I certainly appreciate you positive feedback on making the "invisible" visible. I've written an entire book on the ideology of the Chosen-People/Promised Land Model. You are welcome to read it, or perhaps you already have. "Truth" is a tremendously ambiguous plastic word, and not being an actual person, "truth" does not "demand" anything. Now, if by that you mean that you demand the distinctions you are making in order to match your standard of "truth," I can certainly comprehend and understand why you might be making such a demand (command). The biblical passages that provide the framework for "Zion" and a "return" to "Zion," so far as I understand, begin with a "covenant" (treaty) between the deity and Abram, who through a naming ceremony becomes "Abraham" (father of many nations). The deity calls upon Abram to leave his father's house and accompany the deity to a land the deity has his eye on. "And the Canaanite was then in the land," says the story. "Unto thy seed [offspring and descendants] will I [the deity] give this land" wherein the Canaanites and other nations were already living.
As I note in my book Pagans in the Promised Land: "We might say that the story of the Lord's promise to the chosen people is the tale of a divine land grant, analogous to a papal bull and to various royal colonial charters that were issued by various Christian European monarchs during the Age of Discovery." "We might say . . . that this story of the Lord's land grant to the chosen people frames Abraham and the Hebrews as destined to be the subjugating masters or lords [dominators] of the land of Canaan." Elsewhere I write that "He" [the "Lord") "is depicted as being divine and as having a desire to extend his rule [domination] to the new land of Canaan by means of Abram[/Abraham] and his followers." I continue: "This suggests that the Lord had gone out ahead of Abram and the others and 'discovered' the Land of Canaan before he told Abram about it and directed Abram and his people to conquer and subdue the land the Lord has 'promised' them." I see no way around these aspects of the biblical narrative for those who wish to support and back the Chosen People/Promised Land model called "Zionism." And even if someone wanted to make the case that the people who trace their lineage to this narrative structure have a "right of return" to a land "wherein thou art a stranger" as the Old Testament states, which is a contradiction, how in the world is any of that correctly applied to the western hemisphere, and other areas of the planet where that narrative has been used to justify imposing patterns of domination and genocide on the original nations and peoples?
Thank you Mankh. I appreciate your numerical insight. LOL. According to some sources, the biblical interpretation of 9 is “divine completeness or finality.” So there you go. . .
Steve, your analysis is right on target. We must never overlook the eurochristian connection with their religion--whether christianity per se or their economic commitment to capital, which is equally a religious attachment it seems to me. And, needless to say, as an American Indian I am NOT a marxist in any way shape or form. That is just an alternative eurochristian world redemptive system that insists on its own notions of domination.
There are few writers who have given form to the invisible with such clarity. You have named what others intuited but could not describe. The architecture of law, the habits of thought that pass for neutral ground, the quiet violence of words like sovereignty, order, development. You have written not just with argument, but with remembrance. That matters.
You are right to say that conquest is not merely historical. It is structural. It lives in maps, in property deeds, in court rulings delivered in the name of peace. You are right to suspect every system that calls itself natural. And yes, to dominate is often to define.
Still, I cannot follow where your analysis takes you when it turns to Zionism.
You place it alongside the old machinery: the cross and the musket, the crown and the charter. But this is a category mistake. Zionism is not the echo of Christendom, nor is it a mirror of manifest destiny. It was not born from the will to rule, but from the absence of refuge.
Those who returned did not carry papal bulls. They did not come with muskets and maps. They came with the names of towns erased from atlases, with no graves for their dead, with languages half-forgotten and customs buried in ash. They were not the administrators of an empire. They were its survivors.
Yes, power must always be watched. No state is above criticism. But there is a difference between empire and return. Between those who arrive to dominate, and those who arrive because nowhere else would take them.
To mistake one for the other is not resistance. It is a kind of forgetting.
You have taught many to read the world more truthfully. That is why I write. Because truth demands distinctions. Even among the ruins.
Steve, thanks for showing how twisted the 'God hook' is with: "the ones forced to live under domination are opposing God’s will." And
since i sometimes consider them as a kind of franchise, "1,358 Catholic university campuses around the globe" got me to search how many McDonald's in the US, and "there are approximately 13,598"; fwiw, except for the "9", the same numbers. And the "zion/domination" connection helps explain Usrael.
Greetings Francisco,
I certainly appreciate you positive feedback on making the "invisible" visible. I've written an entire book on the ideology of the Chosen-People/Promised Land Model. You are welcome to read it, or perhaps you already have. "Truth" is a tremendously ambiguous plastic word, and not being an actual person, "truth" does not "demand" anything. Now, if by that you mean that you demand the distinctions you are making in order to match your standard of "truth," I can certainly comprehend and understand why you might be making such a demand (command). The biblical passages that provide the framework for "Zion" and a "return" to "Zion," so far as I understand, begin with a "covenant" (treaty) between the deity and Abram, who through a naming ceremony becomes "Abraham" (father of many nations). The deity calls upon Abram to leave his father's house and accompany the deity to a land the deity has his eye on. "And the Canaanite was then in the land," says the story. "Unto thy seed [offspring and descendants] will I [the deity] give this land" wherein the Canaanites and other nations were already living.
As I note in my book Pagans in the Promised Land: "We might say that the story of the Lord's promise to the chosen people is the tale of a divine land grant, analogous to a papal bull and to various royal colonial charters that were issued by various Christian European monarchs during the Age of Discovery." "We might say . . . that this story of the Lord's land grant to the chosen people frames Abraham and the Hebrews as destined to be the subjugating masters or lords [dominators] of the land of Canaan." Elsewhere I write that "He" [the "Lord") "is depicted as being divine and as having a desire to extend his rule [domination] to the new land of Canaan by means of Abram[/Abraham] and his followers." I continue: "This suggests that the Lord had gone out ahead of Abram and the others and 'discovered' the Land of Canaan before he told Abram about it and directed Abram and his people to conquer and subdue the land the Lord has 'promised' them." I see no way around these aspects of the biblical narrative for those who wish to support and back the Chosen People/Promised Land model called "Zionism." And even if someone wanted to make the case that the people who trace their lineage to this narrative structure have a "right of return" to a land "wherein thou art a stranger" as the Old Testament states, which is a contradiction, how in the world is any of that correctly applied to the western hemisphere, and other areas of the planet where that narrative has been used to justify imposing patterns of domination and genocide on the original nations and peoples?
Take care,
~sn~
Thanks Peter. I appreciate it.
Thanks Tink. This is most insightful and helpful.
Yes, I think you brought this to my attention previously. I have to order another copy. Thanks for the helpful reminder Laurent.
Thank you Mankh. I appreciate your numerical insight. LOL. According to some sources, the biblical interpretation of 9 is “divine completeness or finality.” So there you go. . .
Steve, it was an awkward 'do the math'.
Thank you Marie!
Thank you Alicia. I appreciate it.
Steve, your analysis is right on target. We must never overlook the eurochristian connection with their religion--whether christianity per se or their economic commitment to capital, which is equally a religious attachment it seems to me. And, needless to say, as an American Indian I am NOT a marxist in any way shape or form. That is just an alternative eurochristian world redemptive system that insists on its own notions of domination.
Having followed you for a few months and find your research helpful to my understanding, I think the following book would interest your readers and contribute to the conversations. Called “The Dawn of Everything” https://commonplace.online/article/as-deep-as-it-is-vast/#:~:text=The%20Dawn%20of%20Everything%20argues,alongside%20one%20another%20for%20millennia.
Yes. See also my post on the book: https://open.substack.com/pub/peterderrico/p/the-dawn-of-everything-a-new-history?r=1hp10e&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Dear Steven,
There are few writers who have given form to the invisible with such clarity. You have named what others intuited but could not describe. The architecture of law, the habits of thought that pass for neutral ground, the quiet violence of words like sovereignty, order, development. You have written not just with argument, but with remembrance. That matters.
You are right to say that conquest is not merely historical. It is structural. It lives in maps, in property deeds, in court rulings delivered in the name of peace. You are right to suspect every system that calls itself natural. And yes, to dominate is often to define.
Still, I cannot follow where your analysis takes you when it turns to Zionism.
You place it alongside the old machinery: the cross and the musket, the crown and the charter. But this is a category mistake. Zionism is not the echo of Christendom, nor is it a mirror of manifest destiny. It was not born from the will to rule, but from the absence of refuge.
Those who returned did not carry papal bulls. They did not come with muskets and maps. They came with the names of towns erased from atlases, with no graves for their dead, with languages half-forgotten and customs buried in ash. They were not the administrators of an empire. They were its survivors.
Yes, power must always be watched. No state is above criticism. But there is a difference between empire and return. Between those who arrive to dominate, and those who arrive because nowhere else would take them.
To mistake one for the other is not resistance. It is a kind of forgetting.
You have taught many to read the world more truthfully. That is why I write. Because truth demands distinctions. Even among the ruins.
With respect,
Francisco
Yes!
And the apologists for all of that now control the levers of power in Washington.
http://opentabernacle.wordpress.com/2024/09/02/opus-deis-influence-on-project-2025
Yesterday I listened to an interview with Kevin Roberts who is one of the principal movers-and-shakers of this project. It chilled me to the bone.
I am in the midst of reading the book by Gareth Gore titled Opus. It is on the origins and the behind-the-scenes political machinations of opus dei.
In your face evil masquerading as "holiness"
Excellent work
Great piece!
Steve, thanks for showing how twisted the 'God hook' is with: "the ones forced to live under domination are opposing God’s will." And
since i sometimes consider them as a kind of franchise, "1,358 Catholic university campuses around the globe" got me to search how many McDonald's in the US, and "there are approximately 13,598"; fwiw, except for the "9", the same numbers. And the "zion/domination" connection helps explain Usrael.