THE COLONIAL COMPROMISE - A Panel Discussion of Contributors.

2 HOURS LONG w WC 'oncomin' the 19th minute ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAzjr_IMRxc
1:00 – 3:00 pm. The Colonial Compromise: The Threat of the Gospel to the Indigenous Worldview (Fortress Academic, 2020). A panel of contributors to the book.

Tink Tinker (wazhazhe, Osage Nation); Edward Antonio, Concordia College; Miguel De La Torre, Iliff School of Theology; Ward Churchill, Lecturer and Activist; Natsu Taylor Saito, Georgia State University; Roger Green, Metropolitan State University of Denver.

NICE 8 PAGE PDF

https://doctrineofdiscoverymenno.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/dismantling-the-doctrine-of-discovery.pdf

14th of august / 226 :: 20 / k243
LoT 20 MAGNETIC :::: CTC Galactic 27 : 224 dotSR

INTRO TO THE DOCTRINE OF DISCOVERY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7XnR-kVJyM
THUMB SHOWS TXT FROM "Conquest masquerading as law" by Vine Deloria [AustinU06 ed. Donald Trent Jacobs]

this 'Green' guy blogs up a storm about diggin in old shit and he's obviously a viper:
“The Dialectic Of Enlightenment From A Postsecular Lens, Part 5”
 it is important to remember that the genocidal efforts of Nazi Germany were not against Jews as a religious group, but rather as a race.

Roger Green is general editor of The New Polis and a Senior Lecturer in the English Department at Metropolitan State University of Denver.  His work brings political theology into conversation with psychedelics and aesthetics.  He is the author of A Transatlantic Political Theology of Psychedelic Aesthetics: Enchanted Citizens.

LAST PARAS:
Preceding René Girard’s Violence and the Sacred, they write, “They believe only by forgetting their belief.  They convince themselves of the certainty of their knowledge like astrologers or spiritualists.”  This in itself, as they say, is no worse than spiritualized theology, and they give an example simple devoutness as being closer to the truth than grand pontiffs.  They praise Pascal, Lessing, and Kierkegaard for maintaining an awareness of the contradiction at work in their theology because that awareness supports their tolerance.

    The others, who repressed that knowledge and with bad conscience convinced themselves of Christianity as a secure possession, were obliged to confirm their eternal salvation by the worldly ruin of those who refused to make the murky sacrifice of reason. That is the religious origin of anti-semitism.  The adherence of the religion of the Son hated the supporters of the religion of the Father as one hates those who know better.  This is the hostility of spirit hardened as faith in salvation for spirit as mind. (147)

Thus, as they conclude their section, “Anti-semitism is supposed to confirm that the ritual of faith and histories justified by ritually sacrificing those who deny its justice.”  And as their characterization of the “murky sacrifice of reason” suggests, their critique of enlightenment is no rejection of reason.  Rather, they have hit an important description of the political-theological connection between Christianity in its European derivation and domination.  It is in the totalizing transfer of a religion forgetful of its contradictions from religion to “heritage” that we see not only a carryover of an earlier form of anti-Semitism but a secularizing of that need for annihilation that can be extended to categories beyond “the Jew” — i.e., the Indian, the Muslim, etc.

At the same time, an appeal to “heritage” can mask itself as merely liberally tolerant and expressive of “good old values” brought down by “traditional” people, while simultaneously extending “otherness” to a much broader collection of people.

As I close this installment, let me once again note Horkheimer and Adorno’s reliance on forms of the “literary.”  In what I’ve covered today, this has shown up in the figure of “the Jew.”  Clearly, though they deal with religion explicitly in the sections I have covered, they mean something more than someone who claims Judaism as a matter of faith.  The figure is what Aristotle would call an “artistic proof,” meaning that it took some poetic description to arrive at the figure itself.

I have been noting that the capaciousness of this figure transfers the anti-Semitism that Horkheimer and Adorno describe to other groups during the “postsecular,” and neoliberal era.  Thus, the implication of a postsecular lens is that neoliberalism works as an inherited structure of forgetfulness long-present within liberalism, that a substitution in naming is doing the ongoing work of enlightenment’s totalitarian impulse.  I will continue to cover the ongoing importance of Horkheimer and Adorno’s book in a future post.


https://thenewpolis.com/2019/09/30/the-dialectic-of-enlightenment-from-a-postsecular-lens-part-5/?unapproved=22111&moderation-hash=1a7c7b073865d9599d148cc2f31e1b78#comment-22111

feel sorry for ya mate .... have a listen to a strike & mike show, ... might sober you up a little  .. EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE ONLY HALF RIGHT ... IF YOU'RE UP TO GOIN THE REST OF THE WAY TRY THIS:
12.5Mb PDF (1082 margin to margin pages of notes, quotes and comment[ thread]s covering 3 generations)


https://thenewpolis.com/conferences-and-calls-for-presentations/
April 14-16, 2021 --- International Online Conference
Sponsored by The New Polis, Whitestone Publications, and Metropolitan State University of Denver in collaboration with members of the Iliff School of Theology and University of Denver communities.



amazing anecdote at an hour 17 minutes ... how eagle and alligator fared at a certain customs counter in the land of O[n]Zin


Tink Tinker
https://www.iliff.edu/faculty/tink-tinker/
A member of the faculty since 1985, Tink Tinker teaches courses in American Indian cultures, history, and religious traditions; cross-cultural and Third-World theologies; and justice and peace studies and is a frequent speaker on these topics both in the U.S. and internationally. His publications include American Indian Liberation: A Theology of Sovereignty (2008); Spirit and Resistance: Political Theology and American Indian Liberation(2004); and Missionary Conquest: The Gospel and Native American Genocide (1993). He co-authored A Native American Theology (2001); and he is co-editor of Native Voices: American Indian Identity and Resistance (2003), and Fortress Press’ Peoples’ Bible (2008).


Osage Kettle Carriers – Marmitons, Scullery Boys, Deviants And Gender Choices (Tink Tinker, wazhazhe / Osage Nation)
- July 24, 2019 - Roger Green   


https://thenewpolis.com/2019/01/21/damn-it-hes-an-injun-christian-murder-colonial-wealth-and-tanned-human-skin-tink-tinker-wazhazhe-udsethe/
“Damn It, He’s An Injun!” Christian Murder, Colonial Wealth, And Tanned Human Skin (Tink Tinker, wazhazhe udsethe)
- January 21, 2019 - Roger Green   

The New Polis is honored to present Dr. Tinker’s follow-up piece to “Redskin, Tanned Hide: A Book of Christian History Bound in the Flayed Skin of an American Indian: The Colonial Romance, christian Denial and the Cleansing of a christian School of Theology,” published in The Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Religion, Volume 5, Issue 9 (October 2014).  Due to the importance of source work for this piece, we have left all of Dr. Tinker’s own notes and citations intact at the and of the draft.  We have only added hyperlinks when helpful and broken paragraphs for online readability.  

In this regard, one should also note the work of Anthony Anghie on the development of international law under euro-christian imperialism. The quickest introduction to his analysis of the legal processes invented by euro-christians to facilitate land theft might be his essay, “The Evolution of International Law: Colonial and Postcolonial Realities,” Third World Quarterly, 27 (2006): 739-753. Available on-line at: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/dl_files/fb/5e/fb5ecb0217f1089ce9d43ca244de1c422bb752cb.pdf. Property becomes the euro-christian legal designation that emerges particularly in their early modern period. And here we must remember John Locke’s chapter v: “On Property,” in the Second Treatise on Civil Government; and note my critique of Locke: T. Tinker, “John Locke: On Property,” in Beyond the Pale: Reading Christian Ethics from the Margins, edited by Stacey Floyd-Thomas and Miguel de la Torre (WJK, 2011), 49-60.




via Drew:
 Suzanne Simard's Mother Tree Project Mother Tree Project |
 Suzanne Simard | Mother Trees and the Social Forest  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuupJGko9_0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydbzrun3opk




 Robert Price gives the best summary of D.M. Murdock's research as her best book: Christ in Egypt

 http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/reviews/murdock_christ_egypt.htm

 Hercules’ twelve labors surely mark his progress, as the sun, through the houses of the Zodiac; why do Jesus circumambient twelve disciples not mean the same thing? And so on.

Second, for Egyptian influence to have become integral to Israelite religion even from pre-biblical times is only natural given the fact that from 3000 BCE Egypt ruled Canaan. We are not talking about some far-fetched borrowing from an alien cultural sphere. The tale of Joseph and his brethren is already transparently a retelling of Osiris and Set. The New Testament Lazarus story is another (Mary and Martha playing Isis and Nephthys). And so is the story of Jesus (Mary Magdalene and the others as Isis and Nephthys). Jesus (in the “Johannine Thunderbolt” passage, Matthew 11:27//Luke 10:21) sounds like he’s quoting Akhenaten’s Hymn to the Sun. Jesus sacramentally offers bread as his body, wine as his blood, just as Osiris offered his blood in the form of beer, his flesh as bread. Judas is Set, who betrays him. Mourning women seek for his body. The anointing in Bethany (“Leave her alone! She has saved the ointment for my burial!”) is a misplaced continuation of the women bringing the spices to the tomb, where they would raise Jesus with the stuff, as Isis raised Osiris. In fact, Jesus “Christ” makes more sense as Jesus “the Resurrected One” than as “Jesus the Davidic Scion.” In the ritual reenactments, three days separate the death and the resurrection. Jesus appears on earth briefly, then retires to the afterworld to become the judge of the living and the dead—just as Osiris does.

Osiris is doubly resurrected as his son Horus, too, and he, too, is eventually raised from the dead by Isis. He is pictured as spanning the dome of heaven, his arms stretched out in a cruciform pattern. As such, he seems to represent the common Platonic astronomical symbol of the sun’s path crossing the earth’s ecliptic. Likewise, the Acts of John remembers that the real cross of Jesus is not some piece of wood, as fools think, but rather the celestial “Cross of Light.” Acharya S. ventures that “the creators of the Christ myth did not simply take an already formed story, scratch out the name Osiris or Horus, and replace it with Jesus” (p. 25). But I am pretty much ready to go the whole way and suggest that Jesus is simply Osiris going under a new name, Jesus,” Savior,” hitherto an epithet, but made into a name on Jewish soil. Are there allied mythemes (details, really) that look borrowed from the cults of Attis, Dionysus, etc.? Sure; remember we are talking about a heavily syncretistic context. Hadian remarked on how Jewish and Christian leaders in Egypt mixed their worship with that of Sarapis (=Osiris).

Third, Eusebius and others already pegged the Theraputae (Essene-like Jewish monks in Egypt) as early Christians, even Philo the Jewish Middle Platonist of Alexandria) as a Christian! Philo and various Egyptian Gnostic sects experimented with the philosophical demythologizing of myths such as the primordial Son of Man and the Logos. Philo equated the Son of Man, Firstborn of Creation, Word, heavenly High Priest, etc., and considered the Israelite patriarchs, allegorically, as virgin-born incarnations of the Logos. All, I repeat, all, New Testament Christological titles are found verbatim in Philo. Coincidence? Gnostic texts are filled with classical Egyptian eschatology. Christian magic spells identified Jesus with Horus. It seems hard to deny that even Christians as “late” as the New Testament writers were directly dependent upon Jewish thinkers in Egypt, just like the Gnostic Christian writers after them. And if the common Christian believer saw no difference between Jesus and Horus in Egypt (or between Jesus and Attis in the Naasene Hymn), why on earth should we think they were innovators?

I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock: “we assert that Christianity constitutes Gnosticism historicized and Judaized, likewise representing a synthesis of Egyptian, Jewish and Greek religion and mythology, among others [including Buddhism, via King Asoka’s missionaries] from around the ‘known world’” (p. 278). “Christianity is largely the product of Egyptian religion being Judaized and historicized’ (p. 482).