The sophomores at the Jew York Times have a new theory for why the Middle East is so screwed up: The Abu Bakr Effect. When Abu Bakr accepted the Caliphate on Muhammad’s (PBUH) death in 632, he set a train of events in motion that explain all the Middle East’s problems.
In the past, the Abu Bakr Effect only mattered to the JYT and other mainstream outlets when they needed to explain sectarian conflictsÂ inside an Islamic country. Iraq, for instance, splintered after 2003 because the Sunnis and Shiites rediscovered how to goÂ medieval on each other. But now the MSM is going big. They now claimÂ that the Sunni-Shiite split explains regional politics too! Iran and Saudi Arabia are having a spat because they fall on different sides of the ancient sectarian split. Obviously religion is behind it all.
It’s not surprising then, that the MSM has made a fetish of repeating how long Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting. Fourteen hundred years! This juvenile observation was hammered home by CBS Evening NewsÂ (see 12:10), in a report by semi-smart, hot-for-her-age Holly Williams. That figure seems to be the only thing anyone in the MSM knows about the pre-Israel Middle East. But of course it’s ridiculous.Â Would anyone blame the French-German animosity (and thus WWI and WWII) on the Treaty of Verdun (843) that divided the Frankish Empire among the sons of Louis the Pious? Or would they look for more proximate causes?
People have conflict over things besides ancient meta-religious catfights. Understand that, and you won’t have toÂ go full retard and start blaming it all on a 7th-century intra-Islam succession dispute that no one in the West cares about or understands. People usually do things because they want something. They have goals. Contrary to how the MSM clowns portray the Middle Easterners (and a lot of other peoples, for that matter) they do not act out of some wacko hatred,Â based on who should have been Caliph in 632.
Peoples fight and compete with each other. TheyÂ define their group based on parameters that include, yes, religion; but also culture, economic interest and race. Mesopotamia, for example, has been a bone of contention between Iran and various other powers since the days of the Elamites and the Medes. The inhabitants of the Iranian plateau have always been ethnically and culturally distinct from their Mesopotamian neighbors. Mesopotamians, in turn, differ from the inhabitants of the nearby deserts. They differ in modes of life (sedentary vs nomadic), cultural achievement (high vs low) and, yes, religious doctrine. Read Ali Wardi. So if the foreign-policy majors at the CBS want to whine about intractable conflictÂ in the Middle East (1,400 years!),Â they could project that timeline backwards by a few millennia.
The real cause of all the recent warring and genociding in the Middle East is, wait for it, the Jews. The foundation of Israel reintroduced History into lands that had been in political hibernation for centuries while under Ottoman control (the occasional border war notwithstanding). Mention that the next time some FP-tard starts larping about “centuries of conflict in the Near East.” If we adopted a similarly broad-strokeÂ view of Europe, the years between 450 and 1950 look like a total shitfest. Since Israel’s founding, the Jews and the Arabs fought 3 major wars, blame for which cannot be laid solely on the Arabs. There was also the Suez CrisisÂ (to be fair, the Brits and the French were in on it too). And then there was Iraq part deux, pushed by a cabal of Washington-based Neocons. Or should I say Judeocons? And now Bibi wants to bomb bomb Iran, because it has 6 million nuclear warheads, despite the fact that Mossad (to their credit) concluded otherwise. But hey, it’s not like the religion of the Jews doesn’t condone genocide or anything.
It is hard to say what exact role the Jews (in Israel, Washington or New York) play in the current SA-Iran spat. We know that powerful Jews in the West are fanatical in their support for Israel’s perceived interests. Saudi Arabia has been playing nice with Israel lately. The Israeli government regards Iran as its primary competition (or, as they’d put it “a threat to Israel’s very existence”). Perhaps the Jews have no hand in this particular incident. The Iranians and the Arabs are capable of acting to attain their own ends. They are based enough not to willingly act as Israeli puppets.
WhateverÂ he case may be, the current tensions have nothing to do with the election of Abu Bakr and the murders of Hassan and Hussain ibn Ali. And the hacks in the MSM would know that if they had any understanding of history beyond the purely superficial. Understanding history does not mean learning one fact about the past and ascribing current events to it. Someone who understands history knows that people act to achieve their perceived interests. Sorry guys, the Abu Bakr Effect is not a thing.