The Hebrew/Israelites and The African Slave Trade How Do the two Relate?

The Hebrew/Israelites and The African Slave Trade How Do the two Relate?
By Chawviv ben Yisrael

In school, in history classes, students are taught about the African Slave Trade: how the black people were taken from the Continent of Africa to be slaves; how the black people were captured and raped and robbed of their culture; how the black people were forced to accept the religion of their captors; and how the black people had to, and still do, live according to the customs of their slave masters.

But did slavery all start on the continent of Africa? Were Hebrew/Israelites part of this slave trade? Were the Hebrew/Israelites even in Africa? And were the Hebrew/Israelites in Africa during the time of the African Slave Trade? .

George E. Lichtblau, author of "Jewish Roots in Africa," said "Claims of a historic presence of Jewish communities in certain regions of Africa, notably West and Southern Africa, seem esoteric when first mentioned. This presence goes back not just centuries, but even to biblical times." How many children know this? Mr. Lichtblau also said, " . . . the subsequent scattering of a Jewish presence and influence reaching deep into the African continent is less widely acknowledged." Why?.

If everything is left up to the school systems, black people in America will continue to live in darkness, especially, concerning the slave trade and its connection with the Hebrew/Israelites. There is a connection!.

First, it should be understood that the Hebrew/Israelites are black people. If that's not clear, please read "The Hebrew People of the Bible, What Color are they?" This will clearly explain what our captors do not want you to know. .

All through the biblical history of the Hebrew/Israelites, you will read how they disobeyed God, their Father, the God of Israel. In that the children of Israel are His only son (Exodus 4:22), they had to be disciplined by their Father, the Creator ofheaven and Earth, for their wicked deeds..

How did God discipline his children being a spiritual and not a physical being?.

The spanking that the Children of Israel received was through being defeated on the battlefield and by being taken into captivity by the nation or nations that their father, the Creator, raised to power. For example: Judges 2:11&14 says, "The children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord . . . and the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he delivered them into the hands of spoilers that plundered them, and he sold them into the hands of their enemies round about, so that they could not any longer stand before their enemies." Judges 3:7&8 says, "The children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord . . . Therefore the anger of the Lord burned against Israel and he sold them into the hand of Kushan-rish'atayim, king of Aram: and the children of Israel served Kushan-rish'atayim eight years." And, Judges 3:12-14 says, "The children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the Lord: and the Lord strengthened Eglon the king of Moab against Israel . . . And he gathered to him the children of Ammon and Amaleq, and went and smote Israel . . . So the children of Israel served Eglon the king of Moab, for eighteen years." So as you can see, the discipline came through the other nations by the God of Israel..

As the Children of Israel continued to do evil, and the God of Israel continued to bring other nations against them, knowing that they were going to be persecuted, and forced to serve another nation, they would run into other countries trying and thinking they were fleeing from their captors, that the Lord their God had raised and strengthened against them..

Although, the children of Israel was constantly wicked, they were already warned by the God of Israel that if they disobeyed Him that they would be cursed. As the Christians have the book of Revelations for their last book, the Hebrews have the book of Deuteronomy for their last book of revelations. And their curse is thoroughly outlined in Deuteronomy 28th Chapter. I am not going to quote the 28th chapter because it is very lengthy. But, please read it!.

There were several times when the Israelites, out of defeat, ran for shelter, and the Bible and other history books of the Jews hold the specific details of this matter. .

Second Kings 18:9-13 says, "And it came to pass in the fourth year of king Hezekiah, which was the seventh year of Hosea son of Elah King of Israel, that Shalmaneser king of Assyria came up against Samaria, and besieged it. And at the end of three years they took it: even in the sixth year of Hezekiah, (that is, the ninth year of Hosea king of Israel) Samaria was taken. And the king of Assyria did carry away Israel unto Assyria, and put them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes: because they obeyed not the voice of the Lord their God, but transgressed his covenant, and all that Moses the servant of the Lord commanded, and would not hear them, nor do them. Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them."

Knowing that king Shalmaneser did carry away Israel, and that king Sennacherib did take Judah into captivity, did any Hebrew/Israelites try to escape their wrath? Did any Hebrew/Israelites run into other countries? Is it all possible for them to have also run into Africa? I say Yes!

Solomon Grayzel, a white Jewish historian, wrote in his book, "A History of the Jews," in the ninth century CE (AD), a man appeared in north Africa among the Hebrews there, his name was Eldad from the tribe of Dan, he was a Danite. He said the members of his tribe had escaped Israel after Sennacherib had conquered Israel, and other Hebrews from other tribes also live in the land from where he came from.

Menasseh ben Israel, the author of "The Hope of Israel," said in his book there were Hebrew/Israelites that had been scattered into the Americas since the time of Sennacherib.

Mr Lichtblau, the writer of "Jewish Roots in Africa," speaking of the Jews said, "Pressed under sweeping regional conflicts, Jews settled as traders and warriors in Yemen, the Horn of Africa, Egypt, the Kingdom of Kush and Nubia, North African Punic settlements (Carthage and Velubilis), and areas now covered by Mauritania. More emigrants followed these early Jewish settlers to Northern Africa following the Assyrian conquest of the Israelites in the 8th century B.C.E...."

And, Rabbi Dahton Nasi, the author of the "Basic Jewish Studies Handbook," has placed the Hebrew/Israelites all over the African continent.

Shalmaneser king of Assyria and Sennacherib king of Assyria were not the only kings to have come up against Israel. Another very important time in the history of the Hebrews, and I say important because the Temple was destroyed for the first time, is when Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon came and took Israel and destroyed the temple.

Here too, we tried to escape persecution and ran into the continent of Africa. Mr. Lichtblau statement above goes one step further, when mentioning the emigration of the Hebrews to Africa during the conquest of king Nebuchadnezzar. It says, " . . . and again 200 years later, when Jerusalem was conquered by the Babylonians, leading to the destruction of the First temple."

So, again two hundred years later the Children of Israel ran into Africa trying to flee persecution.

The people, not wanting to serve king Nebuchadnezzar, went into Egypt, even after they were instructed by the God of Israel, their Father, not to. Jeremiah, the prophet, in chapter 42, 43, and 44 tells the people that God said to stay in Babylon because he would be with them. But instead, they went to Egypt and when Jeremiah caught up with them in there, he said, due to them not listening to the God of Israel, he was going to push king Nebuchadnezzar into Egypt and take it and them.

I don't know what my reaction would have been if I had been informed of this by the Prophet. But as Rabbi Nasi stated in his handbook above (regarding this situation, and something I do agree with), "This warning would cause many Israelites to migrate deeper into Ethiopia and the Sahara desert."

After serving the Babylonians for 70 years, the Hebrews returned to Israel to rebuild the kingdom. Thinking that they would have known how to act, they had to be disciplined again because they wouldn't listen to the word of God.

In the year 334 B.C.E., Alexander the Great, came down from Macedonia and took Babylon, Egypt, Israel, and other areas that were occupied by the Persians. After Alexanders death, his kingdom was divide and the Hebrew/Israelites caught trouble again.

Around 176 B.C.E., king Antiochus ruled the Greek Kingdom and came up against Israel. Approximately two years later, the king attacked Jerusalem and destroyed the city, burned it down, and took the women and children captive. He also wrote a decree to all of his kingdom that the people should give up their particular practices and be as the Greeks, to be as one people.

The king told the Hebrews to "put a stop to whole burnt offerings and sacrifices and drink offerings at the sanctuary, and to break the Sabbaths and profane the feasts and to build altars and sacred precincts and idol temples and sacrifice hogs and unclean cattle; and to leave their sons uncircumcised and defile themselves with every unclean and profane practice." The king made it known to the Hebrews, if they did not obey the command, they would be put to death. After the Greeks came, the Romans and around 70CE destroyed Jerusalem again. The Romans, too, refused to let the Jews circumcise their boys, observe the Sabbath, and study the laws of the God of Israel. Here, too, the Roman government said if we were to do the things that we are commanded to do by the God of Israel, that the Hebrews would be put to death.

The restrictions on the Hebrews forced them to emigrate in even greater numbers than before. Rome's vengeance forced the Hebrews that lived in Cyrenaica, which was approximately a hundred thousand and a million in Egypt to flee into the south of Africa and the west of Africa. Solomon Grayzel said, "such is the explanation how the Sahara desert first acquired Jewish tribes . . . "

But it wasn't always another kingdom that forced the Hebrews to flee their homeland.

The first three centuries of the Christian Era weren't easy for the Hebrews. There was a lot of confusion between the Hebrews and the Christians due to instigation by the Roman government saying the Hebrews killed Jesus. And, that false accusation has followed the Hebrews even until this day. But, at that time it did force the Hebrews to flee from persecution, while at the same time we also fled from the Christians due to forced conversion. It was a do or die situation. You either accepted Christianity or you died.

Next was the rise of Islam some several hundred years later, 6th or 7th century. Islam was gaining some dominance but not enough to convert the Hebrews. Mohammed sought the Hebrews, but the Hebrews didn't want to have anything to do with Islam. Eventually, a choice was given to the Hebrews either Islam or die by the sword. The threat of the sword was definitely carried out by the command of Mohammed, killing the Hebrew males and selling the Hebrew women. After the death of Mohammed, his successor (Abu Behr), with a tighter grip than Mohammed, continued with the caravan.

Africa wasn't the only country where the Hebrews dwelled because of them fleeing their captore and wanting to live a life of freedom. Spain and Portugal, to name a few, were two countries where the Hebrews tried to leave.

Life for the Hebrews in Spain was fair until January 2, 1492. This is the year that king Ferdinand and queen Isabella signed an order to deport the Hebrews out of Spain. Christianity had taken a strong hold in Spain and Ferdinand and Isabella approved the expulsion because the Jews were secretly maintaining their faith as Moses had instructed them and not embracing the Christian religion.

Ferdinand and Isabella gave the Jews until August 1, 1492 to get out of Spain or suffer severe slavery for sure. When August 1, 1492 arrived, a great number of Jews had departed Spain, returning to the northern and western parts of Africa, fleeing to the Caribbean islands, and fleeing into Portugal. "But the last group of Jews did not leave until August 2, 1492," said Rudolph Windsor, author of "From Babylon to Timbuktu."

This date should sound familiar to the world because this is the date Christopher Columbus set sail for the New World. And their were Jews on board his carriers. The Jews that stayed behind in Spain were either forced to convert to Christianity, be a slave, or die by the sword. The Jews that fled into Portugal were allowed to stay for thirteen years but no longer, to the year of 1505. To this date, there are a number of dark-skinned Hebrews in the Caribbean Islands, practicing and living the laws of Moses.

When 1505 arrived, the Hebrews that had stayed behind in Portugal were forced into being slavery by the order of the governor of Portugal. Also, the governor gave permission to import the slaves, those negroes, those Hebrews into the Caribbean islands and the West Indies.

But Spain and Portugal weren't the only culprits in this matter. The African people also played a part in the captivity of African slaves.

Although the slave trade began in 1441, at the hands of the Portuguese, it wasn't until 1619, when the first slaves were reported in English America, said Richard L. Green. He went further to say, "The participation of countries in the African slave trade became so profitable that slaves were viewed as black gold' and beasts of burden."

Black gold and beasts of burden is how Affonso I, king of the Congo, must have viewed the Hebrews of Africa because he gained a great deal of wealth from the slave trade. It is noted that Mvemba Nzinga, who was baptized Affonso I, ruled as the Mani Congo (king of the Congo) from 1506 to 1543. "Affonso I attempted to control the slave traffic," and by 1530, at least 5,000 slaves were exported annually from the Congo, said Mr. Green. Richard L. Green is the publisher and editor of "A Salute to Historic African Kings and Queens."

Of course, Affonso I, the king of the Congo, in the continent of Africa, wasn't the only king to get involved in the slave trade. There were other kings in Africa that did it out of profit, and their were some kings that were pitted against each other by the Europeans. But either way it goes, the Hebrews went into slavery by the hands of the kings of Africa and by the hands of the Europeans.

This document makes the connection between the Hebrew/Israelites and the African Slave Trade and explains how and why the Hebrews emigrated or rather fled to the continent of Africa. At the same time, it explains how the Hebrews got caught up in the slave trade. Many of the black people in America want to associate themselves with the African continent, when in fact it actually has nothing to do with the black people of America.

The history of the black people doesn't stop at Africa. There is more to black people than that. Take the time to study black history, and don't stop at Africa. Why, because it will be you who will make a difference in this world..

AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Listen to this post (powered by Bluegrind.com):

DJIMON HOUNSOU

DJIMON HOUNSOU
Once a year, actor Djimon Hounsou visits his family in Benin, where he recently helped rebuild his childhood home. "The goal of the African people is to become self-sufficient," says Hounsou, who served as a consultant on our portfolio, otherwise "sometimes it does feel like the white man's burden. Some of the efforts need to be implemented by Africans who do good for the continent. Then people can see that their own people can really make a difference. We are not looking for a handout.

Djimon Hounsou supports: The ONE Campaign

AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Listen to this post (powered by Bluegrind.com):

36 Methods of Mathematical Proof.

Proof by obviousness

"The proof is so clear that it need not be mentioned."



Proof by general agreement

"All in favor?. . . "



Proof by imagination

"Well, we'll pretend it's true. . .



Proof by convenience

"It would be very nice if it were true, so . . .



Proof by necessity

"It had better be true, or the entire structure of mathematics would crumble to the ground."



Proof by plausibility

"It sounds good, so it must be true."



Proof by intimidation

"Don't be stupid; of course it's true."



Proof by lack of sufficient time

"Because of the time constraint, I'll leave the proof to you."



Proof by postponement

"The proof for this is long and arduous, so it is given in the appendix."



Proof by accident

"Hey, what have we here?!"



Proof by insignificance

"Who really cares, anyway?"



Proof by mumbo-jumbo

" (B Ì P ) , $ (C Î W )



Proof by profanity

(example omitted)



Proof by definition

"We define it to be true."



Proof by tautology

'It's true because it's true."



Proof by plagiarism

"As we see on page 289......"



Proof by lost reference

"I know I saw it somewhere......"



Proof by calculus

"This proof requires calculus, so we'll skip it."



Proof by terror

When intimidation fails ...



Proof by lack of interest

"Does anyone really want to see this?"



Proof by illegibility

(scribble, scribble) QED



Proof by logic

"If it is on the problem sheet, then it must be true!"



Proof by majority rule

Only to be used if general agreement is impossible



Proof by clever variable choice

"Let A be the number such that this proof works. . "



Proof by tessellation

"This proof is the same as the last."

36 Methods of Mathematical Proof



Proof by divine word

"And the Lord said, 'Let it be true,' and it was true."



Proof by stubbornness

"I don't care what you say-it is true!"



Proof by simplification

"This proof reduces to the statement 1 + 1 = 2."



Proof by hasty generalization

"Well, it works for 17, so it works for all reals."



Proof by deception

"Now everyone turn their backs. . ."



Proof by supplication

"Oh please, let it be true."



Proof by poor analogy

"Well, it's just like . . . "



Proof by avoidance

Limit of proof by postponement as it approaches infinity



Proof by design
If it's not true in today's math, invent a new system in which it is.

Proof by authority
"Well, Don Knuth says it's true, so it must be!"



Proof by intuition

"I just have this gut feeling. . ."

AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Listen to this post (powered by Bluegrind.com):

Untapped: The Scramble For Africa's Oil .

The following is an excerpt from the book Untapped by John Ghazvinian Published by Harcourt, Inc.; April 2007;$25.00US; 978-0-15-101138-4 Copyright © 2007 John Ghazvinian

Since 1990 alone, the petroleum industry has invested more than $20 billion in exploration and production activity in Africa . A further $50 billion will be spent between now and the end of the decade, the largest investment in the continent's history -- and around one-third of it will come from the United States . Three of the world's largest oil companies -- the British-Dutch consortium Shell, France's Total, and America's Chevron -- are spending 15 percent, 30 percent, and 35 percent respectively of their global exploration and production budgets in Africa. Chevron alone is in the process of rolling out $20 billion in African projects over a five-year period.

The overwhelming majority of this new drilling activity has taken place in the so-called "deep water" and the "ultradeep" of the Gulf of Guinea , the roughly 90-degree bend along the west coast of Africa that can best be visualized as the continent's "armpit." Its littoral zone passes through the territorial waters of a dozen countries, from Ivory Coast in the northwest down to Angola in the south, and a good deal of its geology shares the characteristics that have made Nigeria a prolific producer for decades. Indeed, a number of unexpectedly productive fields have been discovered in the Gulf over the past decade. But although the Gulf of Guinea has lately been sub-Saharan Africa 's most exciting region for the oil industry, it is hardly the only "prospective" part of the continent (to borrow the industry term). The parched semideserts of southern Chad and southern Sudan have recently added hundreds of thousands of barrels a day to global markets, and a growing chorus of voices is now touting the East African margin as the industry's "next big thing."

But be it east or west, jungle or desert, it is a safe bet that where the drillers go, the politicians, strategists, and lobbyists are not far behind. Washington in particular has taken a keen interest in Africa 's growing significance as an oil-producing region since the headline discoveries of the late 1990s. In December 2000 the National Intelligence Council, an internal CIA think tank, published a report in which it declared unambiguously that sub-Saharan Africa "will play an increasing role in global energy markets," and predicted that the region would provide 25 percent of North American oil imports by 2015, up from the 15 percent or so at the time. (This would put Africa well ahead of Saudi Arabia as a source of oil for the United States .) In May 2001 a controversial and fairly secretive energy task force put together by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney declared in its report: " West Africa is expected to be one of the fastest-growing sources of oil and gas for the American market."

In the following months, a group of congressmen, lobbyists, and defense strategists came together under the umbrella of the African Oil Policy Initiative Group, and began preaching the message that the Gulf of Guinea was the new Persian Gulf, and that it should become a strategic priority for the United States, even to the point of requiring an expanded military presence. A series of well-placed articles in the American media followed, some breathlessly announcing the inauguration of a new Middle East off the shores of Africa . Before long, the influential Center for Strategic and International Studies had chimed in with a couple of reports, its most recent, in July 2005, claiming that "an exceptional mix of U.S. interests is at play in West Africa's Gulf of Guinea ."

During these years, a number of prominent lawmakers in Washington began getting excited about the possibility of shifting some of America 's oil dependence from the Middle East to Africa . One former senior official charged with African affairs recalls Kansas Senator Sam Brownback rushing up to him one afternoon in October 2002, positively glowing with excitement. "What do you think about bases in Africa ?" Brownback asked. "Wouldn't that be great?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But does Africa measure up to the hype? After all, the entire continent is believed to contain, at best, 10 percent of the world's proven oil reserves, making it a minnow swimming in an ocean of seasoned sharks. Africa is unlikely ever to "replace" the Middle East or any other major oil-producing region. So why the song and dance? Why all the goose bumps? Why do so many influential people in Washington let themselves get so carried away when they talk about African oil?

The answer has very little to do with geology. Africa 's significance as an oil "play," to borrow the industry lingo, lies beyond the number of barrels that may or may not be buried under its cretaceous rock. Instead, what makes the African oil boom interesting to energy security strategists in both Washington and Europe (and, increasingly, Beijing ) is a series of serendipitous and unrelated factors that, together, tell a story of unfolding opportunity.

To begin with, one of the more attractive attributes of Africa 's oil boom is the quality of the oil itself. The variety of crude found in the Gulf of Guinea is known in industry parlance as "light" and "sweet," meaning it is viscous and low in sulfur, and therefore easier and cheaper to refine than, say, Middle Eastern crude, which tends to be lacking in lower hydrocarbons and is therefore very "sticky." This is particularly appealing to American and European refineries, which have to contend with strict environmental regulations that make it difficult to refine heavier and sourer varieties of crude without running up costs that make the entire proposition worthless.

Then there is the geographic accident of Africa 's being almost entirely surrounded by water, which significantly cuts transport-related costs and risks. The Gulf of Guinea , in particular, is well positioned to allow speedy transport to the major trading ports of Europe and North America . Existing sea-lanes can be used for quick, cheap delivery, so there is no need to worry about the Suez Canal , for instance, or to build expensive pipelines through unpredictable countries. This may seem a minor point, until you look at Central Asia, where the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, stretching from Azerbaijan through Georgia and into Turkey , and intended to deliver Caspian crude into the Mediterranean, had to navigate a minefield of Middle East politics, antiglobalization protests, and red tape before it could be opened. African oil faces none of those issues. It is simply loaded onto a tanker at the point of production and begins its smooth, unmolested journey on the high seas, arriving just days later in Shreveport , Southampton, or Le Havre .

A third advantage, from the perspective of the oil companies, is that Africa offers a tremendously favorable contractual environment. Unlike in, say, Saudi Arabia, where the state-owned oil company Saudi Aramco has a monopoly on the exploration, production, and distribution of the country's crude oil, most sub-Saharan African countries operate on the basis of so-called production-sharing agreements, or PSAs. In these arrangements, a foreign oil company is awarded a license to look for petroleum on the condition that it assume the up-front costs of exploration and production. If oil is discovered in that block, the oil company will share the revenues with the host government, but only after its initial costs have been recouped. PSAs are generally offered to impoverished countries that would never be able to amass either the technical expertise or the billions in capital investment required to drill for oil themselves. For the oil company, a relatively small up-front investment can quickly turn into untold billions in profits.

Yet another strategic benefit, particularly from the perspective of American politicians, is that, until recently, with the exception of Nigeria , none of the oil-producing countries of sub-Saharan Africa had belonged to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Thus they have not been subject to the strict limits on output OPEC imposes on its members in an attempt to keep the price of oil artificially high. The more non-OPEC oil that comes onto the global market, the more difficult it becomes for OPEC countries to sell their crude at high prices, and the lower the overall price of oil. Put more simply, if new reserves are discovered in Venezuela , they have very little effect on the price of oil because Venezuela 's OPEC commitments will not allow it to increase its output very much. But if new reserves are discovered in Gabon , it means more cheap oil for everybody.

But probably the most attractive of all the attributes of Africa's oil boom, for Western governments and oil companies alike, is that virtually all the big discoveries of recent years have been made offshore, in deepwater reserves that are often many miles from populated land. This means that even if a civil war or violent insurrection breaks out onshore (always a concern in Africa ), the oil companies can continue to pump out oil with little likelihood of sabotage, banditry, or nationalist fervor getting in the way. Given the hundreds of thousands of barrels of Nigerian crude that are lost every year as a result of fighting, community protests, and organized crime, this is something the industry gets rather excited about.

Finally, there is the sheer speed of growth in African oil production, and the fact that Africa is one of the world's last underexplored regions. In a world used to hearing that there are no more big oil discoveries out there, and few truly untapped reserves to look forward to, the ferocious pace and scale of Africa 's oil boom has proved a bracing tonic. One-third of the world's new oil discoveries since the year 2000 have taken place in Africa . Of the 8 billion barrels of new oil reserves discovered in 2001, 7 billion were found there. In the years between 2005 and 2010, 20 percent of the world's new production capacity is expected to come from Africa . And there is now an almost contagious feeling in the oil industry that no one really knows just how much oil might be there, since no one's ever really bothered to check.

All these factors add up to a convincing value proposition: African oil is cheaper, safer, and more accessible than its competitors, and there seems to be more of it every day. And, though Africa may not be able to compete with the Persian Gulf at the level of proven reserves, it has just enough up its sleeve to make it a potential "swing" region -- an oil province that can kick in just enough production to keep markets calm when supplies elsewhere in the world are unpredictable. Diversification of the oil supply has been a goal -- even an obsession -- in the United States since the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s. Successive U.S. administrations have understood that if the world is overly reliant on two or three hot spots for its energy security, there is a greater risk of supply disruptions and price volatility. And for obvious reasons, the effort to distribute America 's energy-security portfolio across multiple nodes has taken on a new urgency since September 11, 2001. In his State of the Union address in January 2006, President Bush said he wanted to reduce America 's dependence on Middle East crude by 75 percent by 2025.

Copyright © 2007 John Ghazvinian

Posted in Labels: | 0 comments Links to this post
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Listen to this post (powered by Bluegrind.com):

Top 10 Craziest Science Facts You Didn’t Need To Know

Top 10 Craziest Science Facts You Didn’t Need To Know

1. You can Hypnotize Chickens

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3041/2599332680_74be160ae9.jpg?v=0

by S0Cal

A chicken can be hypnotized, or put into a trance by holding its head down against the ground, and continuously drawing a line along the ground with a stick or a finger, starting at its beak and extending straight outward in front of the chicken.

If the chicken is hypnotized in this manner, it will remain immobile for somewhere between 15 seconds to 30 minutes, continuing to stare at the line.

2. You can have an erection once dead

A death erection (sometimes referred to as “angel lust”) is a post-mortem erection which occurs when a male individual dies vertically or face-down – the cadaver remaining in this position. During life, the pumping of blood by the heart ensures a relatively even distribution around the blood vessels of the human body. Once this mechanism has ended, only the force of gravity acts upon the blood. As with any mass, the blood settles at the lowest point of the body and causes edema or swelling to occur; the discoloration caused by this is called lividity.
Sorry, no photo for this one!

3. Your hand can have a life of it’s own

Síndrome de la Mano Ajena by Jon Jacobsen.

Alien hand syndrome (or Dr. Strangelove syndrome) is an unusual neurological disorder in which one of the sufferer’s hands seems to take on a life of its own.

AHS is best documented in cases where a person has had the two hemispheres of their brain surgically separated, a procedure sometimes used to relieve the symptoms of extreme cases of epilepsy. It also occurs in some cases after other brain surgery, strokes, or infections. The HAND is after you!

4. Don’t laugh too much, it can kill you

Fatal hilarity is death as a result of laughter. In the third century B.C. the Greek philosopher Chrysippus died of laughter after seeing a donkey eating figs (hey, it wasn’t THAT funny).

On 24 March 1975 Alex Mitchell, a 50-year-old bricklayer from King’s Lynn, England, literally died laughing while watching an episode of The Goodies. According to his wife, who was a witness, Mitchell was unable to stop laughing whilst watching a sketch in the episode “Kung Fu Kapers” in which Tim Brooke-Taylor, dressed as a kilted Scotsman, used a set of bagpipes to defend himself from a psychopathic black pudding in a demonstration of the Scottish martial art of “Hoots-Toot-ochaye”. After twenty-five minutes of continuous laughter Mitchell finally slumped on the sofa and expired from heart failure. His widow later sent the Goodies a letter thanking them for making Mitchell’s final moments so pleasant.

5. A weapon could make you Gay

Day 45:  WMD (not really but I look like a crazed person) by jv3wd.

Gay bomb is an informal name for a potential non-lethal chemical weapon, which a U.S. Air Force research laboratory speculated about producing.

In one sentence of the document it was suggested that a strong aphrodisiac could be dropped on enemy troops, ideally one which would also cause “homosexual behaviour”. So that’s how they got Saddam!

6. It’s true, Men can breastfeed

The phenomenon of male lactation in humans has become more common in recent years due to the use of medications that stimulate a human male’s mammary glands.

Male lactation is most commonly caused by hormonal treatments given to men suffering from prostate cancer. It is also possible for males (and females) to induce lactation through constant massage and simulated ’sucking’ of the nipple over a long period of time (months).

7. Bart Simpson’s Tomacco ( Half Tomato Half Tobacco) was possible

A tomacco is originally a fictional hybrid fruit that is half tomato and half tobacco, from the 1999 episode “E-I-E-I-(Annoyed Grunt)” of The Simpsons; the method used to create the tomacco in the episode is fictional.

The tomacco became real when it was allegedly produced in 2003. Inspired by The Simpsons, Rob Baur of Lake Oswego, Oregon successfully grafted a tomato plant onto the roots of a tobacco plant, which was possible because both plants come from the same family.

8. It’s OK to have a third nipple

A supernumerary nipple (also known as a third nipple) is an additional nipple occurring in mammals including humans. Often mistaken for moles, supernumerary nipples are diagnosed at a rate of 2% in females, less in males. The nipples appear along the two vertical “milk lines” which start in the armpit on each side, run down through the typical nipples and end at the groin. They are classified into eight levels of completeness from a simple patch of hair to a milk-bearing breast in miniature.

9. You can die on the Toilet

There are many toilet-related injuries and some toilet-related deaths throughout history and in urban legends.

In young boys, one of the most common causes of genital injury is when the toilet seat falls down while using the toilet.

George II of Great Britain died on the toilet on 25 October 1760 from an aortic dissection. According to Horace Walpole’s memoirs, King George “rose as usual at six, and drank his chocolate; for all his actions were invariably methodic. A quarter after seven he went into a little closet. His German valet de chambre in waiting heard a noise, and running in, found the King dead on the floor.”

10. .Picking one’s nose and eating it might be healthy

Nose-picking parrot by Mikkel Elbech.

Mucophagy (literally mucus-eating, also referred as picking one’s nose and eating it) is the consumption of the nasal mucus, boogers, and other detritus obtained from nose-picking.

Some research suggests that mucophagy may be a natural and even healthy activity, which exposes the digestive system to bacteria accumulated in the mucus, thereby helping to strengthen the immune system.











Posted in Labels: , | 1 comments Links to this post
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Listen to this post (powered by Bluegrind.com):