In this episode, Peter d’Errico interviews Steve Newcomb about a May 2026 Catholic bishops’ symposium on the Doctrine of Discovery in Edmonton, Alberta. Steve reflects on the event, the call to revoke Inter Caetera, and the danger of language that hides domination behind softer terms such as “discovery,” “renunciation,” and “reconciliation.”

Subscribe on YouTube

Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/dominationchronicles/exclusive-content

In this episode of Domination Chronicles, Steven T. Newcomb and Peter d’Errico explore why “domination” has become a slogan instead of a serious inquiry—and why language, law, history, and power must be carefully unpacked.

Subscribe on YouTube

Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/dominationchronicles/exclusive-content

In this episode, Steven T. Newcomb and Peter d’Errico return to one of the most repeated phrases in federal Indian law and public advocacy: “tribal sovereignty.” But what does the phrase actually mean within the legal framework of the United States?

Steve and Peter argue that “tribal sovereignty” is an oxymoron when it is defined by federal anti-Indian law as “limited sovereignty” or as sovereignty that the United States has not yet extinguished. Drawing on definitions of sovereignty from Jean Bodin and Sterling Edmonds, they explain that sovereignty means a claim of supreme and unlimited authority. If Native nations are said to be sovereign only to the extent that the United States permits, then the phrase no longer describes free and independent existence. It describes domination.

The conversation turns to Felix Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law, often treated as the “Bible” of federal Indian law, and examines how its framework converts original Native independence into a legal system of U.S. supremacy. Steve and Peter also discuss treaty rights, land claims, religious freedom, consultation, “federal lands,” and the danger of accepting the opponent’s premise.

The episode concludes with a discussion of the Pe’ Sla / Black Hills drilling controversy and how legal and environmental advocacy can unintentionally reproduce the very domination framework it seeks to resist.

Resources mentioned:

Felix Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law

Pe’ Sla drilling analysis

Complaint filed in the Pe’ Sla case

Subscribe on YouTube

Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/dominationchronicles/exclusive-content

Today we deep dive into the legal and philosophical foundations of the "federal Indian law trust doctrine." We argue that the term "trust" is a euphemism for a relationship of domination rather than a protective legal obligation.

Subscribe on YouTube

Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/dominationchronicles/exclusive-content

A deep conversation between hosts Steven Newcomb and Peter d'Errico and guest Loretta Afraid of Bear-Cook, about the preservation of Oglala Lakota traditions, the power of indigenous language, and the resistance against systems of domination and modern convenience.

Subscribe on YouTube

Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/dominationchronicles/exclusive-content

Attorney Mark Savage joins us in this episode for a provocative discussion of the US claim of “plenary power” over Native nations and peoples. In the early 1990’s (!), Mark authored two seminal law review articles showing that the doctrine of “plenary power” has no basis in the US Constitution. In November 2025, in a dramatic move at the Supreme Court, two justices took the same stance!

Subscribe on YouTube

Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/dominationchronicles/exclusive-content

Historian and lawyer Bruce McIvor joins us in this episode for a deep dive into how Canada’s colonizing legal system continues to attack First Nations with laws and policies dressed up in the

latest costume of “reconciliation”. Bruce is a member of the Manitoba Métis Federation, descended from the Red River Métis. His law firm, First Peoples Law, represents Indigenous Peoples across the continent.

Subscribe on YouTube

Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/dominationchronicles/exclusive-content

In this powerful episode, hosts Steve Newcomb and Peter d’Errico dissect a February 2, 2026, The Economist article titled "The Indian Removal Act, Unchecked Expansionism, and Disregard for the Rule of Law." They expose how the author misuses an 1832 Muskogee Creek Nation memorial – a protest against settler invasion – to draw parallels to modern US immigration policy.

The discussion delves into the disingenuous framing, exploring how the term "rule of law" was weaponized historically and remains a tool for domination. Key themes include renaming settlers accurately, understanding the legal system's role in colonialism, and recognizing the philosophy of domination that underpins the "Empire of Liberty."

Subscribe on YouTube

Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/dominationchronicles/exclusive-content

Episode 15, “STOLEN LAND”: The Danger and Limitation of Performative Speech, begins with the Grammys uproar after Billie Eilish said, “no one is illegal on stolen land,” and the fast backlash that followed. Peter P. d’Errico and Steven Newcomb argue that much of the public fight is performative speech: words that signal virtue or expertise while blocking real inquiry. They dig into the deeper structure beneath the sound and fury—how U.S. concepts of “property,” “theft,” and “title” grow out of a claimed right of domination. The conversation turns to Johnson v. McIntosh (1823) and the “extravagant pretension” that Christian “discovery” created superior legal rights over Indigenous lands. Steven traces “government” and “dominion” through Latin roots linked to domination, showing how legal language can hide coercion. The episode challenges listeners to move past gestures and confront the framework itself.

Subscribe on YouTube

Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/dominationchronicles/exclusive-content

Russell Diabo and our hosts examine Canada’s “reconciliation” agenda, exposing domination, fiscal dependency, and ongoing struggles for Indigenous self-government.

Subscribe on YouTube

Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/dominationchronicles/exclusive-content

A concise exploration of key terms that reveal how words like civilization, sovereignty, and empire encode patterns of domination and power in law and history.

Subscribe on YouTube

Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/dominationchronicles/exclusive-content

Newcomb and d’Errico examine the Federal Indian Boarding School Report, its apology, assimilation policies, dispossession, and ongoing domination today.

Subscribe on YouTube

Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/dominationchronicles/exclusive-content

Domination Chronicles opens the new year with a wide-ranging conversation that sets the direction for months ahead. We explore free existence and domination through close attention to words, meanings, and entangled histories. Drawing on legal documents, technology debates, and long-standing narratives of sympathy and apology, the podcast invites careful reading and sustained reflection. Future episodes will include guest voices and focused discussions of cases, texts, and emerging tools—always with the aim of understanding life beyond inherited frames.

Subscribe on YouTube

Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/dominationchronicles/exclusive-content

In this episode of Domination Chronicles, our hosts Steven T. Newcomb and Peter d'Errico commemorate seventy years of Tee-Hit-Ton v. United States. Our hosts reflect on seventy years of Tee-hit-ton to expose how U.S. law has been used to legitimize domination—both domestically and globally. They trace how the 1955 decision reaffirmed the 1823 ruling in Johnson v. McIntosh, which asserted a U.S. “right of domination” over Indigenous lands through the doctrine of Christian discovery. By quietly deleting the word “Christian,” the Court in Tee-Hit-Ton sanitized this religious foundation for a modern legal audience, making it easier for later courts—including a 2005 opinion by Ruth Bader Ginsburg—to rely on Johnson without confronting its theological roots.

Newcomb and d'Errico then place Tee-Hit-Ton alongside Brown v. Board of Education (1954). At first glance, Brown, which repudiated “separate but equal,” appears to move against racial domination. But we explore how both cases, in different ways, served U.S. Cold War ambitions and a broader project of global control—over people, land, and resources such as the timber taken from Tlingit territory.

Drawing on cases, commentary, and human rights documents, this episode reveals how legal “progress” and legal repression can advance the same imperial trajectory.

Subscribe on YouTube

Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/dominationchronicles/exclusive-content

Our springboard is the 2020 Supreme Court decision, McGirt v. Oklahoma, that upheld US criminal law jurisdiction over “major crimes” in “Indian country” (via the 1885 Major Crimes Act, an act based on the claim of a right of domination by the US over the Original Nations).

We focus on the way the US claim of “a right of domination” under federal anti-Indian law is both visible and invisible in the majority opinion (authored by Justice Gorsuch).

Subscribe on YouTube

Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/dominationchronicles/exclusive-content

The Domination Chronicles explores how everyday language hides systems of power. In this episode, Steven T. Newcomb and Peter d’Errico unpack the words we use—state, sovereignty, civilization, landlord—and show how they mask a “claim of a right of domination” embedded in U.S. law and Western thought. Drawing on decades of research, they trace how naming, translation, and legal rhetoric normalize domination while obscuring original free existence. Their dialogue invites listeners to pause, look again at familiar terms, and consider what it means to step outside the worldview that produced them.

Subscribe on YouTube

Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/dominationchronicles/exclusive-content

In this episode, Steven T. Newcomb and Peter d’Errico explore how quantum physics offers a fresh way to understand the idea of free existence. Drawing on the insights of physicist Federico Faggin and philosopher Hans Busstra, they examine how concepts like indeterminacy and entanglement challenge the rigid, mechanical worldview that shaped the domination system brought from Christendom to Turtle Island.

The conversation traces how colonial powers misread Indigenous Peoples’ non-dominational ways of life, how federal anti-Indian law grew from that mindset, and how domination shaped everyday concepts such as time, space, matter, and number. By contrasting quantum openness with imposed structures like time zones, they highlight what was lost—and what remains possible—when Indigenous free existence is recognized on its own terms.

This episode invites listeners to rethink existence itself and to see how new stories can open pathways beyond domination.

Topics include:

• Quantum theory and the meaning of free existence
• How colonizers misunderstood Indigenous relational life
• Time zones and the mechanics of domination
• Space, time, matter, number as tools of control
• Why federal anti-Indian law is a continuation of civilization’s story
• How Indigenous Peoples respond rather than submit to imposed narratives

Learn more at dominationchronicles.com where you can view show notes and download a transcript. Don't forget to like and subscribe to our podcast on youtube.

Subscribe on YouTube

Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/dominationchronicles/exclusive-content

A dramatic Dissent by Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch and Thomas Opens a Path to Tectonic Changes in US Law. 

Episode 6 marks a turning point in the long debate over federal domination of Native Nations. Steven T. Newcomb and Peter d'Errico walk through a recent Supreme Court dissent from Justices Thomas and Gorsuch that challenges the very foundation of plenary power---the claim that Congress holds total authority over Native Peoples. This power has shaped U.S. Indian law since the nineteenth century and rests on old racial assumptions and the so-called Doctrine of Discovery.

The conversation moves from the details of the domestic-violence case that triggered the dissent to the larger architecture of domination. The Court refused to hear the case, but the dissent calls for what it names "a day of reckoning." It questions the legal logic behind Kagama, the Major Crimes Act, and the trust doctrine itself. The episode shows how narrow legal disputes open up deeper questions about sovereignty, free existence, and the long reach of Christian imperial ideas embedded in U.S. law.

Newcomb and d'Errico also note the silence of the federal Indian law establishment. While legal communities in places like Guam reacted quickly, major Native-focused law organizations have not. The episode invites listeners to think past "settled law" and ask harder questions: What does freedom look like outside structures of domination? And what happens when even the Supreme Court begins to see the cracks?

Learn more at dominationchronicles.com where you can view show notes and download a transcript. Don't forget to like and subscribe to our podcast on youtube.

Subscribe on YouTube

Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/dominationchronicles/exclusive-content

The confluence of a 1975 article by Vine Deloria, Jr., and a 2025 law review article sparks a conversation about what's roiling our minds at the moment.

In 1975, Vine Deloria, Jr., wrote an article in Akwesasne Notes pondering “the future of Indians”. In 2025, fifty years later, a law review article proposed that “tribes” should have powers of “eminent domain” to “take” land for “public use”.

Steve and I discuss the strange and startling implications arising from originally free peoples turning toward the domination system that attacks their free existence.

Does it mean that the “boarding schools” were successful? That Henry Pratt succeeded in “killing the Indian and saving the man”?

Learn more at dominationchronicles.com where you can view show notes and download a transcript. Don't forget to like and subscribe to our podcast on youtube.

Subscribe on YouTube

Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/dominationchronicles/exclusive-content

In this episode, Steve Newcomb and Peter d'Errico dissect a recent concurring opinion from the Washington State Supreme Court that denounces the racist language in foundational federal Indian law cases while leaving the core doctrines of domination untouched. Using the FLYING T RANCH v. STILLAGUAMISH TRIBE decision as their entry point, they expose a crucial distinction: cleaning up offensive rhetoric does nothing to dismantle the legal architecture that continues to deny Indigenous sovereignty and legitimize settler control over Native lands. Steve and Peter demonstrate how well-meaning critiques of racist language can actually obscure the persistence of domination by allowing courts to appear enlightened while perpetuating the same colonial doctrines—now dressed in sanitized prose. The conversation challenges listeners to see through the emperor's new clothes: redacting slurs doesn't erase the extravagant pretension that Euro-American law has legitimate authority over peoples who never surrendered their freedom and independence. 

Learn more at dominationchronicles.com where you can view show notes and download a transcript. Don't forget to like and subscribe to our podcast on youtube.

Subscribe on YouTube

Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/dominationchronicles/exclusive-content