out.
[SPEAKER_01]: It's not, it's not openly talked about the way it once was.
[SPEAKER_01]: And a good example of that in more recent times is 1955, the Tia-ton decision, Tia-ton versus the United States, which also relied on Johnson B. Mac and Tosh to say that the Tia-ton people did not own their own land.
[SPEAKER_01]: because of Christian discovery.
[SPEAKER_01]: Now, when I was writing about that, it occurred to me, let's see, how did this opinion get worked on?
[SPEAKER_01]: This is like we've just talked about opinion of the Supreme Court's gonna be drafted and redrafted and there's gonna be discussion about it.
[SPEAKER_01]: And it turns out that on the very last day before the opinion was released, that just as Stanley Reed, who was the author of the majority opinion,
[SPEAKER_01]: circulated a memo to the rest of the judges in which he's been saying we're going to change the final sentence here and the sentence that he's going to change says that the basically quoting John Timmy Macintosh that did the upon discovery by Christians and then he says we're going to get rid of the word Christian and I so I finally found the
[SPEAKER_01]: papers, just as reads papers.
[SPEAKER_01]: I think it's university of Kentucky there.
[SPEAKER_01]: Anyway, it turns out that multiple drafts of this opinion are available in his papers, and you can see not just the changes were made, but you see handwritten little scribbles in the margins where one judge or another judge like around the Christian one scribble says, yes, the U.S. is a Christian nation and another
[SPEAKER_01]: hand writing has scribbled what do you think this you can just say this and get away with their words to that effect.
[SPEAKER_01]: So obviously they were all arguing with each other on the court about whether they were going to use the word Christian even though the word Christian is in Johnson Remacintosh multiple times were they going to acknowledge that in 1955 and ultimately
[SPEAKER_01]: That in itself demonstrates the way in which the deeper knowledge that you were talking about, the deeper understanding of what do these words mean gets erased, it gets messed.
[SPEAKER_01]: They didn't say Johnson was wrong.
[SPEAKER_01]: They just said, well, not going to talk about what Johnson really said, because we don't want to get rid of Johnson, because that's the basis of our power of domination, and we're just not going to admit.
[SPEAKER_01]: how it was justified at that time.
[SPEAKER_01]: And so what I found out when I did some statistical research is that the Tia Tom case, Justice Read, and that little memo, they actually did a little bit of a laundromat job on Johnson B. Macintosh because it was getting increasingly embarrassing to cite that case when you actually had to say what it decided.
[SPEAKER_01]: And so Tia Tom says, you don't have to say what it actually decided.
[SPEAKER_01]: So we're not going to say it.
[SPEAKER_01]: And from that time on Johnson V. Macintosh has actually been cited much more frequently since 1955, then it was in the 100 and some years between 1823 and 1955.
[SPEAKER_01]: They gave new life to Johnson V. Macintosh by masking what the case actually decided.
[SPEAKER_01]: And that masking maybe we can go past this first page here,
[SPEAKER_01]: the masking.
[SPEAKER_01]: We've already talked about how it's masked in the quote from Johnson, but that first line management of Indian lands, that's masking the whole thing right there.
[SPEAKER_01]: It's a deep masking of what's going on.
[SPEAKER_01]: And
[SPEAKER_01]: Do you want to say something more about that?
[SPEAKER_01]: Because I want to know.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_00]: Well, I want to reverse the reframe that statement that you made about name something or say something and see something Don't name something and don't see something.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, so that's what's going on here.
[SPEAKER_00]: You have to be careful of what you name Because if you do name it then suddenly it becomes a focus of attention
[SPEAKER_00]: So if you want to avoid that, you just leave it out.
[SPEAKER_00]: So you take out the word Christian and call it good.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_00]: And it's also interesting that 1955 is the year I was born.
[SPEAKER_00]: And so that's kind of just a funny detail, but Marshall was born in 1755, so that gives you some sense of time frame, in terms of two centuries till, you know, a number of us that got into this kind of investigation like Glenn Morris and oh gosh Robert Williams and a few others were born that same year 1955.
[SPEAKER_00]: and just kind of a trivial point there.
[SPEAKER_00]: But it is interesting also that those of us that got into all of this to begin to investigate these types of terms and this type of language that it took that long for native people to become deeply immersed in English and
[SPEAKER_00]: at a level of scholarship that wouldn't enable us to investigate this stuff.
[SPEAKER_00]: And I think that's significant in itself as well.
[SPEAKER_01]: That's why I would not say it's a trivial factor.
[SPEAKER_01]: It's a very good interesting marker that 200 years went by before this became possible to openly critique by people who were dominated by it.
[SPEAKER_01]: And I think, and even as on the court in Tia-Tan,
[SPEAKER_01]: by the dominators themselves to say we need to be careful now because too many people are beginning to see what's really going on here we don't want to help them any further there are too far it's like you the slave owners didn't want slaves to learn to read
[SPEAKER_01]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_01]: So it's like, there, there's a danger here when people start thinking.
[SPEAKER_01]: That's the real thing.
[SPEAKER_01]: That's what, in the, during the whole lockdown, what was one of the major features of the lockdown with censorship.
[SPEAKER_01]: Oh, even people who were highly respected, like,
[SPEAKER_01]: Like Malone, who basically was one of the inventors of the gene technology, he's criticizing what they're doing, he gets de-platform.
[SPEAKER_01]: You're not allowed to talk censorship is crucial to authoritarianism.
[SPEAKER_01]: And so what we're seeing here, this is censorship that itself is censored.
[SPEAKER_01]: Nobody is saying that the phrase national policy governing management of Indian land has
[SPEAKER_01]: But yeah, he is censorship.
[SPEAKER_01]: It's not seeking the truth, right?
[SPEAKER_01]: That's what we're talking about.
[SPEAKER_01]: And so to not speak the truth means to you to obfuscate, to you to not name, to give misleading names, to use words that people don't associate with their deep meanings.
[SPEAKER_01]: Most people are not doing etymology.
[SPEAKER_01]: They're not looking at the word property and saying, well, what does property really mean?
[SPEAKER_01]: I better go read them.
[SPEAKER_01]: Blackstone people very few people do that.
[SPEAKER_01]: That's what you're saying.
[SPEAKER_01]: That's what's so rare is how many people how few people do that Yeah, and when any of those of us who have done that see this and we start talking about it We're we're stirring up trouble from the other side the other side is not happy about this the other side being The powers of domination that don't want domination to be challenged.
[SPEAKER_01]: That's why I linked it to the lockdown is that
[SPEAKER_01]: And when too many people see what's going on, those people must be shut up.
[SPEAKER_01]: Those people cannot be allowed to talk because if they're allowed to talk, the naming that they are doing illuminates what's happening to many other people who have just been listening and watching.
[SPEAKER_01]: And so when we're talking about this, we're illuminating this.
[SPEAKER_01]: This is why we need something to say something, see something happens and what we're
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_00]: Well, and and I'm reminded of a line in a movie that I saw long ago that said we don't want them thinking we want them buying.
[SPEAKER_00]: exactly.
[SPEAKER_00]: So they want us buying into all this kind of language that's not thinking about.
[SPEAKER_01]: I want it just if we can if we can move the word, when it says, bassillated, what else?
[SPEAKER_01]: Bassillate means it means it's gone back and forth.
[SPEAKER_01]: At least, bassillating it's moving.
[SPEAKER_01]: It's bassillating, it means the policy is going back and forth.
[SPEAKER_01]: It's changing from one thing to another.
[SPEAKER_01]: So
[SPEAKER_01]: It's this we're going to see in a minute why come to the conclusion that this translated is a way of covering up the truth which is actually the policy has been consistent.
[SPEAKER_01]: The case is actually saying, we're going to apply the law that was laid down at the foundation.
[SPEAKER_01]: It says, at our founding, we're applying the founding rule to this case.
[SPEAKER_01]: Where's the best solution?
[SPEAKER_01]: They're saying no.
[SPEAKER_01]: We're going to do the very same thing, but don't get too upset because we're actually doing something different.
[SPEAKER_01]: Wait a minute, how can you be doing the same thing and doing something different at the same time?
[SPEAKER_01]: So if you're reading this thing, you're vastly through our tissue.
[SPEAKER_01]: You start to get a warm feeling in your heart.
[SPEAKER_01]: Oh, yeah, I know that things have gotten better, because that's how that's going to be translated.
[SPEAKER_01]: That's not going to be translated or it's gotten worse.
[SPEAKER_01]: The typical, it's like that times in cases where the judges say, oh, we have compassion for the poor Indians.
[SPEAKER_01]: Well, what kind of compassion?
[SPEAKER_01]: And even T-heat times said that.
[SPEAKER_01]: We have compassion.
[SPEAKER_01]: We're going to treat them well because they've been injured.
[SPEAKER_01]: Well, who'd they get injured by?
[SPEAKER_01]: Oh, by us.
[SPEAKER_01]: So, Vaseline, so then we're going to move up here.
[SPEAKER_01]: They're starting up, we start with the 19th century absolute dominion, then what happens through treaties, treaties means we agree, that's supposedly what treaties mean.
[SPEAKER_01]: The federal government sought to confine tribes to reservations.
[SPEAKER_01]: Well, now there's a lot packed there.
[SPEAKER_01]: A treaty is supposed to be something between equal, so the treaty in this case, they're saying the treaty is one side trying to confine the other one.
[SPEAKER_01]: That means domination.
[SPEAKER_01]: The treaty is a mechanism of domination.
[SPEAKER_01]: It didn't say that, but that's what the words mean.
[SPEAKER_01]: And so then it uses the word tribes.
[SPEAKER_01]: It doesn't say the people, the people who are already living on the land when the dominators got here.
[SPEAKER_01]: So if you read that sentence and translate it in an accurate way, knowing what words mean, we say,
[SPEAKER_01]: that through treaties, meaning it's already a misnomer, if treaties are supposed to be agreements among equals, that the government sought to confine to dominate the tribes.
[SPEAKER_01]: It's already given them a name.
[SPEAKER_01]: It doesn't say that the newcomers who are claiming they own everything are going to squeeze the people already here under reservation.
[SPEAKER_01]: It doesn't say that, but that's what it means.
[SPEAKER_01]: when you translated.
[SPEAKER_01]: So they say that's the beginning.
[SPEAKER_01]: So near the end of the century, they passed the Indian Alatman Act to extinguish tribal sovereignty.
[SPEAKER_01]: Well, is that a change or is that a vascularization?
[SPEAKER_01]: No, it sounds like that they doubled down.
[SPEAKER_01]: And because why did they doubled down?
[SPEAKER_01]: Because the tribes were not willing to be confined.
[SPEAKER_01]: They weren't willing to be done.
[SPEAKER_01]: Okay, we're just going to get rid of you all together.
[SPEAKER_01]: There aren't any tribes anymore.
[SPEAKER_01]: We're going to extinguish you.
[SPEAKER_01]: All right?
[SPEAKER_01]: Oh, wow.
[SPEAKER_01]: So then he's got some other cases and the general lock and what was it?
[SPEAKER_01]: One goal was to assimilate Indians into Anglo-American culture and notice, McGurvey Oklahoma he's got a 2020 case there.
[SPEAKER_01]: So now, two hundred years of supposedly vacillating policy, which has actually never changed.
[SPEAKER_01]: And McGurvey is again cited, open Indian lands to white settlement.
[SPEAKER_01]: So what this is where it blows my mind is that he can list, I would call this a litany of crimes, he's listing the crimes of domination and they're very consistent with the other.
[SPEAKER_01]: There's been no change.
[SPEAKER_01]: So how does that get to be called vassilation?
[SPEAKER_01]: Why doesn't the opening paragraphs say the national policy for dominating the original peoples has never changed?
[SPEAKER_01]: that's actually what he's his real his I say his is actually three judges what they're actually saying we're gonna we're gonna quote the original case johnson re-macking to us and we're not gonna deviate from that there's no bad situation
[SPEAKER_00]: No, it's interesting to go back up to the word founding and notice the capital F. Yes, the founding.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_00]: So there's a significance to why he put a capital or the three judges put a capital F on there.
[SPEAKER_00]: And then also, what's weird is Johnson versus Macintosh was issued 35 years 35, 36 years after
[SPEAKER_00]: the founding of the United States, if you want to, if you want to consider, I mean, depends on how you look at the timeframe, but if you just go with the adoption of the current constitution, which would be 1789, but was drafted in the 1787.
[SPEAKER_00]: So, how is something that came 35 years later?
[SPEAKER_00]: right three and a half decades later part of the founding.
[SPEAKER_00]: Is that interesting?
[SPEAKER_00]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_00]: So they're playing fast and loose with history and with detail.
[SPEAKER_00]: And it's it's just all a big obfuscation, you know.
[SPEAKER_01]: In fact, talking about founding in Johnson, it took 35 years before this mad scramble for land speculation, which was about the whole
[SPEAKER_01]: colonial invasion was all about the land grants, the charters, all of the rest of that, was all about acquiring land to dominate, to become like feudal lords in this new land.
[SPEAKER_01]: And so if you say, well, that was the founding, there were a lot of loose ends left over.
[SPEAKER_01]: After they made the Constitution among themselves, there were still loose ends.
[SPEAKER_01]: One of the major loose ends was what about the land?
[SPEAKER_01]: What about this thing called tighted?
[SPEAKER_01]: We have people here, in fact, in the Johnson case, the particular people of Pienker Shaw, they're out in the middle of the continent.
[SPEAKER_01]: So then you say, well, wait a minute, the colonies don't have control over that.
[SPEAKER_01]: Do they?
[SPEAKER_01]: How could they have control over that?
[SPEAKER_01]: They never even been there.
[SPEAKER_01]: So you say, well, we don't have to have been there.
[SPEAKER_01]: We don't really need to worry about that because we have a principle here.
[SPEAKER_01]: The principle is, we already own it.
[SPEAKER_01]: We own it because we touched the shore of the continent as the first Christians to touch the shore of the continent.
[SPEAKER_01]: And so it was a major, loose thread left over after they said, well, here's what a state is, here's what the judiciary is, here's what the executive brand they got that all written down in the constitution.
[SPEAKER_01]: And the only thing that referred to the so-called Indians was, well, if there's commerce, it gets to be the federal government, it gets to control that.
[SPEAKER_01]: The states don't get to control that.
[SPEAKER_01]: Now, that is, that is it in the Constitution.
[SPEAKER_01]: It doesn't.
[SPEAKER_01]: Anything about title of land.
[SPEAKER_01]: The major piece only got resolved in 1823, in a case that we're talking about now, John's going to be Macintosh.
[SPEAKER_01]: And as far as the commerce business goes, we don't not going to go into it today.
[SPEAKER_01]: We're going to do it in another point, perhaps.
[SPEAKER_01]: But,
[SPEAKER_01]: that commerce with, to rate a commerce with that for the last few decades has been treated by the courts and actually by a whole lot of lawyers and legal scholars who just sort of fall in with the program here.
[SPEAKER_01]: They say, oh, yeah, that's what gives the plenary power.
[SPEAKER_01]: That's what gives the ultimate dominion of the United States its constitutional basis.
[SPEAKER_01]: Now, that's a distortion of plain English.
[SPEAKER_01]: You want to talk about language and the meaning of words to say, regulate power.
[SPEAKER_01]: Sorry, to regulate commerce with, how does that convert to have plenary power over?
[SPEAKER_01]: Tukum, different sets of words, Tukum's leaving different concepts.
[SPEAKER_01]: And that goes by as if, oh, geez, I don't know.
[SPEAKER_01]: Don't ask me that hard question.
[SPEAKER_00]: Let's go to the first footnote in the article in the case here.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, yeah, just go to the top so people can see that.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, okay.
[SPEAKER_00]: Indian footnote one.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_00]: Right.
[SPEAKER_00]: I see we're done in this subtitle, okay.
[SPEAKER_00]: So then go down to the footnote one.
[SPEAKER_00]: We kind of already touched on this, but I just think it's fascinating.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now that we've discussed this massive framework of domination, they're worried about a particular preference.
[SPEAKER_00]: of a terminology that may be Indian is disrespectful within a completely disrespected system of knowledge.
[SPEAKER_00]: Exactly.
[SPEAKER_00]: I want to share it on the Zoom.
[SPEAKER_00]: We're going to come back there.
[SPEAKER_01]: I'm going to zoom to the, the, um, um, um, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh
[SPEAKER_01]: the guy who concurs.
[SPEAKER_01]: Oh, he's a green.
[SPEAKER_01]: He says, I agree with their well-reasoned legal analysis.
[SPEAKER_01]: Well, you and I have already torn apart the well-reasoned legal analysis.
[SPEAKER_01]: And he joins it nearly in full.
[SPEAKER_01]: Now, what does he disagree with?
[SPEAKER_01]: I respectfully decline to use the term Indian.
[SPEAKER_01]: So he's saying, yeah, I got no problem with claiming that we have ultimate dominion in the land and we got it by discovery and we sought to confine them and we've just made try to assume we were extinguished.
[SPEAKER_01]: I got no problem with any of that, but he's guys can't you be more polite.
[SPEAKER_01]: political world, social media world, popular thinking is all concern with that superficiality, total superficiality.
[SPEAKER_01]: And I'm thinking, you know, so it's a disapprove dog now if you use the word Indian.
[SPEAKER_01]: Of course, a lot of still called, you know, Native Americans that call themselves Indians, you know, that I know that way.
[SPEAKER_01]: It's a very common thing, right?
[SPEAKER_01]: But you know, so-called polite discourse, white people, at least are not supposed to say that.
[SPEAKER_01]: All right?
[SPEAKER_01]: They're supposed to say native American as if that phrase is the most crucial thing in the world, not the domination status, just what are you calling the dominated group.
[SPEAKER_01]: So I was thinking it's prohibited, well, put it the other way out.
[SPEAKER_01]: It's required to use native
[SPEAKER_01]: Our, how is it, it's probably impossible to change the name of that field of law to say federal, Native American law, because as soon as you do that, you're saying, wait a minute.
[SPEAKER_01]: Federal Native American law.
[SPEAKER_01]: Does that even compute?
[SPEAKER_01]: Can you make sense of that that there's a whole body of law that has to do with Native Americans that's different from how are they different?
[SPEAKER_01]: And as soon as you start asking how they're different, you're going to start unraveling the puzzle, same way to me, they're different because they were here first, but then if they were here first, how did they get dominated?
[SPEAKER_01]: And if you start pulling apart that pretty soon, you're going to have the whole thing is just going to be a pile of Tangled yarn on the floor because it's not going to hold together.
[SPEAKER_01]: It's not going to make sense.
[SPEAKER_01]: You say, well, if they were Native Americans, how could to be Americans before America was even named?
[SPEAKER_01]: They were being called Indians by these explorers.
[SPEAKER_01]: So, called these invaders.
[SPEAKER_01]: How did they get to be Native Americans when there wasn't any America?
[SPEAKER_01]: So the whole thing would fall apart if you tried to make that change at its most crucial place, which is in the law of domination.
[SPEAKER_01]: So you can have a polite conversation in which you're not supposed to say Indian, but if you want to have a technical legal conversation, you have to use the word Indian.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_00]: Before we were coming up on the top of the hour, okay, but I want
[SPEAKER_00]: Everything that we've discussed so far, one of the things that we have not put into focus by not naming it is the original free existence of these people being called Indians, of the nations and peoples, and that's what I find so astounding is that when you jump into this
[SPEAKER_00]: is avoid an acknowledgement of the original free existence of the native nations and the contrast between that free existence and the system of domination being brought in through the use of language and lethal behavior and all the rest of it to establish a system of domination to strip those native nations and peoples of their original free existence.
[SPEAKER_00]: and then call the outcome justice.
[SPEAKER_01]: Well, my gosh, that's a good justice.
[SPEAKER_01]: That's amazing.
[SPEAKER_01]: That is so concise.
[SPEAKER_01]: And just to stay, we're going to have to come to a close here.
[SPEAKER_01]: But just to, I want to just kind of riff on what you just said is,
[SPEAKER_01]: How, what if it says national policy for dominating the originally free peoples and their lands?
[SPEAKER_01]: And say, what, what, wait a minute, what are we saying here?
[SPEAKER_01]: The United States asserted title to these lands of the originally free people.
[SPEAKER_01]: and that the originally free people, they get to stay here, they have the occupancy, but they don't own it anymore.
[SPEAKER_01]: And then if we follow the policy, we're gonna try to confine the original people to reservations, and we're gonna try to extinguish the legal existence, the political existence, we're gonna call it, that's where the free existence is, extinguish tribal sovereignty, that's the close of the come,
[SPEAKER_00]: to acknowledging the original free existence of those people's.
[SPEAKER_00]: And what does Marshall say?
[SPEAKER_00]: Their rights to complete sovereignty as independent nations were necessarily diminished by the original fundamental principle that discovery gave title to those who made it.
[SPEAKER_00]: So how in the heck does a thing called discovery, which is not a human being, doesn't have any body, human body or anything,
[SPEAKER_00]: by means of which it could hand off or give something to someone.
[SPEAKER_00]: It is illogical on his face, but nobody tends to go into it in that.
[SPEAKER_01]: So extinguish tribal sovereignty, given what you just said, means to extinguish the free existence.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_01]: That's actually what you do.
[SPEAKER_01]: It's to extinguish the free existence and assimilate the originally three people into the Anglor American culture,
[SPEAKER_01]: and you can say in parentheses of domination.
[SPEAKER_00]: And lastly, the intention to destroy an entire people and whole or in part is the definition of genocide.
[SPEAKER_00]: So this is actually an implicit acknowledgment of the genocidal process, to strip a people of their free existence and assimilate the individuals within those societies into the
[SPEAKER_00]: larger society of domination.
[SPEAKER_01]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_01]: And one last thing I want to say in McGurt case, which is mentioned here in 2020, the court in McGurt, be Oklahoma, goes through the whole survey of what the United States government is arguing in that case.
[SPEAKER_01]: And the United States government openly acknowledges the number of times that it tried to extinguish the Creek nation.
[SPEAKER_00]: Well, let's go a little bit over so that you can explain if you're willing to do it to explain how you followed up on that one reference and that'll be a good place to demonstrate the Margaret case demonstration.
[SPEAKER_01]: The opinion was written by Gorsuch who is supposedly a friend of the Indians.
[SPEAKER_01]: And so he's obviously embarrassed.
[SPEAKER_01]: He knows that the cat is getting out of the bag, so to speak.
[SPEAKER_01]: And he can definitely not.
[SPEAKER_01]: He's got to talk about the Johnson principle somehow.
[SPEAKER_01]: How is he going to do this?
[SPEAKER_01]: So he fights a different case, lone wolf, lone wolf is the case that translated Johnson's ultimate domain into the phrase, Plenary Power.
[SPEAKER_01]: So now he doesn't have to talk about Christian discovery, talks about planetary power, but he sights the lone wolf, and the only way the lone wolf makes sense is through its link to Johnson B. Macintosh, but McGurt hides that.
[SPEAKER_01]: By not mentioning, it doesn't even quote lone wolf.
[SPEAKER_01]: It doesn't acknowledge that the lone wolf quote Johnson.
[SPEAKER_01]: So then he says in addition, and he mentions what he called a treatise, a legal treatise.
[SPEAKER_01]: All he does is mention it and
[SPEAKER_01]: So I got curious, I'm saying, well, he mentions Long Wolf, but doesn't quote it.
[SPEAKER_01]: What is he not quoting in this treatist?
[SPEAKER_01]: So I dig through it.
[SPEAKER_01]: I have to find a particular addition that he was referring to, which luckily with the amount of material it's in archives online, I find it.
[SPEAKER_01]: And I find it, it's a statement that says when the Christians arrive,
[SPEAKER_01]: So, McGurk relies on this fundamental doctrine of domination and does its best to totally cover it up.
[SPEAKER_00]: Well, let's make that more specific by saying that Justice Gorsuch did that, because he's the one doing the drafting, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_00]: And as I recall, the exact language from that treatis,
[SPEAKER_00]: from about 1864 or something, whatever it was, the phrase was the Christian nations of Europe.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yes, that goes right back to this older antiquated, some people might consider it antiquated terminology of Christian nations.
[SPEAKER_00]: But here, Gorsuch must have read it if he's referencing it.
[SPEAKER_00]: And yet he's obtruscating it by not naming it because if you name it, you'll see it, you know.
[SPEAKER_01]: So here it is, I can just give it to you.
[SPEAKER_01]: I'm Emory Washburn, 1868, treat us on the American law of real property, real property, mean property.
[SPEAKER_00]: There you go.
[SPEAKER_01]: Land, okay?
[SPEAKER_01]: And what he did not quote.
[SPEAKER_01]: He just mentioned that book.
[SPEAKER_01]: In that book, it says the Christian nations that planted colonies recognize no season.
[SPEAKER_01]: That's an old common law word for title ownership of lands.
[SPEAKER_01]: Recognize no season of lands on the part of Indian dwellers.
[SPEAKER_01]: Wow, dwellers, they're not even occupants, occupants.
[SPEAKER_01]: So that's all in there.
[SPEAKER_01]: So it seems to me that the jig is close to being up.
[SPEAKER_01]: We already know that Justice Thomas, Clarence Thomas, has already said twice in opinions and cases that there's no basis for the U.S. claiming plenary power.
[SPEAKER_01]: and people want, don't want to listen to that because the, oh, Clarence Thomas, he's a conservative.
[SPEAKER_01]: But he's the only judge who's ever said completely without any ambiguity.
[SPEAKER_01]: There is no basis for planetary power, all right?
[SPEAKER_01]: So whatever else he may say, because he says, I don't really know what Indian sovereignty means, and we should investigate that.
[SPEAKER_01]: And Gorsuch has not questing plenary power.
[SPEAKER_01]: In McGurth, he's relied on it, and that everybody applauds, then, why, it's because, oh, he's liberal.
[SPEAKER_01]: He made that wonderful opening statement at the end of the trail of tears.
[SPEAKER_01]: There was a promise.
[SPEAKER_01]: Well, that was a promise.
[SPEAKER_01]: What was the promise?
[SPEAKER_01]: The promise was we're never going to give up trying to extinguish you?
[SPEAKER_01]: I mean, that's really what the promise is.
[SPEAKER_01]: And so he's willing to say, oh, we're not trying to extinguish you anymore.
[SPEAKER_01]: But the only reason we have any power at all in this case is because of our ultimate dominion.
[SPEAKER_00]: Maybe we're going to close to leave it for now.
[SPEAKER_01]: I'll leave it there.
[SPEAKER_00]: Steve, what a great conversation.
[SPEAKER_01]: I'll see how this comes out and we'll see it.
[SPEAKER_01]: And if it goes up as opposed, I'm going to attach this, so people can actually read this whole, oh yeah, it's great.
[SPEAKER_00]: This is what a terrific way to focus on the big picture by using this ruling,
[SPEAKER_00]: So recently, as a portal into that, and to that investigation.
[SPEAKER_00]: So, all right, thanks so much.
[SPEAKER_00]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_01]: Welcome to the Domination Chronicles podcast.
[SPEAKER_01]: Our website is DominationCronicles.com.
[SPEAKER_00]: Please like and subscribe on whatever platform you listen to or watch.
[SPEAKER_00]: And remember to like our YouTube page,
[SPEAKER_00]: Domination Chronicles.com When we reach 500 likes on YouTube, each of us will give away one of our books, pagans in the Promised Land and Federal Anti-Indian Law.