i am loathe to respond in bullet form,maybe because i find it the weakest and laziest form of debate in a text format,but let me address a glaring misconception you seem to have concerning the occupy movement.you seem to be under the impression that its driving force is against rich folk.

now lets put that aside for a second and i shall not deal with just how utterly inaccurate that statement is because what REALLY intrigues me is this: how did you formulate that opinion when so much information is already out there revealing a totally different animal?how did you derive this conclusion and by what information did you base it on?
now THAT is a far more interesting conversation.

Its driving force is against the powers that be. "They". They say money runs the government, and they are right. Money is at the root of all evil. Who controls all the money? The "1 percent", although it's really more the ".001" percent. So it is essentially against the rich and powerful, the income divide they have engineered, and the entrenched power structure they orchaestrate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is an ongoing series of demonstrations initiated by the Canadian activist group Adbusters which began September 17, 2011 in Zuccotti Park, located in New York City's Wall Street financial district. The protests are against social and economic inequality, high unemployment, greed, as well as corruption, and the undue influence of corporations—particularly that of the financial services sector—on government. The protesters' slogan We are the 99% refers to the growing difference in wealth in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population.

you also put forth that your main premise was that the students were warned that they would be removed,by force if need be.
maybe i am misunderstanding your thinking but it appears that if there is an announcement then any use of force is justified.
yet in your previous paragraph you stated you understood the necessity to disobey then turn around and become an apologetic for police force.
these two premises are in conflict.

I was merely countering the assertion that they were sprayed without warning, which was a lie. I do believe police have the right to use force, however, I think they could have handled that situation a little better. I do believe we should disobey authority when it runs contrary to what God has commanded, but then and only then.

then in the next paragraph you continue with a verbal denigration of the people of occupy using tried and true tactics of any powerful institution.you literally have just regurgitated state propaganda and i dont think for a second you even realized that fact.do you even know what a marxist,anarchist or socialist actually is? i ask that sincerely not as a slight towards you,because it doesnt appear that you do.

I am not on the side of the state, I am on the side of God. Governments tend towards corruption and unless they adhere to biblical principles they will fall into decay and injustice will be the normative state of the land. So I do not prefer the state at all, but neither do I favor removing it, at least until Jesus returns. It is, as the founders believed, a necessary evil.

Yes, I know what they represent, and their positions are often interchangable. They were out in force waving their communist flags, talking about income redistribution and private property rights, distributing their anti-capitalist propaganda. Here is a quick portrait:

http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2011/11/zuccotti-utopia-portraits-of-revolutionaries/comment-page-1/#comment-22376

They even had maoists:



again i find your premise in conflict.
on the one hand you agree and are aware of the corruption gnawing at our democracy and then turn around and dismiss those who are protesting that VERY corruption you just acknowledged as somehow being unworthy.
i even posted the playbook that powerful institutions use and you fell into lock step with that message.

then lastly you again use a perjorative to describe the occupy movement with obvious disdain and then chastise me for comparing occupy with the civil rights movement.
either you dont understand my point or didnt think it through.
i was not comparing them as being similar in intentions.i was comparing them to how the power of the people are the ONLY way to enact change.
and if you truly agree that this government is corrupt and has been purchased by corporations who use their immense wealth to further their own profit margin at the expense of the average american citizen then i do not understand why your premise is so diametrically opposed in thought and in reason.

your argument is a contradiction.

The fundemental disagreement is this. What I recognize is the corruption gnawing at all of mankind. Everyone is looking at this catastrophe called civilization and thinking "how can we rearrange this so a utopia emerges?" Some people think the inequitable distribution of resources is the source of eivl, and believe that if we just set up a system to share the resources equitably then all goodness will follow from that. Other people think that just having a system is the source of corruption and want to eliminate it altogether and live without any central authority. The issue is that these schemes are all predicated upon the assumption that human beings are generally good. The reality is, human beings are generally sinful and tend towards corruption and not goodness. It isn't the system, or lack thereof that is the problem, it is the human heart:

Jeremiah 17:9

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

If you wiped out everything and started with a blank slate, putting the population of the world into an instant utopia, it would only be a matter of time before the whole thing was rotten to the core. The problem isn't the system, it is us. The only solution to this problem is Jesus Christ. Humans are incapable of governing themselves equitably. The founders recognized this, which is why they instituted checks and balances into the constitution, to try to offset mans sinful nature. They knew no man could be trusted with power. In the same way, to switch systems we would simply just be trading one polished turd for another. When Jesus returns and sets up His kingdom, only then will there be peace upon this Earth.

one last thing and while i hope you know .i shall state openly here.
what i am about to ask i ask in all sincerity and humility.
where do you think jesus would be sitting on this issue?
would he be on capitol hill with the plutocrats and corporate lobbyists?
think about it.

What Jesus is interested in is our salvation. Neither the plutocrats or the protesters are doing anything to reach or to further His Kingdom. They both outside of His will and are following man-centered doctrines and philosophies which glorify themselves and give God no acknowledgement what-so-ever. Jesus wouldn't be happy with any of them.

Luke 11:28

But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

Luke 18:8

I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

>> ^enoch:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Making a foray into politics?

so it appears and not a very impressive one.
@shinyblurry
i.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Making a foray into politics?


so it appears and not a very impressive one.
@shinyblurry
i know many see you as a troll who only wished to instigate and provoke for the sake of provoking.
i do not hold that opinion and i may be totally off the mark but i tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.

but what i find in your response is an ignorance pertaining to politics and history.this not necessarily a bad thing,we are all ignorant to some degree or other on certain topics.ignorance is curable.

i am loathe to respond in bullet form,maybe because i find it the weakest and laziest form of debate in a text format,but let me address a glaring misconception you seem to have concerning the occupy movement.
you seem to be under the impression that its driving force is against rich folk.

now lets put that aside for a second and i shall not deal with just how utterly inaccurate that statement is because what REALLY intrigues me is this: how did you formulate that opinion when so much information is already out there revealing a totally different animal?how did you derive this conclusion and by what information did you base it on?
now THAT is a far more interesting conversation.

you also put forth that your main premise was that the students were warned that they would be removed,by force if need be.
maybe i am misunderstanding your thinking but it appears that if there is an announcement then any use of force is justified.
yet in your previous paragraph you stated you understood the necessity to disobey then turn around and become an apologetic for police force.
these two premises are in conflict.

then in the next paragraph you continue with a verbal denigration of the people of occupy using tried and true tactics of any powerful institution.you literally have just regurgitated state propaganda and i dont think for a second you even realized that fact.do you even know what a marxist,anarchist or socialist actually is? i ask that sincerely not as a slight towards you,because it doesnt appear that you do.
again i find your premise in conflict.
on the one hand you agree and are aware of the corruption gnawing at our democracy and then turn around and dismiss those who are protesting that VERY corruption you just acknowledged as somehow being unworthy.
i even posted the playbook that powerful institutions use and you fell into lock step with that message.

then lastly you again use a perjorative to describe the occupy movement with obvious disdain and then chastise me for comparing occupy with the civil rights movement.
either you dont understand my point or didnt think it through.
i was not comparing them as being similar in intentions.i was comparing them to how the power of the people are the ONLY way to enact change.
and if you truly agree that this government is corrupt and has been purchased by corporations who use their immense wealth to further their own profit margin at the expense of the average american citizen then i do not understand why your premise is so diametrically opposed in thought and in reason.

your argument is a contradiction.

one last thing and while i hope you know .i shall state openly here.
what i am about to ask i ask in all sincerity and humility.
where do you think jesus would be sitting on this issue?
would he be on capitol hill with the plutocrats and corporate lobbyists?
think about it.

We Are The Many

Ye come here, gather 'round the stage
The time has come for us to voice our rage
Against the ones who've trapped us in a cage
To steal from us the value of our wage

From underneath the vestiture of law
The lobbyists at Washington do gnaw
At liberty, the bureaucrats guffaw
And until they are purged, we won't withdraw

We'll occupy the streets
We'll occupy the courts
We'll occupy the offices of you
Till you do
The bidding of the many, not the few

Our nation was built upon the right
Of every person to improve their plight
But laws of this Republic they rewrite
And now a few own everything in sight

They own it free of liability
They own, but they are not like you and me
Their influence dictates legality
And until they are stopped we are not free

We'll occupy the streets
We'll occupy the courts
We'll occupy the offices of you
Till you do
The bidding of the many, not the few

You enforce your monopolies with guns
While sacrificing our daughters and sons
But certain things belong to everyone
Your thievery has left the people none

So take heed of our notice to redress
We have little to lose, we must confess
Your empty words do leave us unimpressed
A growing number join us in protest

We occupy the streets
We occupy the courts
We occupy the offices of you
Till you do
The bidding of the many, not the few

You can't divide us into sides
And from our gaze, you cannot hide
Denial serves to amplify
And our allegiance you can't buy

Our government is not for sale
The banks do not deserve a bail
We will not reward those who fail
We will not move till we prevail

We'll occupy the streets
We'll occupy the courts
We'll occupy the offices of you
Till you do
The bidding of the many, not the few

We'll occupy the streets
We'll occupy the courts
We'll occupy the offices of you
Till you do
The bidding of the many, not the few

We are the many
You are the few

>> ^NetRunner:

To pimp my other video, there's a giant flash-mob party happening outside the White House:
http://politics.videosift.com/video/Crowd-Celebr
ates-bin-Laden-s-Death-in-front-of-White-House
I may be okay with bin Laden being dead, but I'm a lot less comfortable with the big raucus cheering crowd. A man was killed, we shouldn't be celebrating like that.
Still, it's a huge catharsis for the American people. Osama bin Laden has been an uncomfortable reminder of the limits of American power. How could we be the greatest, best country if we couldn't even catch one man living in a cave?
It's been gnawing at us for the last decade. And now he's dead. Not of old age, not without us knowing it for sure, but clearly, definitively.
Soon, we'll have the grisly pictures of Osama's corpse on the front pages of our newspapers. All the indignity of his head on a pike, without seeming quite as barbaric.
People's minds will change because of this. I don't know if they'll finally stand up and demand that we declare victory, and bring our wars to a close. I don't know if people will finally relax, and stop their paranoia about terrorism, or at least let it go.
I just hope it doesn't renew our appetite for war...that really would be tragic.


Haven't watched your video yet, but I've watched some of the gathering outside the White House. They're screaming "USA! USA! USA!", which reminded me of the kind of jingoistic behavior the Dems condemned from the Repubs. I'm not saying those are Dems out there. I'm sure it's a mix.

It's scary behavior, because it's emotional and passionate. I'd personally like to see us shift back to a country based on reason not emotion. A country of law not vengeance. What bothers me most is this could very well be another stepping stone toward accepting fascism.

To pimp my other video, there's a giant flash-mob party happening outside the White House:

http://politics.videosift.com/video/Crowd-Celebrates-bin-Laden-s-Death-in-front-of-White-House

I may be okay with bin Laden being dead, but I'm a lot less comfortable with the big raucus cheering crowd. A man was killed, we shouldn't be celebrating like that.

Still, it's a huge catharsis for the American people. Osama bin Laden has been an uncomfortable reminder of the limits of American power. How could we be the greatest, best country if we couldn't even catch one man living in a cave?

It's been gnawing at us for the last decade. And now he's dead. Not of old age, not without us knowing it for sure, but clearly, definitively.

Soon, we'll have the grisly pictures of Osama's corpse on the front pages of our newspapers. All the indignity of his head on a pike, without seeming quite as barbaric.

People's minds will change because of this. I don't know if they'll finally stand up and demand that we declare victory, and bring our wars to a close. I don't know if people will finally relax, and stop their paranoia about terrorism, or at least let it start to fade.

I just hope it doesn't renew our appetite for war...that really would be tragic.

Read the link I posted.
Better yet, read the book the link is referring to.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Trancecoach:
Too bad Pavlov's theory of classical conditioning is philosophically unsound.

I think the behavioralist response to that is that there's a lot of evidence that we're simpler machines than we think we are, and that much of our conceptions about our motivations and thought processes are post-hoc justifications of what we did without conscious thought.
I definitely prefer the way philosophers approach human action, but I've got this gnawing doubt that they simply assume we're far more rational than we really are. After all, if we were rational, simple questions like "what is right and what is wrong" wouldn't be so hard to answer.

>> ^Trancecoach:

Too bad Pavlov's theory of classical conditioning is philosophically unsound.


I think the behavioralist response to that is that there's a lot of evidence that we're simpler machines than we think we are, and that much of our conceptions about our motivations and thought processes are post-hoc justifications of what we did without conscious thought.

I definitely prefer the way philosophers approach human action, but I've got this gnawing doubt that they simply assume we're far more rational than we really are. After all, if we were rational, simple questions like "what is right and what is wrong" wouldn't be so hard to answer.

From The Other 100 Best Movie Quotes of All Time
http://www.pajiba.com/guides/the-other-100-best-movie-quotes-of-all-time.php

100. “I love my dead gay son. —Heathers
99. “Where was ya, Wang? We was worried.” — Murder by Death
98. “Tell your girlfriend to shut up before I fuckstart her head.” —The Way of the Gun
97. “How am I not myself?” — I Heart Huckabees
96. “Welcome to Debbie Country.” — Singles
95. “I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!”- - Zoolander
94. “Well, this piece is called ‘Lick My Love Pump.’” — Spinal Tap
93. “This is the guy behind the guy behind the guy.” — Swingers
92. “I hate you, and I hate your ass face!” — Waiting for Guffman
91. “Back and to the left.” — JFK
90. “No, I said ‘allo,’ but that’s close enough.” — Labyrinth
89. “That’s bee-YOU-tee-ful, what is that, velvet?” — Coming to America
88. “It’s a moral imperative.” —Real Genius
87. “Go do that voodoo that you do so well!” — Blazing Saddles
86. “No dice, soldier.” —Brick
85. “To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.” — Conan the Barbarian
84. “Take this quarter, go downtown, and have a rat gnaw that thing off your face! Good day to you, madam.” — Uncle Buck
83. “Do you concur?” “Damnit! Why didn’t I concur?!” — Catch Me If You Can
82. “The place where a U.S. soldier goes to defecate, relieve himself, open his bowel, shit, fart, dump, crap, and unload, is called the latrine. The la-trine, from the French.” — Biloxi Blues
81. “Big bottoms, big bottoms, talk about mudflaps, my girls got ‘em.” — Spinal Tap
80. “My life is as good as an Abba song. It’s as good as Dancing Queen.” — Muriel’s Wedding
79. “Guns are for show. Knives are for pros.” — Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels
78. “I shall call him Squishy. And he shall be mine. And he shall be MY Squishy.” — Finding Nemo
77. “I’ll sleep with you for a meatball.” —Victor/Victoria
76. “Follow me, or perish, sweater monkeys.” — Bring it On
75. “What’s a nubian?” — Chasing Amy
74. “Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.” — Star Wars
73. “You’ve got red on you.” — Shaun of the Dead
72. “I touched the earth, and he loved me back.” — Secretary
71. “Not you, fat Jesus.” — The Hangover
70. “This pile of shit has a thousand eyes.” — Stand By Me
69. “Oh God, not another fucking beautiful day.” —White Mischief
68. “She’s been fucked more times than she’s had a hot meal.” — Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang
67. “I can’t believe I just gave my panties to a geek.” — Sixteen Candles
66. “It’s a veg-e-ta-ble.” —My Blue Heaven
65. “Goddammit, I’d piss on a spark plug if I thought it’d do any good! ” — War Games
64. “I killed the president of Paraguay with a fork. How have you been?” — Grosse Pointe Blank
63. “Now, you’ve got a corpse in a car, minus a head, in a garage. Take me to it.” — Pulp Fiction
62. “Ever since I can remember I always wanted to be a gangster.” — Goodfellas
61. “Wolfman has nards!” — Monster Squad
60. “He’s an angel. He’s an angel straight from heaven!” — Raising Arizona
59. “Those who are tardy do not get fruit cup.” — High Anxiety
58. “Somebody’s got to go back and get a shitload of dimes.” — Blazing Saddles
57. “You idiots! These are not them! You’ve captured their stunt doubles!” — Spaceballs
56. “Bratwurst? Aren’t we the optimist?” —10 Things I Hate About You
55. “Sabrina, don’t just stare at it, eat it.” — American Psycho
54. “I take your fucking bullets!” - -Scarface
53. “I’m kind of a big deal.” — Anchorman
52. “Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, and sometimes it rains.” — Bull Durham
51. “We deal in lead, friend.” — The Magnificent Seven
50. “I don’t know, I mostly just hurt people.” —Alien Resurrection
49. “Go that way, really fast. If something gets in your way, turn.” — Better Off Dead
48. “All every woman really wants, be it mother, senator, nun, is some serious deep-dickin’.” — Chasing Amy
47. “Let’s shag ass.” —The Royal Tenenbaums
46. “That’s atomized colloidal silver. It’s being pumped through the building’s air conditioning system, you cock-juggling thundercunt!” — Blade: Trinity
45. “I don’t understand. All my life I’ve been waiting for someone and when I find her, she’s … she’s a fish.” — Splash
44. “Demented and sad, but social.” — The Breakfast Club
43. “This is so bad it’s gone past good and back to bad again.” — Ghost World
42. “GOONIES NEVER SAY DIE!” — The Goonies
41. “Beautiful, naked, big-titted women just don’t fall out of the sky, you know.” — Dogma
40. “They’ve done studies, you know. Sixty percent of the time, it works every time.” — Anchorman
39. “Richie, would you do me a favor and eat my pussy for me… please?” — From Dusk til Dawn
38. “I’m hungry. Let’s get a taco.” — Reservoir Dogs
37. “They’re coming to get you, Barbara!” — Night of the Living Dead
36. “Maybe you’re the plucky comic relief.” — Galaxy Quest
35. “We were frightened of being left alone for the rest of our lives. Only people of a certain disposition are frightened of being alone for the rest of their lives at the age of 26…we were of that disposition.” — High Fidelity
34. “I used to fuck guys like you in prison” — Roadhouse
33. “Are you crazy? The fall will probably kill you.” — Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
32. “Strikeouts are boring. Besides that, they’re fascist.” — Bull Durham
31. “Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here! This is the War Room! — Dr. Strangelove
30. “Shut the fuck up, Donny.” — The Big Lebowski
29. “If God did not want them shorn, he would not have made them sheep.” — The Magnificent Seven
28. “He was always a rather stupidly optimistic man. I mean, I’m afraid it came as a great shock to him when he died.” — Clue
27. “Nobody fucks with the Jesus.” — The Big Lebowski
26. “Meet me in Montauk.” — Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
25. “Did you have a brain tumor for breakfast?” — Heathers
24. “That’s just the way it crumbles … cookie wise.” - The Apartment
23. “Winners go home and fuck the prom queen.” — The Rock
22. “Why didn’t somebody tell me my ass was so big? — Spaceballs
21. “I aim to misbehave.” — Serenity
20. “People are so stupid I can’t bear to be around them anymore.” —Imaginary Heroes
19. “Fuck my cock!” — Wet Hot American Summer
18. “I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.” — The Big Lebowski
17. “The swan ate my baby!” — Drop Dead Gorgeous
16. “I’m gonna punch you in the ovary, that’s what I’m gonna do. A straight shot, right to the babymaker.” — Anchorman
15. “My grammy never gave gifts. She was too busy getting raped by Cossacks.” — Annie Hall
14. “The Hammer is my penis.” — Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog
13. “The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you’re uncool.” — Almost Famous
12. “SQUIRREL!” — Up
11. “Excuse me stewardess, I speak jive.” — Airplane
10. “Inconceivable!” — The Princess Bride
9. “I’ve been listening to my gut since I was 14 years old, and frankly speaking, I’ve come to the conclusion that my guts have shit for brains.” — High Fidelity
8. “My God. I haven’t been fucked like that since grade school.” — Fight Club
7. “You’re killin’ me Smalls!” — The Sandlot
6. “I was born a poor black child.” — The Jerk
5. “Ray, next time someone asks you if you’re a god, you say YES!” — Ghostbusters
4. “Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies.” — The Shawshank Redemption
3. “I want my two dollars!” — Better Off Dead
2. “Son, you got a panty on your head.” — Raising Arizona
1. “It ain’t white boy day is it?” — True Romance

Hey, I was higher than taxes when I came up with that suggestion-
For me, it's a "quality" definition issue. Seems to me, more sift-talk posts get quality invocations than do videos-Promotes are also a personal preference, based on the value/quality to the person handing out points-i.e., personal preference.

Here in the FAQ sheet it states-"Please do not down vote a video because you dislike the Sifter who submitted it; this is entirely unacceptable. Instead, vote solely based on the quality of video content."

I have seen sift folks hand out a shit load of "quality" invocations because they LIKE the sifter-I have also seen good content not receive votes because they DISLIKE the sifter.

What of the videos that are repeatedly promoted because people dig em, or for the effect it has in the thread, etc.?? This kind of activity keeps the place dynamic and interesting, innit?? Kinna makes the original submitter get a warm feeling inside, huh?? Awwwwwww!


*drifting off-topic>>>> When I down vote most of the news bites I see, it's not because I dislike the sifter-I dislike their contributions to the place, as well as the banter that follows, because I maintain that network news is poisonous disinformation and diversion. Period. Also hate most videos of farting or self-mutilation.

(I do like the cat fart video now since I figured out how to do something better and faster in future... don't like the submitter because his grungyness refuses to do anything but ignore, which is fine, keep up the good work, and stick to your principles!>Love your politics by the way, moving closer to all-out anarchy, which we don't welcome but are capable of dealing with)

So, in not-voting for a video because of who sifted it, is not a user simply "down-voting" it and the user? I have always maintained as well, that the lop-sided down-to-up number of votes overall is a problem. When a down vote shows up on someone's post (be honest with yourselves) it is often taken as a personal attack, or confused with some animosity or personal grudge, or in ant's case, misconstrued as some non-linear freakout!! It's simply a thumbs down for whatever reason or a thumbs up for who gives a rat's ass-want more status or points, post more viddies!!

I share the gnawing idea that something should be done to further codify these 2 invocations only because they are too similar in effect and sentiment, cost the same price(do they??), and perform similar functions. Maybe hand out more points and/or more often, rewards for deadpool fixes-and add a means of obtaining power points for cleaning up the dead/removed/copyright etc. videos-1 point for 25 "dead" invocations??...and make it retroactive considering I didded about 1000 Olberman vids last week??!! WOOOOOF!

Diagnosing Benny Morris
The Mind of a European Settler
by Gabriel Ash


Israeli historian Benny Morris crossed a new line of shame when he put his academic credentials and respectability in the service of outlining the "moral" justification for a future genocide against Palestinians.

Benny Morris is the Israeli historian most responsible for the vindication of the Palestinian narrative of 1948. The lives of about 700,000 people were shattered as they were driven from their homes by the Jewish militia (and, later, the Israeli army) between December 1947 and early 1950. Morris went through Israeli archives and wrote the day by day account of this expulsion, documenting every "ethnically cleansed" village and every recorded act of violence, and placing each in the context of the military goals and perceptions of the cleansers.

Israel's apologists tried in vain to attack Morris' professional credibility. From the opposite direction, since he maintained that the expulsion was not "by design," he was also accused of drawing excessively narrow conclusions from the documents and of being too naive a reader of dissimulating statements. Despite these limitations, Morris' The Birth of the Palestinian Refugees Problem, 1947-1949 is an authoritative record of the expulsion.

In anticipation of the publication of the revised edition, Morris was interviewed in Ha'aretz. The major new findings in the revised book, based on fresh documents, further darken the picture.

The new archival material, Morris reveals, records routine execution of civilians, twenty-four massacres, including one in Jaffa, and at least twelve cases of rape by military units, which Morris acknowledges are probably "the tip of the iceberg." Morris also says he found documents confirming the broader conclusions favored by his critics: the expulsion was pre-meditated; concrete expulsion orders were given in writing, some traceable directly to Ben Gurion.

Morris also found documentations for Arab High Command calls for evacuating women and children from certain villages, evidence he oddly claims strengthen the Zionist propaganda claim that Palestinians left because they were told to leave by the invading Arab states. Morris had already documented two dozen such cases in the first edition. It is hard to see how attempts by Arab commanders to protect civilians from anticipated rape and murder strengthen the Zionist fairy tale. But that failed attempt at evenhandedness is the least of Morris' problems. As the interview progresses, it emerges with growing clarity that, while Morris the historian is a professional and cautious presenter of facts, Morris the intellectual is a very sick person.

His sickness is of the mental-political kind. He lives in a world populated not by fellow human beings, but by racist abstractions and stereotypes. There is an over-abundance of quasi-poetic images in the interview, as if the mind is haunted by the task of grasping what ails it: "The Palestinian citizens of Israel are a time bomb," not fellow citizens. Islam is "a world in which human lives don't have the same value as in the West." Arabs are "barbarians" at the gate of the Roman Empire. Palestinian society is "a serial killer" that ought to be executed, and "a wild animal" that must be caged.

Morris' disease was diagnosed over forty years ago, by Frantz Fanon. Based on his experience in subjugated Africa, Fanon observed that "the colonial world is a Manichean world. It is not enough for the settler to delimit physically, that is to say, with the help of the army and the police, the place of the native. As if to show the totalitarian character of colonial exploitation, the settler paints the native as a sort of quintessence of evil � The native is declared insensitive to ethics � the enemy of values. � He is a corrosive element, destroying all that comes near it � the unconscious and irretrievable instrument of blind forces" (from The Wretched of the Earth). And further down, "the terms the settler uses when he mentions the native are zoological terms" (let's not forget to place Morris' metaphors in the context of so many other Israeli appellations for Palestinians: Begin's "two-legged beasts", Eitan's "drugged cockroaches" and Barak's ultra-delicate "salmon"). Morris is a case history in the psychopathology of colonialism.

Bad Genocide, Good Genocide

When the settler encounters natives who refuse to cast down their eyes, his disease advances to the next stage -- murderous sociopathy.

Morris, who knows the exact scale of the terror unleashed against Palestinians in 1948, considers it justified. First he suggests that the terror was justified because the alternative would have been a genocide of Jews by Palestinians. Raising the idea of genocide in this context is pure, and cheap, hysteria. Indeed, Morris moves immediately to a more plausible explanation: the expulsion was a precondition for creating a Jewish state, i.e. the establishment of a specific political preference, not self-defense.

This political explanation, namely that the expulsion was necessary to create the demographic conditions, a large Jewish majority, favored by the Zionist leadership, is the consensus of historians. But as affirmative defense, it is unsatisfactory. So the idea that Jews were in danger of genocide is repeated later, in a more honest way, as merely another racist, baseless generalization: "if it can, [Islamic society] will commit genocide."

But Morris sees no evil. Accusing Ben Gurion of failing to achieve an Arabian Palestine, he recommends further ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, including those who are Israeli citizens. Not now, but soon, "within five or ten years," under "apocalyptic conditions" such as a regional war with unconventional weapons, a potentially nuclear war, which "is likely to happen within twenty years." For Morris, and it is difficult to overstate his madness at this point, the likelihood of a nuclear war within the foreseeable future is not the sorry end of a road better not taken, but merely a milestone, whose aftermath is still imaginable, and imaginable within the banal continuity of Zionist centennial policies: he foresees the exchange of unconventional missiles between Israel and unidentified regional states as a legitimate excuse for "finishing the job" of 1948.

Morris speaks explicitly of another expulsion, but, in groping for a moral apology for the past and the future expulsion of Palestinians, he presents a more general argument, one that justifies not only expulsion but also genocide. That statement ought to be repeated, for here is a crossing of a terrible and shameful line.

Morris, a respectable, Jewish, Israeli academic, is out in print in the respectable daily, Haaretz, justifying genocide as a legitimate tool of statecraft. It should be shocking. Yet anybody who interacts with American and Israeli Zionists knows that Morris is merely saying for the record what many think and even say unofficially. Morris, like most of Israel, lives in a temporality apart, an intellectual Galapagos Islands, a political Jurassic Park, where bizarre cousins of ideas elsewhere shamed into extinction still roam the mindscape proudly.

Nor should one think the slippage between expulsion, "transfer," and genocide without practical consequences. It is not difficult to imagine a planned expulsion turn into genocide under the stress of circumstances: The genocides of both European Jews and Armenians began as an expulsion. The expulsion of Palestinians in 1948 was the product of decades of thinking and imagining "transfer." We ought to pay attention: with Morris's statement, Zionist thinking crossed another threshold; what is now discussed has the potential to be actualized, if "apocalyptic conditions" materialize.

The march of civilization and the corpses of the uncivilized

It is instructive to look closer at the manner in which Morris uses racist thinking to justify genocide. Morris' interview, precisely because of its shamelessness, is a particularly good introductory text to Zionist thought.

Morris' racism isn't limited to Arabs. Genocide, according to Morris, is justified as long as it is done for "the final good." But what kind of good is worth the "forced extinction" of a whole people? Certainly, not the good of the latter. (Morris uses the word "Haqkhada," a Hebrew word usually associated with the extinction of animal species. Someone ought to inform Morris about the fact that Native Americans aren't extinct.)

According to Morris, the establishment of a more advanced society justifies genocide: "Yes, even the great American democracy couldn't come to be without the forced extinction of Native Americans. There are times the overall, final good justifies terrible, cruel deeds." Such hopeful comparisons between the future awaiting Palestinians and the fate of Native Americans are common to Israeli apologists. One delegation of American students was shocked and disgusted when it heard this analogy made by a spokesperson at the Israeli embassy in Washington.

Morris's supremacist view of "Western Civilization," that civilization values human life more than Islam, has its basis in the moral acceptance of genocide for the sake of "progress." Morris establishes the superiority of the West on both the universal respect for human life and the readiness to exterminate inferior races. The illogicalness of the cohabitation of a right to commit genocide together with a higher level of respect for human lives escapes him, and baffles us, at least until we grasp that the full weight of the concept of "human" is restricted, in the classic manner of Eurocentric racism, to dwellers of civilized (i.e. Western) nations.

This is the same logic that allowed early Zionists to describe Palestine as an empty land, despite the presence of a million inhabitants. In the end, it comes down to this: killing Arabs -- one dozen Arabs or one million Arabs, the difference is merely technical -- is acceptable if it is necessary in order to defend the political preferences of Jews because Jews belong to the superior West and Arabs are inferior. We must be thankful to Professor Morris for clarifying the core logic of Zionism so well.

The color of Jews

Morris assures us that his values are those of the civilized West, the values of universal morality, progress, etc. But then he also claims to hold the primacy of particular loyalties, a position for which he draws on Albert Camus. But to reconcile Morris' double loyalty to both Western universalism and to Jewish particularism, one must forget that these two identities were not always on the best of terms.

How can one explain Morris' knowledge that the ethnic Darwinism that was used to justify the murder of millions of non-whites, including Black African slaves, Native Americans, Arabs, and others, was also used to justify the attempt to exterminate Jews? How can Morris endorse the "civilizational" justification of genocide, which includes the genocide of Jews, even as he claims the holocaust as another justification for Zionism? Perhaps Morris' disjointed mind doesn't see the connection. Perhaps he thinks that there are "right" assertions of racist supremacy and "wrong" assertions of racist supremacy. Or perhaps Morris displays another facet of the psychopathologies of oppression, the victim's identification with the oppressor.

Perhaps in Morris' mind, one half tribalist and one half universalist, the Jews were murdered to make way for a superior, more purely Aryan, European civilization, and the Jews who are today serving in the Israeli army, both belong and do not belong to the same group. They belong when Morris invokes the totems of the tribe to justify loyalty. But when his attention turns to the universal principle of "superior civilization," these Jews are effaced, like poor relations one is ashamed to be associated with, sent back to the limbo they share with the great non-white mass of the dehumanized. In contrast, the Jews of Israel, self-identified as European, have turned white, dry-cleaned and bleached by Zionism, and with their whiteness they claim the privilege that Whites always had, the privilege to massacre members of "less advanced" races.

False testimony

It would be marvelous if Morris the historian could preserve his objective detachment while Morris the Zionist dances with the demons of Eurocentric racism. But the wall of professionalism -- and it is a very thick and impressive wall in Morris' case -- cannot hold against the torrent of hate.

For example, Morris lies about his understanding of the 2000 Camp David summit. In Ha'aretz, Morris says that, "when the Palestinians rejected Barak's proposal of July 2000 and Clinton's proposal of December 2000, I understood that they were not ready to accept a two state solution. They wanted everything. Lydda, and Akka and Jaffa."

But in his book Righteous Victims, Morris explains the failure of the negotiations thus: "the PLO leadership had gradually accepted, or seemed to�Israel...keeping 78 percent of historical Palestine. But the PLO wanted the remaining 22 percent. � At Camp David, Barak had endorsed the establishment of a Palestinian state�[on only] 84-90 percent of that 22 percent. � Israel was also to control the territory between a greatly enlarged Jerusalem and Jericho, effectively cutting the core of the future Palestinian state into two�" Morris' chapter of "Righteous Victims" that deals with the '90s leaves a lot to be desired, but it still strives for some detached analysis. In contrast, in Ha'aretz Morris offers baseless claims he knows to be false.

If Morris lies about recent history, and even grossly misrepresents the danger Jews faced in Palestine in 1948, a period he is an expert on, his treatment of more general historical matters is all but ridiculous, an astounding mix of insinuations and clich�s. For example, Morris reminds us that "the Arab nation won a big chunk of the Earth, not because of its intrinsic virtues and skills, but by conquering and murdering and forcing the conquered to convert." (What is Morris' point? Is the cleansing of Palestine attributable to Jewish virtues and skills, rather than to conquering and murdering?)

This is racist slander, not history. As an example, take Spain, which was conquered in essentially one battle in 711 A.D. by a small band of North African Berbers who had just converted to Islam. Spain was completely Islamized and Arabized within two centuries with very little religious coercion, and certainly no ethnic cleansing. But after the last Islamic rulers were kicked out of Spain by the Christian army of Ferdinand and Isabel in 1492, a large section of the very same Spanish population that willingly adopted Islam centuries earlier refused to accept Christianity despite a century of persecution by the Spanish Inquisition. 600,000 Spanish Muslims were eventually expelled in 1608.

Obviously, Islamic civilization had its share of war and violence. But, as the above example hints, compared to the West, compared to the religious killing frenzy of sixteenth century Europe, compared to the serial genocides in Africa and America, and finally to the flesh-churning wars of the twentieth century, Islamic civilization looks positively benign. So why all this hatred? Where is all this fire and brimstone Islamophobia coming from?

Being elsewhere

From Europe, of course, but with a twist. Europe has always looked upon the East with condescension. In periods of tension, that condescension would escalate to fear and hate. But it was also mixed and tempered with a large dose of fascination and curiosity. The settler, however, does not have the luxury to be curious. The settler leaves the metropolis hoping to overcome his own marginal, often oppressed, status in metropolitan society. He goes to the colony motivated by the desire to recreate the metropolis with himself at the top.

For the settler, going to the colony is not a rejection of the metropolis, but a way to claim his due as a member. Therefore, the settler is always trying to be more metropolitan than the metropolis. When the people of the metropolis baulk at the bloodbath the settler wants to usher in the name of their values, the settler accuses them of "growing soft," and declares himself "the true metropolis." That is also why there is one crime of which the settler can never forgive the land he colonized -- its alien climate and geography, its recalcitrant otherness, the oddness of its inhabitants, in sum, the harsh truth of its being elsewhere. In the consciousness of the settler, condescension thus turns into loathing.

Israeli settler society, especially its European, Ashkenazi part, especially that Israel which calls itself "the peace camp," "the Zionist Left," etc., is predicated on the loathing of all things Eastern and Arab. (Now, of course, we have in addition the religious, post-1967 settlers who relate to the Zionist Left the way the Zionist Left stands in relation to Europe, i.e. as settlers.) "Arab" is a term of abuse, one that can be applied to everything and everyone, including Jews. This loathing is a unifying theme. It connects Morris' latest interview in Ha'aretz with Ben Gurion's first impression of Jaffa in 1905; he found it filthy and depressing.

In another article, published in Tikkun Magazine, Morris blames the "ultra-nationalism, provincialism, fundamentalism and obscurantism" of Arab Jews in Israel for the sorry state of the country (although Begin, Shamir, Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu, Barak, Sharon, and most of Israel's generals, leaders, and opinion makers of the last two decades are European Jews). For Morris, everything Eastern is corrupt and every corruption has an Eastern origin.

One shouldn't, therefore, doubt Morris when he proclaims himself a traditional Left Zionist. There is hardly anything he says that hasn't been said already by David Ben Gurion or Moshe Dayan. Loathing of the East and the decision to subdue it by unlimited force is the essence of Zionism.

Understanding the psycho-political sources of this loathing leads to some interesting observations about truisms that recur in Morris' (and much of Israel's) discourse. Morris blames Arafat for thinking that Israel is a "crusader state," a foreign element that will eventually be sent back to its port of departure. This is a common refrain of Israeli propaganda. It is also probably true. But it isn't Arafat's fault that Morris is a foreigner in the Middle East. Why shouldn't Arafat believe Israel is a crusader state when Morris himself says so? "We are the vulnerable extension of Europe in this place, exactly as the crusaders."

It is Morris -- like the greater part of Israel's elite -- who insists on being a foreigner, on loathing the Middle East and dreaming about mist-covered Europe, purified and deified by distance. If Israel is a crusader state, and therefore a state with shallow roots, likely to pack up and disappear, it is not the fault of those who make that observation. It is the fault of those Israelis, like Morris, who want to have nothing to do with the Middle East.

Morris is deeply pessimistic about Israel's future; this feeling is very attractive in Israel. The end of Israel is always felt to be one step away, hiding beneath every development, from the birthrate of Bedouins to the establishment of the International Court of Justice.

Naturally, every Palestinian demand is such a doomsday threat. This sense of existential precariousness can be traced back to 1948; it was encouraged by Israel's successive governments because it justified the continuous violence of the state and the hegemony of the military complex. It may eventually become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

But this existential fear goes deeper. It is rooted in the repressed understanding (which Morris both articulates and tries to displace) of the inherent illegitimacy of the Israeli political system and identity. "Israel" is brute force. In Morris' words: "The bottom line is that force is the only thing that will make them accept us." But brute force is precarious. Time gnaws at it. Fatigue corrodes it. And the more it is used, the more it destroys the very acceptance and legitimacy it seeks.

For Israel, the fundamental question of the future is, therefore, whether Israelis can transcend colonialism. The prognosis is far from positive. In a related article in The Guardian, Morris explains that accepting the right of return of the Palestinian refugees would mean forcing Israeli Jews into exile. But why would Jews have to leave Israel if Israel becomes a bi-national, democratic state? One cannot understand this without attention to the colonial loathing of the Middle East which Morris so eloquently expresses.

But taking that into account, I'm afraid Morris is right. Many Israeli Jews, especially European Jews who tend to possess alternative passports, would rather emigrate than live on equal terms with Palestine's natives in a bi-national state. It is to Frantz Fanon again that we turn for observing this first. "The settler, from the moment the colonial context disappears, has no longer an interest in remaining or in co-existing."

Related Articles:

* The Education of Benny the Barbarian by Ahmed Amr
* Genocide Hides Behind Expulsion by Adi Ophir

Gabriel Ash was born in Romania and grew up in Israel. He is a regular contributor to Yellow Times.org, where this article first appeared (www.yellowtimes.org). Gabriel encourages your comments: gash@YellowTimes.org

Upvote before watching - terry pratchett is a FUCKING LEGEND. The man has been the source of so so so much enjoyment in my life, his imagination is unparalelled for his genre. His sense of humour is blistering, his writing is excellent. Even with alzheimers he still knocks out books and stories, and i hope he finds SOME WAY of continuing his legacy for as long as possible. I love you terry.

From all his books and all the interviews i've seen, my favourite quote from the mind of terry:
Questioner: "If these tablets help stave off alzheimers even with some negative side effects, you'd still take them?"
Terry: "I've been on record for several years now as saying that i'd gnaw the arse out of a dead mole if it could cure this."

Rather be a rising monkey than a fallen angel.... God i love you terry, thanks for everything.

Yeah westy, they could go buy a buncha flour sifters and put a VS sticker on them....Eeeevryone would want one..they'd sell like hotjacks or flapcakes....*cough

The bottom line on the T-shirt's appeal is simple-Firstly, The clever quips that appeal to the admins or the users who create them have no mass appeal. Secondly, The designs themselves look home-made remedial like autistic kids who just discovered Corel draw. The pseudo-intellectual, stream-of-consciousness ramblings have just enough appeal to guarantee that 10 nerds a year who know nothing about this site, MIGHT wear one if they decide to go outdoors, and then only if it is given to them free. I wouldn't wear any of them without a gnawing sense of embarrassment and chagrin.

Success in any business endeavor has the perfect combination of artistic expression in product or implementation, mass-appeal, and timing. T-shirts are always timely, until we all dress Chinese-styley...otherwise the designs lack the other two elements in a big way.

I know I can't be the only person here who shares this simple armchair critique.

Sorry dudes, yer shirts blow chunks. Try some stock art or treat Photopshop like God's own handwriting for the next year.....take clever pills.

In reply to this comment by chilaxe:
Brutal. *snuff


no thats not snuff. I can honestly see where you are comming from but that mouse would of eaten its way out of the plant, thats what mice do, they gnaw and scratch and wriggle when they are confined such as it would be at the base of the pitcher. Infact I bet if the video went on for five more minutes you would see the mouse being MIGHTY AND VICTORIOUS.

But I thought half the fun was the animalistic gnawing the meat off the bone. Otherwise you may as well just eat chicken fingers.

No, it's that babies have a 'pure' mind, unencumbered by the layers of conditioning and restraint we put on ourselves. He completely addresses each moment as it comes, without regard for context. When the fight song plays, he hates it and cries. When the more melodic tune plays, he disregards what happened moments before, and enjoys the tune.

Buddhists spend their lives to reach such a state. There is a koan that highlights this:

A man traveling across a field encountered a tiger. He fled, the tiger after him. Coming to a precipice, he caught hold of the root of a wild vine and swung himself down over the edge. The tiger sniffed at him from above. Trembling, the man looked down to where, far below, another tiger was waiting to eat him. Only the vine sustained him.

Two mice, one white and one black, little by little started to gnaw away the vine. The man saw a luscious strawberry near him. Grasping the vine with one hand, he plucked the strawberry with the other. How sweet it tasted!