“Joel Richar Paul wrote that at the time Marshal wrote the Johnson opinion, the phrase, “extravagant pretense” was in common usage in America and Britain to describe any false idea worthy of debunking.” Federal Anti-Indian Law by Peter d'Errico
Extravagant pretense is what Marshall admitted to while committing to precedent an acceptance of the same extravagant pretense of what Steven Schwartzberg calls "The Magic Christian Eyeballs Theory of Ownership of Property and People," on the basis of pure racism, which in turn originally developed as a defensive response to public critique of what Schwartzberg describes in his book, "Arguments over Genocide" and his video on the topic, as "horrifying violence."
So we have horrifying violence, justified in religious terms (papal bulls of the 15th century) followed by decent humanity critiquing it. Most humans aren't into genocide. They have to be forced, coerced or mind-played, using fear, desire or religious fervor into it - Then we have a justification of it using racism and concepts of assumed superiority that would nauseate most thoughtful, considerate, compassionate people of today. Then we have a Supreme Court chief justice who, according to d'Errico had land speculation interests that should have recused him from the case in the first place, establishing an opinion that is literally an opinion as in, having no basis in fact and being admitted to be absolute rubbish - extravagant pretense.
Not bad, not bad. I think we have some similar ideas.
<3
“Joel Richar Paul wrote that at the time Marshal wrote the Johnson opinion, the phrase, “extravagant pretense” was in common usage in America and Britain to describe any false idea worthy of debunking.” Federal Anti-Indian Law by Peter d'Errico
Extravagant pretense is what Marshall admitted to while committing to precedent an acceptance of the same extravagant pretense of what Steven Schwartzberg calls "The Magic Christian Eyeballs Theory of Ownership of Property and People," on the basis of pure racism, which in turn originally developed as a defensive response to public critique of what Schwartzberg describes in his book, "Arguments over Genocide" and his video on the topic, as "horrifying violence."
So we have horrifying violence, justified in religious terms (papal bulls of the 15th century) followed by decent humanity critiquing it. Most humans aren't into genocide. They have to be forced, coerced or mind-played, using fear, desire or religious fervor into it - Then we have a justification of it using racism and concepts of assumed superiority that would nauseate most thoughtful, considerate, compassionate people of today. Then we have a Supreme Court chief justice who, according to d'Errico had land speculation interests that should have recused him from the case in the first place, establishing an opinion that is literally an opinion as in, having no basis in fact and being admitted to be absolute rubbish - extravagant pretense.