Is the United States a Nation?

Obscure Case Law Raises Some Fundamental Questions

Badlands Media will always put out our content for free, but you can support us by becoming a paid subscriber to this newsletter. Help our collective of citizen journalists take back the narrative from the MSM. We are the news now.

---

No matter where in the world you grew up—no matter what culture you belong to—you were taught lies about America from the moment you were born. These lies have run the gamut from subtle to blatant; in every case, the aim is the same: to rob and, indeed, enslave the people of the entire world.

No doubt, that’s a bold claim to make, but it’s nonetheless true.

America is extremely important. There’s a reason why the cabal decided to capture the American military as their own; there’s a reason why the cabal decided to turn America into the world’s biggest economic superpower after WWII; and there’s a reason why Q told us that if America falls, then the world will fall.

Anthony Napoleon, in his masterwork Shadow Men: an Encyclopedia of Mind Control dedicates an entire 91-page chapter solely to demonstrate the extraordinary vision and circumstances that gave birth to America centuries ago—it’s not merely a stereotype to call America “the land of the free”, for few countries have presented as big of a problem for mankind’s would-be masters as America did in her early years.

Unfortunately, evidence suggests that we were never fully emancipated from Britain. It may be the case that we’ve never seen the true American Dream come to life. Maybe we will be the ones to make that happen?

In any event, I’ve pointed out numerous contradictions between the truths of law and history (as best I can discern them) vs. many false narratives concocted by propagandists, and today’s article will continue along those lines.

When a unified front of propagandists all march in lockstep, repeating the same lies over and over again, I call this operation the organized murder of the truth. But unlike with physical murder, the truth can be brought back to life—all it takes is for men and women to go out of their way to learn truth as best they can, and then speak it to others. It’s not necessary for us to “get everything right”—but it IS necessary for us to do the best we can on a day-by-day basis.

With that in mind, we need to talk for a bit about language itself in order to properly frame some startling quotes I found about our legal system that come straight from the mouths of American judges.

Two Basic Kinds of Language

According to modern language theory, language comes in 2 fundamentally different forms, being natural and formal languages. These two forms serve fundamentally different purposes, both of which are extremely important to the functioning of our society.

A natural language is a “conventional” language that arises “naturally” amongst people as they communicate with each other. In a natural language, words/symbols/phrases can have multiple meanings depending on context, convention, connotation, etc; sometimes, words/symbols/phrases can even take on contradictory meanings.

At the highest level, social engineers are indeed intentionally scrambling our natural languages to produce confusion and suffering in the masses.

Here's a famous example of a phrase that was put into the popular lexicon by social engineers in order to confuse people: Black Lives Matter. Sadly, that phrase no longer simply refers to the idea that the lives of Black people have intrinsic value—now it’s become synonymous with social justice activism. Consequently, if someone were to say that they “don’t support Black Lives Matter,” it could at least be theoretically interpreted in two ways—either they literally don’t think that Black lives have intrinsic value OR they don’t agree with the social justice activism that takes place under the “BLM” banner. I guarantee you that this was set up that way on purpose.

Natural languages are important for us on a psychological level. Without them we’d have no poetry—but slippery, poetic language simply won’t suffice in all contexts. There are times when it’s vital that words have a singular meaning to convey certain ideas and concepts with precision.

A formal language is a language wherein words/symbols only ever have one specific meaning. An example of a formal language would be computer code; if you wanted to “formalize” a language, what you’d do is disambiguate every single word/symbol within said language to the point where there can be zero ambiguity regarding the meaning of words/symbols. Doing so essentially converts the natural, source-language into a formalized, derivative language.

In medical, engineering, and legal contexts, it’s essential that we formalize language to the highest degree possible—simply because these situations require a more reliably-exact transmission of meaning than “everyday” contexts. Natural languages are “easier” on the brain, and we’ be completely stunted in our communication if we had to communicate purely in unambiguous formalisms. Justice, however, requires we go the extra length to speak in unambiguous formalisms when determining whether someone has broken a law or not.

If the meanings of words in a courtroom were to change with the directions of the wind, it would render the courts altogether useless. This is why getting our terminology correct is the KEY to figuring out, truly, what’s going on in the legal realm—which, in turn, is a vital key to figuring out what’s really going on in the world.

Now, let us disambiguate some important words and, in the process, discover that something is VERY amiss with regard to the way that history and law are taught throughout the Western world.

Without further ado …

What is a Nation? Is Massachusetts a Nation?

You probably think that “the United States of America” is a nation, right? Well, it turns out that there are conflicting ideas out there about that …

According to the U.S. Supreme Court stated in The Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia, 30 U.S. 1; 8 L.Ed. 25 (1831,) we’re told: “[T]he terms “state” and “nation” are used in the law of nations, as well as in common parlance, as importing the same thing;...”

Indeed, one often hears about “nation-states” as though they were some kind of hybrid entity—a “state” and a “nation” rolled into one and the same entity. But if these two words refer to the same basic concept, then that would be redundant, wouldn’t it? One might as well refer to their pet cat as “feline-cat”.

Indeed, we have plenty further evidence of this equivalence between the concepts of “state” and “nation” coming directly from the legal profession itself.

Dr Gerald Brown wrote a fascinating paper entitled Cooperative Federalism, wherein we read,

The Declaration of Independence does not portend to create a single nation. If it did, its name should be “The State of New Britain”, or “The State of America”, or “The State of The New World”, or any other name representing a single entity. But the proper name of our political arrangement is in the plural, not the singular. Also, the Declaration of Independence did not create a name for this alliance of American states. That came two years later with the Articles of Confederation. At the time of the Declaration, these American states were united in purpose and action to be free and independent of British rule first perhaps, but free and independent of each other as well.

By referring to Great Britain as a state, this paragraph tells us that the Founding Fathers understood a state to have the same status as any nation on the world scene. (Emphasis mine)

The logic of this is impeccable. How can it possibly be the case that the colonies and Great Britain have different status when the same exact word is used to describe them both? Sure, in your average natural language, we could easily see how such words could be used interchangeably, but since ‘legalese’ is a highly formalized language, we need to pay attention to these distinctions. They matter.

When You Combine Different Nations Together, What do you Get?

If the United States were a nation, then that would make it a nation of nations. But this is not what the constitution tells us in its preamble—in fact, it says quite plainly that the purpose of federalizing the nation/state/colonies was to form a more perfect union. Nowhere does it say anything about forming a new nation out of all the independent states in America.

A union is what you get when sovereign nation-states decide to delegate certain powers to a central authority whose action, legally, ought never extend beyond its enumerated powers.

The bottom line is that if you live in America, you live in a nation that has outsourced a small portion of its authority to the union. The “national” character of the individual states is evidenced further by the legal definition (per Black’s Law Dictionary) of Congress as recently as 1951.

On page 373, 4^th Edition of Blacks’ Law Dictionary, we read:

“CONGRESS. In International Law. An assembly of envoys, commissioners, deputies, etc., from different sovereignties who meet to concert measures for their common good, or to adjust their mutual concerns.

But that’s not all. We have further case law to back up our assertion that the states are, in fact, nations, and that the “nation” known as the United States is decidedly NOT a nation unto itself.

In Chisholm. Ex’r v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 1 L.Ed. 440 (1794,) we read:

“The question to be determined is, whether this State, so respectable, and whose claim soars so high, is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States? This question, important in itself, will depend on others, more important still; and may perhaps, be ultimately resolved into one, no less radical than this- “do the people of the United States form a NATION?... By that law the several States and Governments spread over our globe, are considered as forming a society, not a NATION.”

In People ex rel. Attry. Gen. v. Naglee, 1 Cal. 234 (1850,) we read that:

“[E]ach state possesses all the powers of an independent and sovereign nation, except so far as they have been ceded away by the constitution. The federal government is but the creature of the people of the states, and, like an agent appointed for definite and specific purposes, must show an express or necessarily implied authority in the charter of its appointment to give validity to its acts.”

And lastly, Black’s Law Dictionary, Revised 4th Edition, from 1968, has the following to say about nations on page 1176:

“A national government is a government of the people of a single state or nation, united as a community by what is termed the “social compact,” and possessing complete and perfect supremacy over persons and things, so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government. A federal government is distinguished from a national government, by its being the government of a community of independent and sovereign states, united by compact.”

Isn’t it nothing short of incredible how little we know about our own “government”?

Social engineers want to make sure people never figure out the true meaning of words, because that would mean the jig is up for them. The popular myth taught in school that the United States is a Democratic Nation is utterly false—but the reality is that we live in a completely different system than that.

But wait … things get even more confusing than that …

Different Forms of Law Require Different Words

It turns out that “public international law” and “private international law” treat the question of whether the states are “foreign” to each other entirely differently. In Robinson v. Norato (July 25, 1945) the Rhode Island Supreme Court had this to say about the matter:

“In the sense of public international law, the several states of the union are neither foreign to the United States nor are they foreign to each other. But such is not the case in the field of private international law...”

So what’s going on here? Why would things be different depending on whether or not you’re operating in the “private” or the “public”?

I ask the question sincerely. I have my hunches, but I’m unwilling to state them out loud just yet. More research and preparation is required—for now, readers are encouraged to discuss these matters in the comment section below, as the readership here tends to be very well informed and insightful. I have no doubt that there are many people reading out there who can pick up from where I left off and provide much insight as to why things are set up this way.

Conclusion

Many months ago, I promised many of you to continue doing deep dives on the law and topics related thereto. Research into these fields remain ongoing—stay tuned for more of these types of topics in the future.

For now, instead of coming to a hasty, ill-considered conclusion to any of the above, I’d like instead to make a very general point about why this type of research is, I believe, vital for Digital Soldiers.

Remember what we said about natural and formal languages? Both serve different, necessary functions in our lives. Though ‘legalese’, technically speaking, is a natural language, it is “formalized” to the point where it essentially counts as a quasi-formal language unto itself. Definitions of words must be exacting in a courtroom (or any other legal) setting, otherwise it becomes impossible to govern in a sane or reliable way.

Consider this metaphor: if the cells in your body could not communicate with each other properly, then your body would break down and you’d perish. The same principle applies at the societal level. Restoring America to greatness is very much like treating a patient with a dire illness—if you want to cure the patient, you must first correctly diagnose what ails the patient.

The good news is, the more of us learn how to correctly diagnose the situation for what it is, the more quickly we may apply a viable cure.

American Hypnotist, signing off for now…

Badlands Media articles and features represent the opinions of the contributing authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Badlands Media itself.

---

If you enjoyed this contribution to Badlands Media, please consider checking out more of my work for free at American Hypnotist.