Adonis Diaries

Archive for July 27th, 2012

It is confirmed, until further notice: “Mankind is one of the Chimps tribes, and all immigrated from Africa 60,000 years ago…”

I watched a documentary on the cable ARTE.  All biologists, archeologist, gene scientists…pronounced the following “evidences”:

1. Current mankind, the Cro-magnon, is one of the chimpanzee tribes.  We are not descended from chimp: We are chimps.

2. All mankind immigrated from Africa and reached all continents, travelling along sea and ocean shores…

3. This immigration aptitude and flexibility to varied climates and environmental conditions allowed mankind to reach America through the icy Bering Sea in Alaska (40,000 years ago) and needed 20,000 years more to land on the southern tip of Latin America.  Consequently, the original inhabitant of Latin America are the freshest new comers, inhabiting this continent just in the last 20,000 years…

4. As the dark-skinned Cro-magnon landed in Europe, they discovered another mankind, the red-headed and lighter skinned Neandertal specie who was intelligent, had fabricated tools, and was more robust and bearded, with a lot of hair on the body

5. The two species co-habited Europe for 10,000 years before the Neandertal disappeared for reasons still unknown…

6. About 12,000 years, mankind was mostly hunter/gatherer and only 200,000 of them roamed the earth…

7. A thousand-year after undertaking the cultivation of the land (as early as 12,000 years ago) mankind population increased one thousand fold…

8. When the Spanish Conquistador invaded Latin America, they believed that these hairless, elongated and tanned people must have a soul, but to a “lower level than their soul“…

9. The black specie in Africa were considered as the intermediary between chimps and mankind…Thus, Blacks had barely a soul and were used as slaves in any way conceivable…

10. Between the 5th and 15th century, the city of Angora (Cambodia) was vaster than New York City and had one million inhabitant. At the time, London was barely 50,000 strong…

I have serious trouble with this consensus story:

1.  How a population far less than 200,000 could inhabit every corner of earth 20,000 years ago?

2. I can admit that mankind is a branch of chimps tribes, but why it should be generated in a single continent? If the climatic and environmental conditions enabled the emergence of mankind, why it should be impossible that the same conditions generate mankind in every other continent?

3. If the DNA of chimps match mankind’s at 99%, and this DNA is much closer to mankind than to gorillas, why mankind was originated solely in Africa? If this chimps tribe lived in equatorial or tropical dense forests by rivers and lakes, I think every continent enjoys the same conditions…

4. If mankind was barely able to start cultivation 12,000 years ago, how was he able to navigate seas and oceans and reach Australia, and cross straits (Bering, Gibraltar…) 40,000 years ago?

5. Isn’t this philosophical concept of the One, One God, One single Big Bang for the creation of the Universe, One specie roaming the earth…that is blinding scientists from pondering on the alternative of the many origines?

6. Just the existence of the Neandertal specie in Europe before the Cro-magnon stepped on this continent should have flagged the scientists to explain this phenomenon…But they didn’t even ask the question!

7. Mankind is this Chimps tribe that learned to fish and swim and walk in the water…the Buoncy of water in rivers and lakes lightened the weight and permitted mankind to walk longer distances while fishing, and strengthen the muscles of his back and abdomen…  Gradually, mankind was capable of walking on his two hind legs for greater distances inland…

You may read how mankind managed to walk inland for long distance

Hell is always a “Promised Paradise”: 14 Israelis burned themselves in this extreme Liberal Capitalist State

In July 14, an Israeli from Haifa converged to Tel Aviv and burned himself: He survived for just a week before succumbing.  This week alone, 13 more Israeli tried to commit suicide by burning themselves in public squares.

Israel “Citizen rights association” published its researched report asserting that this wave of social unrest is due mainly to the liberal capitalism economic policies adopted by Israel since 1980.

Since Netanyahu came to power in the early 80’s, most Israel public institutions were privatized, including its internal security services.  The market economy was claimed to take care more effectively of the facilities related to health, lodging, education, social welfare…

The upper classes paid less taxes than the middle classes and the poorer classes paid the heavy price for neglect and the drying up of social budget and the increased gap among all social communities…

Zionism fooled the world communities that it is a socialist ideology, and Stalin fell in the trap of believing Israel would be the first Communist State in the Middle-east. The State of Israel developed as a capitalist State from its inception (read link in note)

Yossi Gurvitz posted on July 12 under “The NYTimes has it wrong: Israel’s roots are not liberal

Perhaps the greatest myth about Israel is the one the New York Times subscribes to: that it started out as a ‘liberal’ country committed to ‘human rights.’ An examination of the early days demonstrates that the country led by Ben-Gurion and Mapai was no progressive picnic.

“Recently, the New York Times was bemoaning the declining state of democracy in Israel. My colleague Dahlia Scheindlin noted several errors in the facts cited by the paper. I was more struck by the concluding passage: “One of Israel’s greatest strengths is its origins as a democratic state committed to liberal values and human rights.”

This to me shows the basic misunderstanding of even a liberal-leaning newspaper regarding Israel’s foundations. The idea that Israel has “liberal roots” and institutions is perhaps the greatest success of the hasbara (state PR) campaign.

Let’s review the basic facts.

1. Israel does not have a constitution. It was supposed to have one: what we now call the First Knesset was supposed to be a constitutional assembly, but after several debates and the pressure of Israel’s strongman, David Ben Gurion, the assembly performed what one of its members – the American Hillel Kook (“Peter Bergson”) – called a putsch, and abandoned the constitution, declaring itself the First Knesset. Cook resigned in protest; barely anyone noticed.

Ben Gurion opposed a constitution because he knew any such would greatly limit his own power, and would also require Israel to treat all its citizens equally. Ben Gurion, who later on would refuse to carry an ID card containing text in Arabic (and would be issued a special, Hebrew-only card), had no such intentions.

2. Ben Gurion spearheaded the ethnic cleansing campaign of 1947-1948, and was instrumental in the decision following the War of Independence to open fire on refugees trying to return to their villages. While paying lip service to the claim that all Israelis were full citizens, he kept the  Palestinian population of Israel under military rule (which was abolished only in late 1966); he had puppet Arab MKs and parties – but his internal security service (ShinBet) persecuted real Palestinian activists, and his police terrorized the Palestinian population. In at least one case – the Qafr Kassem massacre – Israeli border policemen massacred dozens of so-called Israeli citizens because they did not comply with a curfew order – of which they were unaware.

3. Ben Gurion oversaw the massive land theft, which transferred most of the land in Israel from its Palestinian owners to the Zionist state or its affiliated organizations, such as the Jewish National Fund. The usual ploy went like this: the army – over which Ben Gurion kept control, combining the office of Prime Minister and Defense Minister – would inform a Palestinian village it had to be evacuated for military reasons for a year, and after a year the land would be declared abandoned and confiscated.

4. Ben Gurion’s security services routinely spied on his political opponents, and the chief of the Shin Bet – the fearsome Issar Harel, of Eichmann’s kidnapping fame – was a regular participant at high-level party Mapai party meeting, giving explicitly partisan advice. The service was caught, twice, when eavesdropping on opposition parties (Mapam and Herut, which later metamorphosed into the Likud).

Surveillance was, however, the least of Ben Gurion’s opponents’ problems. He, and other Mapai leaders, believed that the government and the party were one and the same. Correspondingly, political opponents found it difficult to work – and not just at government positions (the High Court of Justice had to prohibit the government from denying work for its political opponents, so the practice went underground), but also at the private sector. A quiet word that such and such person is “not one of us” was enough to deny a person a job.

Speak to old right-wingers or communists, and they remember it full well. My father used to speak often of the period where you couldn’t get a job, or a government contract, unless you held Mapai’s infamous red membership card. This extended to the army, as well: for a very long time – practically, until the fall of the Labor Party in 1977 – you couldn’t be promoted to general rank without being a party member.

Ariel Sharon once snidely commented that “I remember well the day I was promoted a major-general; it was the day my Mapai membership card came in the mail.”

5. As for human rights… As of today, Israeli law explicitly refuses to recognize the right to equality. This would force the regime to actually share Israel’s resources with all its citizens. State and religion were never separated – the humorist Efraim Kishon jested that “Israel is the only state where state and religion were separated, and from that day since religion rules unchallenged” – as this would allow miscegenation, the mixing of Jewish blood with non-Jewish blood.

This is not news: it was sardonically noted by Hannah Arendt in her report on the Eichmann trial, more than 50 years ago. Israelis are ruled by religious courts in almost all personal spheres of life. Israel persecutes non-Orthodox Jewish sects.

6. Much is said about the famed freedom of the press in Israel. Yet it is not recognized in law, only in two High Court decisions – which the Knesset can easily overcome. This freedom, naturally, extends only to Jewish newspapers; Palestinian ones were often under heavy censorship and until the late 1960s were routinely suppressed.

And when you were writing things the Mapai regime did not like, especially in the 1950s, you could be literally silenced: the government controlled the selling of printing paper, and as Uri Avneri once found, its officials simply told him there wasn’t enough paper for his book to be published.

I note Avneri because he was the only opposition in the press to the regime in the dark ages of Mapai – there were opposition papers, of course, but they rarely contradicted Mapai’s basic Zionist assumptions. Avneri did so regularly – and, after a particularly vicious column about some Ben Gurion scandal, Arik Sharon sent some paratroopers on vacation, on condition they find Avneri and rough him up. They did.

The era of Mapai was no golden era of liberalism and human rights. It was the face of Israel’s founders, people who grew up in eastern European dictatorships. Israel was a copy of late 1930s Poland or Lithuania. It was anything but liberal.

Ironically, it was the fall of Mapai/Labor in 1977 which brought a truly liberal party to power; it was only then that Israel enjoyed a brief spring of liberalism and commitment to human rights – with the silent elephant in the middle of the room, the occupation.

So why is the Times so enamored of early Israeli history? I think they draw their information mainly from liberal and leftist Zionists. This group was so shocked by the rise of the right, particularly the religious right, and by the occupation, they began idealizing the era of “small Israel.”

Liberal and leftist Zionists began doing so as early as the 1970s. But there was nothing liberal or admirable in the old Israel; it is safe to say that for the vast majority of Israelis, Palestinian citizens included, the situation today is still vastly preferable to the dark days of the regime under the poisonous Ben Gurion.

We are sliding fast and it will soon be much worse:

1.  Israeli Jews are abandoning their identity as Israelis and retreating to a tribal and religious Jewish identity,

2. Israeli Jews are fast becoming incapable of tolerance, and drawing from proto-Nazi sources within Judaism, which speak of the destruction or enslavement of the other nations…

3. Israeli Jews are in a full-fledged frenzy to fabricate a mythical, liberal Israel that never was.





Blog Stats

  • 1,522,295 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 770 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: