back to Steven Newcomb | many worlds | rat haus | Index | Search | tree
The Doctrine Of Domination & The Great Reset
A Conversation with Steven Newcomb
Tessa Lena, Make Language Great Again, 21 Oct 2021

video, mp3 (1:36:40)
The following is an excerpt of the complete 1:36:40 conversation between Steven Newcomb and Tess Lena, centering on a portion of a private letter written by President Thomas Jefferson to Governor William Henry Harrison in 1803 on assimilating the Original Free and Independent Nations and Peoples of this continent prior to the arrival of Europeans which will effect, “the termination of their history” and how, in Jefferson’s words, “our strength and their weakness is now so visible that they must see we have only to shut our hand to crush them, and that all our liberalities to them proceed from motives of pure humanity only.”
Tessa Lena’s Introduction to this recording. Original source on goo’goo’tube (note for recordings such as this, no auto-generated transcript is provided).

at 2:48
Steven Newcomb:
When I think about the Vatican papal bulls, the papal documents that were issued by various Popes in the 15th century, and I think about the language that I examined in those documents and the patterns that are revealed by that language, it reminds me of claims of a right of domination in all kinds of eras across history, throughout history, throughout time. What I mean by that is if we go back and think about the language in the 1452 papal document Dum Diversas as a starting point, and think about the pattern of thought and behavior that’s revealed in the language that states: “invade, capture, vanquish, and subdue”, “reduce [their persons] to perpetual slavery” and “take away all their possessions and property”, [there is] this idea that they have the right to convert the land. In other words, to take the lands of Original Nations and Peoples, or what most folks know as Indigenous Nations and Peoples and all of the lands and territories, and take those from them and convert them into the property of those claiming a right to come in on top of them.

So if we dispense what the word Christian—Christian is a cover word—but it’s very clear that that is part of what was understood as the Christian Empire back then, at least that’s what they termed it. The [Inter Caetera] papal bull of May 4th, 1493, issued by Pope Alexander VI after Columbus made his voyage to the Caribbean or Bahamas and back to Europe, that particular document refers to the Christian Empire, Christiani imperii. When we think about these patterns of domination, empire, invade, capture, vanquish, subdue, as I already said, and look at how those kinds of patterns play out today and the behavior of the state governments of the world and the state systems of the planet, there is always at the base or foundation of every state system that I know of the claim that everyone and everything within the boundaries of the state territory is subject to that claimed authority on the part of the state.

Tour Group in the Capitol Rotunda, Washington, D.C., June 2021

Landing of Columbus, John Vanderlyn (1775-1852)
Christopher Columbus is depicted landing in the West Indies, on an island that the natives called Guanahani and he named San Salvador, on October 12, 1492. He raises the royal banner, claiming the land for his Spanish patrons, and stands bareheaded, with his hat at his feet, in honor of the sacredness of the event. The captains of the Niña and Pinta follow, carrying the banner of Ferdinand and Isabella. The crew displays a range of emotions, some searching for gold in the sand. Natives watch from behind a tree.
John Vanderlyn (1775-1852) had studied with Gilbert Stuart and was the first American painter to be trained in Paris, where he worked on this canvas for ten years with the help of assistants.

The difference for Original Nations and Peoples, those of our nations and peoples that were existing here prior to the invasion by Western Christendom of this continent and this hemisphere and other parts of the world, is that our ancestors were living a free and independent existence and had been living that kind of an existence for thousands and thousand of years, and had been evolving their languages, cultures, and spiritual traditions over that very lengthy period of time. All kinds of developments and primarily with the idea, based on our origin stories and traditions and teachings, that we were supposed to have a sacred or beneficial relationship with other life forms forever. That’s the kind of contrast to that invade, capture, vanquish, subdue mentality, the contrast between those two orientations toward reality.

When we look at what’s going on today on the part of state systems, these are systems of domination that are claiming a right, through various manifestations of policy and law and so forth, to make everyone subject to their dictates, but also these other interests—powerful, powerful economic interests that believe they have the right vision of the future and they can goad or coerce or persuade people to move toward that vision that they’re holding and the kind of future that they want to bring about.

When I look at those Vatican papul documents and the book European Treaties Bearing on the History of the United States and its Dependencies to 1648, published by the Carnegie institution in 1917, and I read those documents, I’m looking at a grand plan for world domination. It says it right in those documents. When you look at other elite groups of people that are able to create long range plans for the future, as I mentioned—along the lines of domination or economic control, military control, all the various types of control—that’s the same type of patterning playing out.

Tessa Lena:
You mentioned the long range plan and I know that you’re referring to the long range plan, made in secret, which is a civil—I am teasing you with that word—it’s a civil word for conspiracy. It seems like history has proven pretty solidly that conspiracies do exist. And we are in fact, living in a place or in a state that is a result of a conspiracy from centuries ago. What did your research teach you about conspiracies?

at 08:30
Steven Newcomb:
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. When you look, however, at the etymology in the type of meaning within the term government, what you realize—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 domination over time and benefiting economically from that.

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. 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.

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 remove beyond the Mississippi.” 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.

So 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.

I guess what I’m getting at here is this idea of conspiracy. It depends on who’s looking at it. 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.

Tessa Lena:
When I reread your story a couple of months ago On Conspiracy that was published in Indian Country Today, that just struck me because there seems to be a direct parallel, whether it’s intended as such or not, between that version of happiness defined as termination of history and being assimilated into a culture that claims to be better for the people—regardless of their opinion about it—and the notorious line from World Economic Forum, where they say, You’ll Own Nothing And You’ll Be Happy.

And that is pretty much exactly the same thing, but attached to different demographics and different historical contexts. Again, even if we look at that quote, if we don’t own anything and we are thus happy, but then who owns everything? Somebody must own everything—and be miserable then consequently—but that is similarly the same thing. Somebody wants your stuff. They steal your stuff. And then they tell you that that is something that makes you happy.

Steven Newcomb:
And the owners will own everything including you. This is similar with regard to Thomas Jefferson in this letter. He’s talking about, “When they withdraw themselves to the culture of a small piece of land, they will perceive how useless to them are their extensive forests and will be willing to pair them off from time to time in exchange for necessaries, for their farms and families. To promote this disposition to exchange lands, which they have to spare, and we want, for necessaries, which we have to spare and they want, we shall push our trading houses and be glad to see the good and influential individuals among them run in debt, because we observe that when these debts get beyond what the individuals can pay, they become willing to lop them off by a cession of lands.” So think about that. This is an extraordinary letter because it’s revealing that these are devious efforts on their part to intentionally create debt for people, and then use that debt as a means of manipulating them to give up their lands and to give up their forests and so forth so that the owners can obtain those things.

And yet it’s being done for their benefit. There’s a later part in the letter after he talks about “the termination of their history most happy for themselves”—what people in existence would think that it’s happy for them to no longer exist?—“but, in the whole course of this, it is essential to cultivate their love.”

So they’re doing all these things, but they’re going to cultivate the love. So under the guise or disguise of a loving relationship, a beneficial relationship, they’re going to do all these things to bring the existence of distinct Nations and Peoples to an end. And then say they did it all on the basis of love. But they get the stuff. That’s the real point.

Tessa Lena:
That is extraordinary. And seemingly the same tricks are still being in great use today, even with debt—

Steven Newcomb:
Oh, absolutely.

Tessa Lena:
—with cultivating law—I mean with debt, even the financial side of the proverbial Great Reset is—and there’s a lot more to that—but one of the aspects of it is putting people on UBI [Universal Basic Income] and making them dependent on whatever the state, or the corporations owning the state, decide is good for the people or good for the corporate pockets disguised as good for the people. And if people are in debt and on UBI, there’s not much margin they have as far as their choices. And that is desirable and that is sold as “happiness.” You have more free time, you’ll be happy.

But the love is the most explosive part of it because this is abuse. The word abuse doesn’t even start describing that. It is just phenomenally twisted, phenomenally. It’s like, I don’t know, covering a child’s face for the child’s good, right? I mean, like that’s love. And that’s, what’s boiling my brain today as far as linguistic distortion, where all the things are upside down. Compassion is being rebranded as—essentially abusive things are compassion. Abusive things are love. Abusive things are being good for the community. And that is an ancient art. I mean that letter is really something.

Steven Newcomb:
Yes. And that’s one letter out of this thick book. I mean, this is just letter after document after document after document of US Indian Policy makers. If I were to take you through a bit of this, you’d be amazed at the horrible way in which these people had the ability to think these long range plans of the future and how many people we’re talking about, just a few were never within—I mean, these days you have many thousands of people in government. But back then you had quite a few people in government.

But the key people in these positions of the most elite offices and so forth, they wrote long documents that detailed exactly what they were going to do in an effort to destroy our languages, that had been existing for thousands of years. That carried the knowledge and wisdom and traditions of our peoples, and just destroy them with no regard to what they were destroying. The repository of all that information contained in those languages and the moral structure, the values, the understandings of reality, no regard for that whatsoever.

And all of it being pretty much done on the basis of Christianity. They say that very clearly that they’re going to do this with the help of the churches and to bring about a population of native people who are simply patriotic to the United States, and the only kind of national identity they have will be a national identity of the United States, not their own Native Nations. This was being done to children at a very young age who had been torn away from their families, from their loved ones and so forth and put into these terrible institutions with no loved ones, no family with them. There might have been some siblings there, but the overall horrible nature of the treatment, the abuses on all levels of abuse were creating trauma, horrible trauma that has persisted over generations.

This is intentional policy of the United States. I think a lot of people would really get a great education and a lot of information by going back through these kinds of policies and realize that there is great reason to question the kinds of efforts of the United States to make people conform—or any state system for that matter—to conform to these grand plans that they have for us, because they know better, supposedly. I always think about that when I see what’s going on in the news.

The other thing I wanted to mention about the UBI or whatever it might be with regard to the future that they have laid out for us with their wild plans, is that if they control your currency in terms of, let’s say a digital currency—and that’s all you have access to, and you cannot buy or sell without the use of that digital currency, but then they can just cut that off whenever they want to, like the way they suppress viewpoints of various people that express information these days that the powers that be don’t believe should be heard by the masses—if they can just cut you off from any means of support, then what are you going to do? I think those are the kinds of oppressive totalitarian types of systems that we ought to be very concerned about.
(ends at 22:34)

Campaign To Reject The CBDCs
Understanding The World, by Christopher Nunn
The Central Banks are beginning to implement their CBDCs (central bank digital currencies.) To give authorisation of such an idea, is to completely reverse the relationship between the people and the central banks.
Our Governments and Central Banks are taking advantage of our collective economic ignorance. Please take some time to absorb the information I present here.
This is a starting point for everyone regardless of age, background or education status to understand what CBDCs really mean.
back to Steven Newcomb | many worlds | rat haus | Index | Search | tree