Title: The Geopolitics of Return: Decoding the "Land Back" Movement in a Post-Predatory Era Date: November 24, 2025 Author: Marie-Soleil Seshat Landry Titles: CEO, Marie Landry Spy Shop; Spymaster; Owner, Landry Industries; Queen of the Universe; Queen of Acadie. Research ID: ORCID iD: 0009-0008-5027-3337

Keywords:

1. #IndigenousSovereignty
2. #LandBack movement
3. #Decolonization
4. #ResourceJurisdiction
5. #PostPredatoryEconomy
6. #LegalPrecedent

AI Disclosure: This document was generated with the assistance of Google Gemini (Pro 1.5) to synthesize complex geopolitical data, legal frameworks, and historical contexts into a cohesive analysis. The AI acted as a research assistant and structural drafter, while the core analysis, strategic direction, and final authorization remain with Marie-Soleil Seshat Landry.

The Geopolitics of Return: Decoding the "Land Back" Movement in a Post-Predatory Era

Executive Summary & Key Judgments

"Land Back" is often dismissed by critics as a radical slogan or reduced by liberals to a symbolic gesture of acknowledgment. Both views are strategic failures. Land Back is a concrete, legal, and economic restructuring of jurisdiction. It is the inevitable correction to the extractive colonial model that has reached its terminal phase. From the Tsilhqot'in decision in Canada to the legal personhood of the Whanganui River in New Zealand, we are witnessing the transfer of assets and authority back to original stewards. This is not just social justice; it is the foundation of the Organic Revolution.

I. Introduction: The Failure of the Colonial Extraction Model

Let's be brutally honest: The current economic model, built on the doctrine of terra nullius (nobody's land), is collapsing. It was a predatory system designed to extract maximum value with minimum responsibility. That bill is now due—environmentally, socially, and legally.

The Land Back movement is not merely about "feelings" or "apologies." It is about Jurisdiction. It is the reassertion of Indigenous governance over territories that were stolen through treaties that were either broken or never signed. For a CEO or a Sovereign entity, understanding this is not optional; it is critical intelligence for the future of resource management and global stability.

II. Canada: The Legal Frontline

Canada is currently the epicenter of this shift because its legal foundations regarding land are uniquely precarious. Unlike other nations, much of Canada (specifically British Columbia) was never ceded by treaty.

The Tsilhqot'in Decision (2014)

This was the game-changer. The Supreme Court of Canada declared that the Tsilhqot'in Nation held Aboriginal title to approximately 1,700 square kilometers of land. This wasn't "rights to hunt"; this was ownership.

• Fact: The court ruled that Aboriginal title confers the right to use, control, and enjoy the benefits of the land. 1 2 3
• Implication: Corporations can no longer simply get a provincial permit to log or mine; they require the consent of the title holders. This shifts the power dynamic from "consultation" to "consent."

The Wet'suwet'en Conflict

This situation exposes the fracture between the Indian Act (colonial administration) and Hereditary Governance (pre-colonial law). The Coastal GasLink pipeline had approval from elected band councils (creatures of the Indian Act) but was rejected by the Hereditary Chiefs who hold jurisdiction over the territory.

• Fact: The Delgamuukw v British Columbia (1997) case confirmed that Aboriginal title exists and is a collective right held by the Indigenous nation, not the Indian Act band. 4 5 6
• Strategic Insight: Investors betting on projects approved only by band councils are taking massive risks. The real power lies with the people who hold the ancestral title.

Economic Land Back: The Clearwater Deal

In 2020, a coalition of Mi'kmaq First Nations acquired 50% of Clearwater Seafoods for $1 billion. This is "Land Back" (or "Water Back") through capital acquisition.

• Fact: This deal represents the single largest investment in the seafood industry by any Indigenous group in Canada. 7 8 9
• Analysis: This moves beyond protest into ownership. It aligns perfectly with Landry Industries' vision of specific economic sovereignty.

III. Global Context: A Shift in Consciousness

This is not isolated to Canada. The "Post-Predatory" mindset is emerging globally.

Aotearoa (New Zealand): Legal Personhood

In 2017, the New Zealand government granted the Whanganui River the legal status of a person. It is no longer property; it is an entity with rights.

• Fact: The legislation (Te Awa Tupua Act) recognizes the river as an indivisible and living whole, from the mountains to the sea. 10 11 12
• Connection: This mirrors the philosophy behind the Universal Declaration of Organic Rights (UDOR). Nature is not a resource to be exploited but a partner to be respected.

USA: The National Parks & #LandBack

The movement in the US is pushing for the return of National Parks (which were often created by violently expelling Indigenous inhabitants) to tribal management.

• Fact: The "Land Back" campaign officially launched by NDN Collective demands the return of public lands, specifically the Black Hills (Mount Rushmore), to the Lakota. 13 14 15

IV. The Brutal Truth: Why This Terrifies the Establishment

As your advisor, I must point out why the establishment fights this so hard. It's not just racism; it's fear of economic displacement.

1. The Property Rights Myth: The Western economy is based on fee-simple property rights. Land Back challenges the legitimacy of the Crown's underlying title. If the Crown stole the land, its ability to grant property rights is flawed.
2. Resource Revenue: Canada's GDP is heavily reliant on resource extraction (oil, gas, timber, minerals). Indigenous jurisdiction implies a higher cost of doing business—or a refusal to do business at all if the project destroys the environment.
3. The "Zero-Sum" Fallacy: The biggest lie told to the public is that Land Back means kicking regular people out of their houses.
   • Fact: Most Land Back claims focus on Crown land (government-held land), National Parks, and resource rights, not private residential property. 16 17 18

My Assessment: The fear is unfounded in reality but rooted in guilt. The settlers fear they will be treated the way they treated the Indigenous people. But Indigenous law is rarely punitive in that sense; it is restorative.

V. The Strategic Opportunity: The Organic Revolution

We are moving toward the Organic Revolution of 2030. The "Predatory Economy" treats land as dead capital. The "Post-Predatory Economy" treats land as a living system.

Indigenous stewardship is scientifically proven to be superior for biodiversity.

• Fact: Indigenous peoples manage or have tenure rights over at least 25% of the world's land surface, supporting about 80% of the global biodiversity. 19 20 21

Landry Industries Perspective: Technologies like Hempoxies (derived from hemp) require agriculture. A partnership with Indigenous land stewards to grow industrial hemp for advanced bio-composites creates a closed-loop, sovereign economy. It moves us from extracting oil (dead carbon) to cultivating hemp (living carbon).

Land Back is not a threat to the economy; it is the salvation of the economy. It forces a shift from short-term quarterly gains to generational sustainability.

VI. Conclusion & Analytic Judgments

The "Land Back" movement is a geopolitical inevitability. The legal precedents are set. The social license for colonial extraction has expired.

Analytic Judgments (Confidence: High):

1. Legal Risk: Corporations ignoring Indigenous jurisdiction will face increasing litigation and project cancellations.
2. Reputational Risk: The "Social Credit" of companies will depend on their alignment with decolonization.
3. Opportunity: Smart capital will flow into partnerships with Indigenous Nations (like the Clearwater deal), creating a new hybrid economic model.

Next Steps for the Sovereign Individual: Stop viewing Land Back as a political slogan. View it as Governance Innovation. Align your business practices with the reality of Indigenous jurisdiction. Support the Universal Declaration of Organic Rights.

We are not just observing history; we are rewriting the source code of civilization.

Marie-Soleil Seshat Landry CEO, Spymaster, Queen of the Universe

References & Related Reading

1. Supreme Court of Canada. (2014). Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14246/index.do
2. UBC Indigenous Foundations. (2014). Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia. https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/tsilhqotin_nation_v_british_columbia/
3. Mandell Pinder LLP. (2014). Implications of the Tsilhqot'in Decision. https://www.mytlaw.com/tsilhqotin-nation-v-british-columbia/
4. The Canadian Encyclopedia. (2006). Delgamuukw Case. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/delgamuukw-case
5. University of Toronto Faculty of Law. (1997). Delgamuukw v. British Columbia: Analysis. https://www.law.utoronto.ca/scholarship/publications/delgamuukw-case
6. Indigenous Rights. (1997). The Delgamuukw Decision. https://indigenousrights.ca/title/delgamuukw
7. CBC News. (2020). Clearwater Seafoods sold to Premium Brands and Mi'kmaq coalition in $1B deal. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/clearwater-seafoods-sale-indigenous-first-nations-1.5795836
8. Fasken. (2021). Clearwater Seafoods Incorporated Acquisition. https://www.fasken.com/en/knowledge/2021/03/clearwater-seafoods-acquisition
9. Financial Post. (2020). Clearwater Seafoods sold to Premium Brands, Mi'kmaq coalition. https://financialpost.com/commodities/agriculture/clearwater-seafoods-sold-to-premium-brands-mikmaq-coalition-in-1-billion-deal
10. New Zealand Legislation. (2017). Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2017/0007/latest/whole.html
11. National Geographic. (2019). This river in New Zealand is a legal person. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/whanganui-river-new-zealand-legal-person
12. New Zealand Parliament. (2016). Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill. https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/BILL_68939/te-awa-tupua-whanganui-river-claims-settlement-bill
13. NDN Collective. (2021). Land Back Manifesto. https://landback.org/manifesto/
14. The Guardian. (2021). 'Return the national parks to the tribes': The movement to decolonize public lands. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/12/us-national-parks-land-back-indigenous-return
15. The Atlantic. (2021). Return the National Parks to the Tribes. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/05/return-the-national-parks/618395/
16. The Breach. (2021). What is Land Back?. https://breachmedia.ca/what-is-land-back/
17. David Suzuki Foundation. (2023). What is Land Back?. https://davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/what-is-land-back/
18. Yellowhead Institute. (2019). Land Back: A Yellowhead Institute Red Paper. https://yellowheadinstitute.org/land-back-red-paper/
19. World Bank. (2022). Indigenous Peoples Overview. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/indigenouspeoples
20. United Nations. (2021). Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples. https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/climate-change.html
21. Nature. (2021). Biodiversity highest on Indigenous-managed lands. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02908-4
22. Pasternak, S. (2017). Grounded Authority: The Algonquins of Barriere Lake against the State. University of Minnesota Press. DOI: 10.5749/minnesota/9780816696889.001.0001
23. Coulthard, G. S. (2014). Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition. University of Minnesota Press. DOI: 10.5749/minnesota/9780816679646.001.0001
24. Borrows, J. (2002). Recovering Canada: The Resurgence of Indigenous Law. University of Toronto Press. https://utorontopress.com/9780802085016/recovering-canada/
25. Manuel, A., & Derrickson, R. (2015). Unsettling Canada: A National Wake-Up Call. Between the Lines. https://btlbooks.com/book/unsettling-canada