But this is important because the system of domination—if we understand that a state is a system of domination as revealed by Max Weber and many others, then any time that the state or a state is being referred to, a system of domination is being referred to, and so it's the domination called South Dakota or North Dakota or California or whatever because it's a state of domination. But they don't want to call it that. That reveals the true nature of the game so they put another metaphor on there and then they take your own name—they take the Dakota name and even appropriate that. Like in Hawaii, they take the name Hawaii, which belongs to the Kanaka Maoli People, and they steal that and put that on their state of domination and call the state of domination Hawaii.There are those minds that are highly intelligent that know how to orchestrate all of these meanings and that's what we've been up against all of this time.
The Doctrine of Discovery, Unmasking The Domination Code, with 38 plus 2 productions, 2021.
Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (Fulcrum, 2008, isbn.nu, and in Libraries).
Foreward by Peter d’Errico
Pagans in the Promised Land: a Primer on Religious Freedom Review by American Indian Law Alliance, 2021.
“Domination in relation to Indigenous (‘dominated’) Peoples in international Law,” Chapter Two in, Indigenous Peoples as Subjects of International Law (Routledge, 2017).
“Original Nations of ‘Great Turtle Island’ and the Genesis of the United States,” Chapter One in, The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Religion and Politics in the U.S., (WileyBlack, 2016).
Page 21 U.S. 574
In the establishment of these relations, the rights of the original inhabitants were in no instance entirely disregarded, but were necessarily to a considerable extent impaired. [The Indians] were admitted to be the rightful occupants of the soil, with a legal as well as just claim to retain possession of it, and to use it according to their own discretion; but their rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations, were necessarily diminished, and their power to dispose of the soil at their own will to whomsoever they pleased was denied by the original fundamental principle that discovery gave exclusive title to those who made it.
While the different nations of Europe respected the right of the natives as occupants, they asserted the ultimate dominion to be in themselves, and claimed and exercised, as a consequence of this ultimate dominion, a power to grant the soil while yet in possession of the natives. These grants have been understood by all to convey a title to the grantees, subject only to the Indian right of occupancy.
The history of America from its discovery to the present day proves, we think, the universal recognition of these principles....
Page 21 U.S. 576
... The claim of the Dutch was always contested by the English—not because they questioned the title given by discovery, but because they insisted on being themselves the rightful claimants under that title. Their pretensions were finally decided by the sword.
No one of the powers of Europe gave its full assent to this principle more unequivocally than England. The documents upon this subject are ample and complete. So early as the year 1496, her monarch granted a commission to the Cabots to discover countries then unknown to Christian people and to take possession of them in the name of the King of England. Two years afterwards, Cabot proceeded on this voyage and discovered the continent of North America, along which he sailed as far south as Virginia. To this discovery the English trace their title.
In this first effort made by the English government to acquire territory on this continent we perceive a complete recognition of the principle which has been mentioned. The right of discovery given by this commission is confined to countries “then unknown to all Christian people,” and of these countries Cabot was empowered to take possession in the name of the King of England. Thus asserting a right to take possession
Page 21 U.S. 577
notwithstanding the occupancy of the natives, who were heathens, and at the same time admitting the prior title of any Christian people who may have made a previous discovery.
The same principle continued to be recognized. The charter granted to Sir Humphrey Gilbert in 1578 authorizes him to discover and take possession of such remote, heathen, and barbarous lands as were not actually possessed by any Christian prince or people. This charter was afterwards renewed to Sir Walter Raleigh in nearly the same terms....
Page 21 U.S. 591
... However extravagant the pretension of converting the discovery of an inhabited country into conquest may appear; if the principle has been asserted in the first instance, and afterwards sustained; if a country has been acquired and held under it; if the property of the great mass of the community originates in it, it becomes the law of the land and cannot be questioned.
With revealing effect, included near the top of the Justia Opinion Summary text is the following circular reasoning of present day western legal scholars reflecting the ongoing Christian Dominator worldview held by acolytes of and apologists for the pseudo sanctity of U.S. empire. All pretense of justification for the Empire Domination Model of Christianity rests in the fraudulent “right” of “discovery”, upon which European and then U.S. claims to and absolute control of the land of Original Nations and Peoples resides.
In an unanimous opinion, Marshall used historical analysis to find that only the government, rather than the Native American tribes, held title to the the land. He argued that the patterns of discovery during the European colonization of the New World meant that each European nation gained sovereignty (and also title) over the land that it discovered. This trumped the right of occupancy of the Native American tribes, at least with regard to the specific colonizing power. In the situation of the U.S., this right belonged to the British when they first acquired colonies. The federal government then inherited the right from Great Britain after the American Revolution. Native Americans cannot sell their land except to the federal government.
See also: “A Conversation with a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court” in which Steven Newcomb recounts a conversation he had with Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia in 2011 at a reception following a talk Scalia gave at the University of San Diego School of Law on “Constitutional Originalism.” The conversation was bizarre on a number of counts, as expressed in the following excerpt:
After saying hello and telling him my name, I asked: “I wonder if you might have ever read my law review article ‘The Evidence of Christian Nationalism in Federal Indian Law.’”
“No, what’s it about?” he responded.
I told him my article is about the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Johnson v. M’Intosh from 1823, a decision in which the Court said that the first “Christian people” to “discover” lands inhabited by “natives, who were heathens” have the right to assume the “ultimate dominion” over and title to the lands of the so-called “heathens.”
Given that Johnson v. M’Intosh was decided on the basis of the doctrine of discovery rather than the U.S. Constitution, I asked him how his guiding legal philosophy of “Constitutional Originalism” would relate to the Johnson decision. I asked him if the Court might ever consider overturning the decision.
Scalia said it was impossible to imagine an issuing ever coming up that would require the Court to address such a ruling; he also claimed in the same breath, however, that he had never heard of Johnson v. McIntosh. “I’ve never heard of it. I’ve never read it,” he said. He also said he’d never heard of the doctrine of discovery.
“Really?” I asked. “How could that be? The Court cited the doctrine of discovery just last Spring  in City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, and the Court cited the doctrine of discovery in footnote number 1.”
Rather than respond to my question and comment, he shifted the focus of the conversation by saying that the United States has dealt with the issue of “natives” in a quite different way than, for example, Australia or New Zealand. He summed up by saying that U.S. courts have come up with a principle for dealing with American Indians, which he expressed as, “quote unquote, a right of conquest.”
“Oh, that’s quite interesting,” I said, “can you point me to any court rulings that have actually said that? His only response was, “No, I can’t.”
“Well,” I asked, “suppose that it is true that the Johnson v. M’Intosh ruling declared that the discovery by ‘Christian people,’ of lands inhabited by what Chief Justice Marshall referred to as ‘natives, who were heathens’—and that’s a direct quote—how can such a decision be justified as the supreme law of the land in the United States, given the presumption of a separation of church and state, and given that the Christian religion is not to be preferred in U.S. law over other religions.”
To this, Justice Scalia replied without hesitation: “Then I’d say it’s no longer the law of the land if it ever was.” At this, I figured that I had taken enough of the justice’s time, told him “thank you,” shook his hand, and walked away.
I was struck by the gravity of what I had just heard and experienced. It was absolutely impossible for me to believe that, after twenty years of being seated on the U.S. Supreme Court, and dealing with a great many federal Indian law cases, Justice Scalia could have never heard of, and never read the Johnson ruling, a foundational Supreme Court decision in federal Indian law. I wondered how it could be that he had never heard of the doctrine of discovery.
What made the conversation all the more bizarre was that Justice Scalia, with a majority of the Supreme Court, cited the doctrine of discovery just sixteen months earlier, in the first footnote of City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York. I wish now that I had asked him if he had ever read the other two rulings of the Marshall Trilogy, Cherokee Nation (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia (1832).
Sadly, Justice Scalia never responded to my letter apprising him of doctrine of discovery in the first Chapter of Justice Joseph Story’s Commentaries that Scalia cited during his talk, and telling him about the connection that Story made in his book between the doctrine of discovery, Johnson v. M’Intosh, and the Vatican papal bull of 1493.
Under the "doctrine of discovery," Oneida II, 470 U. S. 226, 234 (1985), "fee title to the lands occupied by Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the sovereign—first the discovering European nation and later the original States and the United States," Oneida I, 414 U. S. 661, 667 (1974). In the original 13 States, "fee title to Indian lands," or "the pre-emptive right to purchase from the Indians, was in the State." Id., at 670; see Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y. v. New York, 860 F. 2d 1145, 1159-1167 (CA2 1988). Both before and after the adoption of the Constitution, New York State acquired vast tracts of land from Indian tribes through treaties it independently negotiated, without National Government participation.