Steven Newcomb (Shawnee, Lenape) is one of the world’s most prominent scholars of the Doctrine of Discovery (Doctrine of Domination) and Manifest Destiny. He is the author of a best-selling book Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (Fulcrum, 2008). He is a co-producer of the documentary film, The Doctrine of Discovery: Unmasking the Domination Code, directed and produced by Sheldon Wolfchild (Dakota), with narration by Buffy Sainte-Marie (Cree). In 1992, Newcomb, along with Birgil Kills Straight (Oglala Lakota) founded the Indigenous Law Institute and started a worldwide movement to call upon the Holy See to revoke the 4 May 1493 Inter Caetera Vatican papal bull of “discovery” and domination.
Steven Newcomb (00:08:30): I think that when people in government—small elite groups of people in government—make long range plans for the future, they don't call that conspiracy. They call that long range planning, and that's a natural feature of a system of government. However when you look at the etymology in the type of meaning within the term “government,” what I have realized is that that is a system of domination. So the people that are in that system of domination planning for the future, they're working on the ways in which they're going to go about maintaining that system of domination over time and benefiting economically from that.
(0:09:19): When you look at the Indian policy documents of the US government from the 19th century, from the 1800s—and I have that right here, Documents of United States Indian Policy—and you look at the boarding schools and the residential schools, those Indian commissioners had long range plans for what they thought native societies ought to look like. That meant the great reset for our nations and peoples in their view was—for our languages and traditions and ways of life, our free and independent existence—to go away and to be destroyed and to have our people assimilated into the United States as citizens. And then they would get the land and they would get the forests and they would get all the resources. And they couldn't be accused of doing anything wrong because they were doing this for the humanitarian interests of the native people of our ancestors.
(0:10:29): So when you look at the long range plans made in secret, for example, a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to William Henry Harrison, he talks about the end of native history, and he talks about assimilating the people into the United States. He talks about “they will in time either incorporate with us as citizens of the United States, or removed beyond the Mississippi.” (p. 23)
(00:10:59): Then he says “The former”, meaning the integration of people as citizens in the United States, “is certainly the termination of their history most happy for themselves”. The only way in which you can terminate the history of a people is by terminating their existence and if you terminate their existence, that's called genocide. But then when you do that, why is he saying that that is a happy prospect for them, for the people that are no longer going to exist? They'll just be swallowed up and integrated into the body politic of the United States.
(0:11:39): This is a private letter written by Thomas Jefferson as President of the United States to William Henry Harrison, who was at that time Governor of the Indiana Territory. And of course our great leader Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa his brother, they were leading efforts to oppose the United States and block the US from being able to take over all the native lands in that region of what was called the old Northwest.
(00:12:12): What I'm getting at here is this idea of conspiracy. It depends on who's looking at it. And of course there are laws on the books against conspiracy. So there must be something to that, or they wouldn't have such laws. But I think what the opinion shapers and the reality shapers of the government are doing is to deflect people away from a deep examination of history and putting the dots together to understand, ‘Well, yeah, there really are elite groups of people that work in this government system and in other sectors in cooperation with corporate interest, obviously, to create the future that they want to see as I already said. But when you get right down to it, it's still the invade, capture, vanquish, and subdue domination terminology and ideology and mentality.
Well, I think that the, there's a spiritual, for lack of a better word, a, a psychological or spiritual attitude that I pretty much maintain. Although I know that there may be 100% likelihood that it will be impossible to stop those people. What they're doing. I still have to approach it as if there's a hundred percent likelihood that I will be able to, to collectively with others be successful in stopping what they're attempting to create. And I think that that stance of being able to continue work on it and giving it our very best efforts, despite the possibility that it won't be successful on our part. So what we can't give into despair and just say, oh, what's the point of even trying, because it's not gonna work anyway, that would be a formula for failure, for sure. Right. So we have to have that psychological stance toward our efforts and toward our future to say, yeah, we have to give it every possibility we have to give it every effort to be able to be that positive influence for a beneficial future and and work very determinedly at it. You know? Speaker 1 (01:32:06): Well, I actually genuinely believe that we have a chance because I think, you know, all those super billionaires, I mean, they may mortal, they wake up in the morning, they cough, they sneeze, they go to the bathroom, they do all those things. And then one day they'll die. I mean, it's, they cannot bypass that. But I think what's critical genuinely is how many of us approach our internals. Because if I think, I think that if we play essentially by similar rules, but on a much petty scale, if we make it a out being in control of our surroundings in a forceful manner, or like not engaging in dialogue or wanting to like suppress certain expression, sincere, sincere ones, I mean, sincere expression, then we are kind of being many transhumanists in a way. And then we're not sure, hoping. I mean, I think that the existential balance is very much in favor of a good resolution, like solid where the world goes back to the relatively San state, the way it was thousands of years ago, maybe. Speaker 1 (01:33:18): I mean, people were never perfect obviously, but relatively same comparing to what's like the sickness that we have now, but in order to get there, people have to actually be healthy internally, which a lot of people are not. And the society is brutal. Like it's really trying to, not to, to prevent us from being balanced. And, but again, so if we try to fight the people who are about control, which is trans transhumanists, ultimately they are about control. I mean, like all this fancy sci-fi nonsense is one thing, but ultimately they need to be in control or else they're very unhappy. So we cannot be that because if we are on the tiny little scale that is significantly below them, then we are not really fighting them. I mean, like, I don't know. Yeah. I