Given what we know about old news, or even just what we've personally seen about new news, we must gain (in order to grow) the intelligence, and the confidence, to not believe their biggest job of all, which comprises so much apparent historical study that it's a discipline in itself to even have an educated opinion on but a single small part of their story. This is why, say, someone is an expert on British history, then reveals himself to be utterly unaware of things that were supposedly pivotal, and then it turns out he's a specialist only on the Hanoverian lines, and only within a certain period--and when the microscope is close enough, you can find out that the supposed genius is utterly unaware of important thing X or Y that highlights someone else's career, or so unaware of it that he can carry on an intelligent conversation about it, but will actually be constantly analogizing the situation to his own thing and deflecting it from the specifics he doesn't know enough. And that kind of thing happens in normal current news, too; for example, you're not allowed to claim a historical perspective on something that happened merely 30 years ago, and while you're allowed to use metaphor to justify some current to-be popular cultural agenda by claiming a similarity between then and now (the best way to become a media-recognized expert), you are not permitted much other latitude. In particular, you're not much permitted to discuss incidents which, according to the media at the time, did not happen, much as if someone tried to draw an intelligent conclusion about America's first "Persian Gulf War" by alleging conversations between aides that must have happened in the early 1990s, regarding how far the first Bush administrator would go, and how far the second Bush administrator would then go, because no newspapers or whistleblowers reported it.
The identity of Muhammad is a similar faux-puzzle, where the sudden appearance of yet another Torah-based religion in the early hundreds A.D. has been pronounced an independent act of the Arabs, much like George H.W. Bush suddenly decided he possessed a humanitarian need to murder a lot of Iraqis on behalf of his constituents. Because the U.S. was still thought of as "White" then, some investigation was done into the White portions of the lies that assisted in justifying the invasion, and incubator-girl and April Gillespie's nuanced opinions on the rightness of attacking Kuwait stand out in some vile relief therefrom. Nonetheless, lacking global transportation at the time, the existence and doings of Muhammad--which were attended by the murder of many, many eyewitnesses--remains a forcibly stable mistruth.
Why goys would suddenly create another blighted religion at that point in time is a given; there are some of them doing so right now probably, and it's something they've always done, with more or less global success based on how willing they are to originate it in the Torah. Fractally, without waiting for the impossibility of someone showing up to doom her- or him-self by confessing "I lied and I did it in exactly this way and I'm sorry for what I've done," which we didn't get from the Persian Gulf White House either, and would be foolish to either expect or deny the unknown possibility of, we can determine in general ways who thought what and how they did it and what they were basically like, in ways that reduce all other history to childish fancies about the sources people chose to leave intact or publish.
Return to the U.S. invasions of Iraq, which tell an undeniable story. Never was Iraq possessed of the capacity to threaten the nationhood of America, so "self defense" was never available as a believable rationalization. Punishing the leader of Iraq for attempting to enact a non-dollar oil-trading market, then murdering him and replacing his leadership with a media-pliable democracy, runs as the only consistent, plausible possibility, particularly given the human rights scenarios in all other nearby countries, like when the U.S. travels to one particular African nation for professed humanitarian reasons. Since these people plan their stuff, it's fractal to conclude that they coordinated Iraq 1 and 2 at the same time, as well as the profitable practice for the USAF and Navy to enforce the "no fly" zones during the periods when the war was supposed to be not happening. Which means that, at some point, some important and powerful dude in a suit, possibly but not necessarily in the American executive mansion, had to talk to some other important and powerful dude in a suit about how Iraq would be kept neutered until it was time to actually be formal about taking it. And we know, thanks to our "vote for Obama to save the browns!" operable media spigot during the later years of Bush 2, that Cheney and some other dudes edited the allocation of oilfields later on, but we don't know for certain the names and faces of the evil men who helped background-plan the war in 1990 or earlier, and we can never, because they never confessed and never will. So responsible pop history can never mention them, until some permissible "damn whitey" pivotal moment in 2050, when some scandal is suitable for clinching an election.
That's an example of using fractals in history: of being able to say, without their compliance, that some of those dirty men who hung around Poppy Bush did a thing for which the first Bush administration should be held liable. Of course the bad people will never help you get the complete evidence against them, and of course those ludicrous stories of why it happened aren't real, and if these people had counterparts in older history, their globe-whistleblower risk becomes nil, and fractals become more important.
Ergo the Jewish Muhammad, or more genetically put, Muhammad the Jew. Not to allege that Muhammad actually believed any of his predecessors' or his own lifetime's shit, but to clarify that, genetically, Muhammad was and could only have been a Jew.
Let's discuss the evidence against, first. Here it follows: the people who believed in his sky-god religion after him say he was an Arab. That, sadly, is it.
The evidence for Muhammad being a Jew is so compelling that it leaves no ground for an alternative explanation, except for the assumptions that have dominated the field since then. Consider that he used the Torah to found his career, and that in creating a religion with a supposedly Arab character, he adopted the Jewish myth and a stated political preference for allowing Jews to endure as Jews in his future Islamic paradise, provided they paid a modest tax (hint: since the normal prescription for non-Muslims was death, the tax is a much better, very privileged alternative). Unbeknowst to many, Arabia at the time was rife with religions, often monotheist, which were as ethnically Arab as Judaism was ethnically Jewish in a genetic sense. In contrast to almost all of them (perhaps all, but you'd have to become an expert on religions in Arabia at the time, which is impossible with current records and those records likely obtainable for the next five thousand years or ever), like Christianity to clannish, defensive, practical European paganism, Islam was massively better for Jews, and the way in which it took over Arabia, like Christianity took over Europe, was a process whereby a lot of local genes with a lot of much older and nobler traditions, demonstrates a shared project. Indeed, it was only a few decades after those incredibly treasonous, unspeakably foul, Arabs, Europeans, and very smart Jews, assembled in Nicea to construct the Christianity that would do such a fine job bringing the Torah to Europe. The close historical concurrence of the solidification of the Yahweh myth, the European-targeted one, and the Arabia-targeted one, along with the Jewish and faux-Arab leadership at each grand council, and the identity of the person who was above all in having the ear of God--a Jew Rabbi Christ and, err, we're calling him "Muhammad" this time--make their own strong suggestion of the prophet-for-Arabia's identity.
Thanks to Muslims today who actually believe, as opposed to the European Christians who are proud to continually turn the other cheek at the affront to their Nicean beliefs that modern society constantly, mockingly offers, most of us in the west now know of the incredible disinclination of Muhammad and his handlers to have Muhammad's image rendered. Given the rest of Islamic theology, this requirement is not only seemingly random or nonsensical, but entirely out of place. If Muhammad had been rendered, and people had been meeting him in person rather than hearing his words from a horde of Arab, Arab-appearing, and Jewish handlers, Muhammad's historical image may have settled the question for worshipers later on.
(Do not let the future world, nor even his own people during life, know what the prophet really looked like. Their breeding for crypsis was not as effective then as now--the modern Saudi monarchs parade in the open; an accurate image of the historical Muhammad is more like the above than the Disney-Aladdin-esque cartoons Geller had her goys draw.)
An accurate rendering of Jesus of the time, including the historical one who was crucified for trying to start some minor rebellion for minority rights in some minor province of Rome, might have changed the European willingness to worship, ergo the use of subsidiary gentiles to render lots of glorious images of that poor Europeoid rabbi who taught everyone to invite anyone who wanted to come, and forgive them if they took advantage of some of the female toddlers. In the case of Muhammad, he was not Yahweh personified, but merely a messenger who must be thought of as an Arab; indeed, Arabs have the longest racial familiarity with the Jewish merchant's lies, and it's arguable that the Jews have tried harder to murder them than anyone else. Considering Europe and America, the Jews have certainly tried very hard to destroy Europeoids, but their assault on Europe didn't really begin in earnest until Nicea, whereas Arabs have had to deal with them for much longer. The Jews as a people would, arguably, have all white people in another Gaza strip, if they could, and it may only be more situational, their hatred of Arabs, but their embrace of Muslim rapefugees for Europe is only a convenience; they would create more nefarious hells for Arabs than Saudi Judea if they had no more use for them. Indeed, with about 2,300 years of murdering Arabs, and perhaps less than 1,700 murdering Europeoids, if there were a prize for "most likely to be killed by Jews," Arabs would have it. The need to personally inoculate Arabs with Islam, rather than trust some clunky double-agent, makes it more likely they made the prophet an actual Jew; in Europe, it could be Jews describing the famous Rabbi to a bunch of gullible white people (Europeoids being substantially more welcoming of outsiders, and less aware of their shared traits as an identifiable group, than Arabs), and the rabbi could still be embraced, but in Arabia, among people who even then had hundreds of years more experience being sold a hoof instead of a whole goat, and had developed more of a racial consciousness for dealing with other groups and with one group in particular, inserting someone who was fully invested in the idea of deleting all local religions and replacing them with the Torah's lying history was a must.
The prophet's predilection for raping the very young children of his host people is a troubling classification, for while it has long been a Jewish trait to rape children, that tradition is also somewhat Arabic--though more homosexual than heterosexual in that regard. Which is to say, Europe has a preference for "child protection" which grew out of its Grecian and Arabian interest in raping little boys, which in Judea became a desire for rape that was more, though not completely, heterosexually inclined. And yet, the seemingly practical Jewish prohibition against buggery, prevalent in the Torah, had to be upheld. Given the Arab character, particularly at the time, it is more likely that an Arab kingpin would be surrounded with little boys who satisfied his every earthly desire. The Qur'an does include many glowing descriptions of the oiled little boys who will attend sexually to the true believer in Allah's heaven, but also, like they didn't even edit it (they always make plausible deniability in their religions, so you can go back and forth over the centuries about it being pro-this or anti-that) at all, there are thinly veiled references about how much homosexuals suck. As with Catholic leaders released on the children of Europe, this produced in Arabia a child rape epidemic and a condemnation of any sustainable, private, consensual adult homosexual activity, the traces of which we still see today. Ergo Muhammad's raping nine-year-old girls, rather than boys, makes him more appear an Arab than a Jew. This would seem to be the one detail of his life which cuts in favor of him being an Arab rather than a Jew; more likely, he was simply a proto-Weinstein type of Jewish man, who felt that nine was just right and enjoyed female children more than male. Of course, anyone with more information to present on the subject would've been Vince Fostered, 500s style, and history would not know his name nor accusations, but like everything regarding Muhammad, scholarship would embarrass itself for trying to claim anything in a period where so many were murdered and someone's record guarded with such caution and such violence.
Muhammad's rumored appearance, of being a light-skinned Arab with reddish hair, makes it likely that he was a failed Ashkenazi--too dark to integrate well in Europe or the Catholic Church, but smart and competent and able to head a cell by himself. In a way, his accomplishment was far greater than that of many of the Jews working at Nicea, because he managed to produce not only his Torah-based religion, but the prohibition of death against anyone who drew his Jewish features, making his scheme immortal rather than perishing as soon as every Arab in the world privately looked at the sketches and figured out who had urged them to die for Yahweh/Allah. A simple Occam's razor or cui bono answers the question of this individual and period far better than any of the other nonexistent and presumptive hearsay about Muhammad having claimed to have been once surrounded by bloodthirsty armed guards later in life. Like some European tyrant's claim to be Odin personified, it is thoroughly un-scholarly and not at all appropriate to believe Muhammad or his thugs about who he was. In the sense of cui bono, Islam had a Catholic-like effect on Arabia, destroying what science remained outside of warfare, and it kept Arabs distracted with idiotic trifles for centuries while the Jews' useful idiots in Europe and America took over the world and began doing anything tangible Israel told it to. And as a result, the old war over control of Arabia concluded with Jewish victory, and now it's simply a matter of emptying out Arabia and the victory will be total. The thousand years plus that Jewish financiers encouraged Europeans to spend their own blood and treasure massacring Arabs, culminating in the beginning of another massacre in Palestine, was certainly not good, even even if some of the Arab survivors get their rocks off and improve their living standards for a few decades by raping their way through Europe, Islam's net effect on the region, and on the people, has been a massive loss, just as everywhere else the Torah has touched a non-Jewish people. The idea that this perpetuation of the Torah and provisioning of survival for Jews originated from an anti-Jewish Arab, or any Arab at all, is preposterous and offensive. Like pretending the cancer of Christianity originated with Europeans who really wanted to invite the rest of the world to take their lands and then turn the other cheek, the scourge of the Arabs, which encouraged the race down the path of abandoning, rather than beautifying, home, and to inspire new enemies to continually slay them, is implausible. No, it is very hard for the Nu Euro to admit that Christianity is not home-grown, but a Jewish poison, and it will be equally hard, if not equally impossible, for Arabs to do the same with their own sequels to the Torah.