The Mecca Mystery: Probing the Black Hole at the Heart of Muslim History by Peter Townsend

[thorbiorn]

As Spencer suggests, it appears that Islam actually began as a "Christian sect" in the terms of the Dead Sea Scrolls Christians, i.e. Jewish Messianists of a particularly martial character. He adduces quite a bit of evidence to that idea though he avoids stressing the Jewish nature of the thing. That probably is due to his pro-Zionist bias.

This may well be so, as I discovered when going through old articles about Caesar like Bible scholar Joseph Atwill claims Christianity invented as part of ancient Roman psy-ops campaign -- Sott.net which has:

The Christian faith is the result of the most successful psy-ops program in history, according to an American Bible scholar.

Joseph Atwill will present his controversial theory Oct. 19 in London that the New Testament was written by first-century Roman aristocrats as part of a sophisticated government project to help pacify Jews in occupied territories.

Atwill, author of "Caesar's Messiah," claims he's found ancient confessions by the scriptures' authors that they invented Jesus Christ and his story as basically a form of propaganda.

"Jewish sects in Palestine at the time, who were waiting for a prophesied warrior Messiah, were a constant source of violent insurrection during the first century," Atwill said. "When the Romans had exhausted conventional means of quashing rebellion, they switched to psychological warfare. They surmised that the way to stop the spread of zealous Jewish missionary activity was to create a competing belief system. That's when the 'peaceful' Messiah story was invented. Instead of inspiring warfare, this Messiah urged turn-the-other-cheek pacifism and encouraged Jews to 'give onto Caesar' and pay their taxes to Rome."

He says that Jesus was not based on an actual historical figure, but Atwill argues that the events of his life were overlaid on top of actual events from the First Jewish-Roman War, waged by Emperor Titus Flavius in Palestinian territories.

"The biography of Jesus is actually constructed, tip to stern, on prior stories, but especially on the biography of a Roman Caesar," he says.

 

[Laura]

Atwill is barking up the wrong tree. I've read his work and his research is rather shallow.

 

[whitecoast]

I don't think you mean "dearth" which is scarcity.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Hindsight Man]

By "inbreeding" you mean cousin marriage, mostly in the ME. Cousin marriage is legal in most of Europe and 50% of US states, plus Russia, and was quite common in Europe until fairly recently.

I assume you're referring to European nobility when you speak of inbreds,in which case you're correct.I'm talking about the general populace.The following data is just for Pakistan.

Abstract

PIP:
Data were collected on the occurrence of marriages between close relatives, including cousins, as well as between nonrelatives from 6611 ever married women as part of the 1990-91 Pakistan Demographic and Health Survey (PDHS). The patterns of age at marriage, fertility, child mortality, and urban and rural residence would help authenticate the hypothesis that genetic risks to child health are higher among children of parents closely related. The PDHS indicated that more than half of ever married women aged 15-49 were married to their first cousins. The inclusion of second cousins raised the percentage of consanguineous marriages from 50.3 to 61.2. Another 1.3% were married to other relations and the rest (over 37%) were married to non-relatives. The PDHS also showed that compared to the women who married at 18 years of age, the percentage of those who were married to first cousins was slightly lower among those married at older ages. Distinct urban-rural differentials emerged. In the urban areas the marriages to cousins amounted to 51.3% and 53.1% when other relatives were also counted. In contrast, 65.6% and 66.9%, respectively, were the figures in rural areas. First cousin marriages were higher in the provinces of Baluchistan and Punjab (53% and 54.4%, respectively) than those in Sindh (49.7%) and the North-West Frontier Province (38.8%). Among females the educational status was important with respect to marriages to first cousins: 52.2% had no education, 48.9% had primary education, 43.1% had middle level education, and 32.5% had secondary education. The mean age at marriage of women where the spouse was the cousin was less than when they were married to others. The PDHS demonstrated that only 1.3% of ever married women aged 15-49 were divorced or separated. In addition, child mortality was higher for women married to cousins than those married to others. Child morbidity was also somewhat higher among these marriages, except for those living in urban areas, where the reverse was true. This peculiarity requires further study of the problem of consanguinity.

Half.That's half the population that's inbred. Microcephaly birth defect is so common they have a colloquial name for them.They're called ''rat people''.Now I am aware that some nobles were horribly inbred,but as far as I'm aware there weren't any groups identified specifically by birth defects stemming from incest.

''So you'll have to find something else to beat the Muzzies with ''

I'll give it a good ol' fashioned community college try.

 

[Hindsight Man]

Sorry I left the whole thing in quotes and don't know how to fix it.

 

[Eulenspiegel]

Now I am really curious if there are similar books for the study of early "Hinduism" and Buddhism, respectively.

 

[Laura]

Sorry I left the whole thing in quotes and don't know how to fix it.

I fixed it.

I don't think that it should be "beat up on Muslims" time, at least not exactly. As we have noted, they, like everyone else, are being used, manipulated and apparently, this has been going on for a very long time.

On the other hand, so have Jews and Christians been set up to be used.

We can't forget the great Muslim contributions to science either. What is interesting is that science was encouraged and permitted in those times because it was seen as benefitting Muslim worship. How can you perform your prayers at the exact time if you don't KNOW the exact time? Thus, astronomy and mathematics. How can you pray toward the newly designated holy site, Mecca, if you don't know the direction? Thus geography and mathematics.

Medicine was piggy-backed on the general scientific impulse that was developed to support Islam.

All of you know that I really love Ibn al-Arabi, the great Sufi mystic. From what I have read about him, it seems that he was Sufi first, and Islam was mostly the outer dress that kept him from being bothered. Some Muslims thought he was a heretic.

The problem in the present day, as I see it, is that Muslims have done exactly what the manipulators wanted them to do: abandoned any ideas of modernity (represented by the evil West that betrayed them very early on), and have become the bugaboo they were portrayed as.

But then, Zionist Jews have also become the bugaboo they were portrayed as prior to WW II. Even worse, in fact.

Christians, on their side, have begun entrenching in a big way too as anybody can see on twitter.

Result? "Clash of Civilizations". Just what the 4D STS overlords wanted all along.

 

[Niall]

The problem in the present day, as I see it, is that Muslims have done exactly what the manipulators wanted them to do: abandoned any ideas of modernity (represented by the evil West that betrayed them very early on), and have become the bugaboo they were portrayed as.

I wouldn't say they're completely anti-modernization. I think their problem is that they're having a difficult time separating modernization from Westernization. The two have been synonymous for so long, but that's changing now. East Asia has led the way in modernizing while minimizing Western financial, political, cultural, etc inroads, and insisting on national sovereignty and regional multipolarity over hegemony. China, for example, is modernizing, but on its own terms.

To the extent that their religious and cultural mores - rules even, wherever they follow their book literally - spur them to reject modernization, Muslims fall back on old ways without (yet) realizing the way out: attracting inward investment while maintaining maximal national independence. See also Russia in the 1990s for a harsh lesson in why Westernizing is atrocious for 'development' (capital flight, increases in crime and poverty, gangster elites masquerading as 'Westernized liberal democrats', proliferation of terrorism and diseases, etc), and why it spurs a population to, on the one hand, 'return to the book' (the Orthodox Church in Russia's case), and on the other hand begin modernizing through national, independently-tailored strategies. This doesn't entail building walls and shutting out foreign culture, trade, science, finance, etc. It just means being much more selective when making bargains.

That's why it's so interesting that the CIA and friends created a 'Pan-Islamic Caliphate ideology' through Bin Laden and others in the 1990s (whose beef with the West, we were told, was that US military bases were situated in the Holy Land of Saudi Arabia, as a result of the First War on Iraq). It's as if they pre-empted the natural direction 'the Muslim world' - or at least 'the Arabic world' - would go in: cautious modernization and regional-cultural integration. They wanted to 'get in there first' with their twisted parody version, which - by design or otherwise - set the region aflame and 'justified' Western military presence, and thus 'justified' Western dictates on how things ought to be run there.

The PTB in the West, remember, have no problem with Muslims remaining literalists. In fact, that's why an unholy alliance between jihadists and Western financiers formed: they both detest Syria's al-Assad clan for showing Arabs the way towards relatively independent, secular modernization.

 

[Joe]

Iraq under Saddam had everything needed to qualify as a true liberal/secular country. A Christian deputy Prime Minister, a Shi’ite Foreign Minister and a Kurdish Vice President.

It was Saddam's Baathist regime that allowed for the modernization of Iraq. Education, including higher and technological education, became the top priority and Iraq was even awarded The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) prize for eradicating illiteracy in 1982.

The most dramatic achievement of Saddam's regime was the liberation of Iraqi women- half the population of the country.

Saddam’s Iraq had everything the West had, except democracy. But it was precisely this absence of democracy that allowed Saddam to brush aside the foreign interest, liberate women, dismantle feudalism, cage the Mullahs and his admittedly brutal eradication from Iraq of all forms of religious fundamentalism and religion-based terrorism (which facilitated all the previous achievements).

One thing that Osama bin Laden (i.e. the Saudi headchoppers) and George Bush had in common was that they hated Saddam equally, and for exactly the same reason.

 

[Joe]

The PTB in the West, remember, have no problem with Muslims remaining literalists. In fact, that's why an unholy alliance between jihadists and Western financiers formed: they both detest Syria's al-Assad clan for showing Arabs the way towards relatively independent, secular modernization.

Indeed. Who hates and has repeatedly attempted to destroy Lebanon? In the 1960s and 70s, Beirut was known as "the Paris of the Middle East", who attacked and destroyed Beirut in the early 80's?

It's an objective fact that, throughout the 20th Century and into this one, Western powers have repeatedly found common cause with the most extremist factions around the world rather than moderate 'democratic' ones. The same is true for the British empire that handed the baton to the USA.

Reform Islam in the Middle East? There is NO chance of that until you "reform" the psychos in power in the West and their deliberate promotion of and support for extremist forms of Islam, for very clear reasons relating to global power and domination.

If you haven't studied and understood the true history of the West in the 20th century, you will not understand 'radical Islam' today or why it is even a "problem" for Western nations. Instead you will find yourself in the unfortunate position of opting for the oversimplified, black and white narrative that is designed to inflame social tensions in Western nations. That narrative of "East vs West - Christianity Vs Islam - pick a side" is, unsurprisingly, being proffered by the very same people who created the problem in the first place. And therefore you conclude, 'oh, so THIS is what they want!'. Or, you will retreat into a religious-only analysis of the problem in an effort to 'solve' it, while missing a major piece of the puzzle.

As I said before, "radical Islam" is not religious, it's political, and the politics of it are almost entirely controlled by Western nations, not Middle Eastern or Islamic.

You ARE being manipulated, or as we like to say on this forum, 'there's a COINTELPRO program for everyone'. COINTELPRO - counter intelligence, is an appropriate term, because it literally seeks to counter your natural intelligence, wear you down with lies and confusion, or, if you get past that, ultimately horrify you with the apparent monstrous complexity and 'evil genius' of the set up for which, you are forced to recognize, there is solution with an outcome that anyone would willingly accept.

Maybe now some of you will understand why our final statement on the matter of human society is sometimes to declare "bring on the comets!" That's not a reckless, nihilist wishing for it all to end for our own sakes, but more like a rational conclusion after judicious study of the problem.

 

[Niall]

See also Libya (the wealthiest country in Africa until 2011), Afghanistan's trajectory (until Brzezinski's 'Mujahideen' arrived in the late 1970s), Pakistan under the Bhutto clan (ended by foreign intrigues and assassinations), and Indonesia under Sukarno. The psychos recognise 'Caesars' when they see them, violently deal with them and crush 'upward-looking ideals', then push/promote/induce everyone down towards the lowest common denominator - radical, literalist Islam in the case of the Islamic world.

 

[Hi_Henry]

That was an excellent summary Joe of that Evil Saddam's wonderful work (sarcasm). Most Westerners Today will have a hard time trying to understand what you wrote there as MSM has poisoned the minds to such an extent that the mind has stopped functioning for most.

One thing that Osama bin Laden (i.e. the Saudi headchoppers) and George Bush had in common was that they hated Saddam equally, and for exactly the same reason.

I'd say they were on the same team and working for the same people who want to dismantle Western Culture and the foundation on which it stood for so many centuries. That is my impression from observing all the moves visible to us on the Grand Chess Board.

 

[Hi_Henry]

Indeed. Who hates and has repeatedly attempted to destroy Lebanon? In the 1960s and 70s, Beirut was known as "the Paris of the Middle East", who attacked and destroyed Beirut in the early 80's?

It's an objective fact that, throughout the 20th Century and into this one, Western powers have repeatedly found common cause with the most extremist factions around the world rather than moderate 'democratic' ones. The same is true for the British empire that handed the baton to the USA.

I think this video will give a hint of how the "Global Master Plan" has headed in one general direction. A direction which has nothing to do with the welfare of the Common Man and everything to make him as poor as possible.
Manipulation

 

[Hi_Henry]

and Indonesia under Sukarno

Good luck if you can find this book but if you do it will open your eyes as to how wicked "The Game" was being played against the people of Indonesia. Papuan people were robbed on a Cosmic Level thanks to the Dutchman Dozy and all those involved with Dulles.

Incubus of Intervention

 

[Hindsight Man]

I fixed it.

I don't think that it should be "beat up on Muslims" time, at least not exactly. As we have noted, they, like everyone else, are being used, manipulated and apparently, this has been going on for a very long time.

On the other hand, so have Jews and Christians been set up to be used.

We can't forget the great Muslim contributions to science either. What is interesting is that science was encouraged and permitted in those times because it was seen as benefitting Muslim worship. How can you perform your prayers at the exact time if you don't KNOW the exact time? Thus, astronomy and mathematics. How can you pray toward the newly designated holy site, Mecca, if you don't know the direction? Thus geography and mathematics.

Medicine was piggy-backed on the general scientific impulse that was developed to support Islam.

All of you know that I really love Ibn al-Arabi, the great Sufi mystic. From what I have read about him, it seems that he was Sufi first, and Islam was mostly the outer dress that kept him from being bothered. Some Muslims thought he was a heretic.

The problem in the present day, as I see it, is that Muslims have done exactly what the manipulators wanted them to do: abandoned any ideas of modernity (represented by the evil West that betrayed them very early on), and have become the bugaboo they were portrayed as.

But then, Zionist Jews have also become the bugaboo they were portrayed as prior to WW II. Even worse, in fact.

Christians, on their side, have begun entrenching in a big way too as anybody can see on twitter.

Result? "Clash of Civilizations". Just what the 4D STS overlords wanted all along.

Thank you,

My point wasn't merely to bash muslims and the joking part of my comment was a reply to Joe's dismissive tone.

If you permit me to soapbox for a minute,Joe's false equivalency between Europe's inbred nobles (some of which are really fun to read about,because you see comments made by their contemporaries such as ''he baffled all of Christendom by continuing to live'') and the general population which was not heavily inbred is a good example of how these discussions are usually shut down.Anytime you bring up negatives or wish to talk about unpleasant aspects of islam,you get disingenuous replies that mention the crusades and inquisition as if that negates the wrongs done by the caliphate (yes im aware that they were not brought up this specific time).They are little more than thinly veiled ''shut up bigot''. This is a tactic that is so common that it can be packaged as a colloquial metaphor.

The left in general is batting for Islam,making dumb assertions like ''Islam is a feminist religion'' (only in it's degree of intolerance) and Islam means peace (direct translation is submission,all those who do not submit are punished) all the while not realizing that they're inviting a religion far more conservative that even the most far right role players.Yes the clash of civilizations is manufactured this much is obvious.And yet the people that live that reality on the ground suffer.I can't speak for everyone here,but I prefer living among people that at least roughly share my basic values such as ''child marriage not good'' and ''don't force your views on everyone around you'', ''don't chop up pregnant women'' etc etc. Yet these things are increasingly common in majority muslim areas in the west.Sweden is a canary in the coal mine in this regard.They went from a model society,to one that is at best schizophrenic and in decline. This is currently almost uniquely a western phenomenon,one that I don't see stopping anytime soon.My point is that it's one thing to say ''don't lose your way,keep the faith'' and another when you're confronted with the cold reality of what people with a wildly different set of cultural values are actually like.

At this point the argument about 73 different forms of islam is brought up,yet the main divide that matters is shia and sunni.Shia at least are capable of functioning in the west,sunni are not.But even growing up with shia friends,any time I tried to talk about perception they would say something along the lines of ''that's the devil taunting you''.This shuts down any discussion immediately.Even among shia there is an intellectual black hole when it comes to the topic of religion.To question is to stray.This is totalitarian,why else would they need to pray 5 times a day and have the call to prayer over speakers?For the same reason Stalin's regime blurted out communist propaganda over street mounted megaphones.

I think I'm done ranting,I wish I was more eloquent and specific,but it's late and I'm lazy.