[rerevisionist]

Judaism and Islam - comparison.

This is only indirectly related to nuclear issues, though of course if nuclear weapons exist, any possible cause for war is important. If they don't, the 'Samson Option' would have to be by conventional weapons.

This is to show
[1] Islam closely resembles Judaism (apart from allowing easy conversion, something Islam copied from Christianity).
[2] Jews go to great effort to conceal the similarities, because they don't want people to notice the primitive savagery of Judaism. Muslims also hide the similarities.
Therefore it's likely that behaviour characteristic of Jews will be found, increasingly, in Muslims.

These comments are based on critiques of two books, The West, Islam and Islamism: Is Ideological Islam Compatible with Liberal Democracy? by John Marks and Caroline Cox, and Londonistan: How Britain Has Created a Terror State Within by Melanie Phillips (who believes herself to be a Jew). (Remarkably, Phillips's book has almost no detail about London, despite the title.)

Similarities between Judaism and Islam
*Art: both have taboos against representative art
*Cruel ritual slaughter and food taboos
*Circumcision
*Calendar system influenced by the moon
*Distinctive odd clothing
*Very pronounced racist (Judaism) and tribalist (Islam) feeling aganst goyim and kuffar
*Deliberate dishonesty to non-members (Kol Nidre in Judaism, Taqqiya in Islam)
*Deliberate refusal to extend ethics to non-members (e.g. religious Jews and Muslims regard medical help to outgroup members as unnecessary). Even the most vicious and dangerous and damaging criminal members are, in practice, shielded by the vast majority of both groups
*Genetics: the breeding systems cause genetic defects: so much so these were known to 19th century medical doctors as 'Jewish Diseases'. It's less well-known - because of media censorship - that some Muslim groups have genetic diseases, the costs of course being offloaded onto the 'host community'.
*Legal system of a sort
*Religious buildings which are in fact tribalist
*Serious penalties for leaving
*Sacred texts preserved as much as possible
*Slavery - very much emphasised in the Quran and in Jewish books. Both religions have had huge involvements - Jewish involvement has only recently been rediscovered
*Prostitution - because of contempt for Goyim and Kuffar prostitution of whites is promoted
*Sex with children explicitly encouraged
*Similar attitudes to blacks and 'Semites'
*Both ideologies are parasitic
*In both cases the tribalism has limits - there are subsets of Jews and Muslims regarded as very inferior
*Women treated more or less as inferior
*Violence offered to critics, and with minimal attempt at self-criticism and self-understanding
*Violence as part of the history, though somewhat concealed: thus the wars and violence of Muhammad are presented as somewhat defensive; the mountain-dwelling 'Habiru' are supposed to have something to do with Hebrews

*Fanaticism: slightly more difficult to explain. A rigid mental model of the world tends to cause decisive and determined behaviour. The huge expansion of Islam when it was new; the separation from India of W and E Pakistan in 1948, with massive massacres; the destruction of an ancient Buddha recently are typical manifestations of fanaticism. Jewish behaviour can include years of study of work in law, politics, media, academia etc, not for career reasons, but with the extra motive of causing damage to goyim. And as with Islam, destructive behaviour becomes almost an instinct, as for example the mass murders of the USSR, the bombing and chemical warfare in Vietnam, the deliberate damage to Sweden (see the Barbara Lerner Spectre videos). It's difficult to imagine any civilised people doing these sorts of things.
. . .Religion: note that neither cult is simply a 'religion' in the usual western sense, which is a system of beliefs backed by some sort of creed, which can be changed if the reliigous person feels like it. Islam and Judaism are lifestyles rather than religions. To illustrate, someone in Switzerland defended Islamification in Switzerland by saying "the Swiss Constitution guarantees freedom of reliigon." She couldn't understand that Islam is a lifestyle: the Swiss Consititution does not guarantee polygamy, deliberate miseducation, prostitution of Kufr girls, genital mutilation, death threats against converts out.

Differences between Judaism and Islam
*Sheer population numbers - Islam is not particularist, unlike Judaism, and can spread anywhere; there are 1.6 billion reasons for concern
*Jihad - struggle. It's only recommended when the population proportion is above 20%. Mass murders arranged by Jews are historically comparable, but the machanism is different, because they expected to be a minority. EXCEPT THAT it's now generally accepted that the Khazar conversion is the source of most modern Jewry, despite their being not 'Semites'. (Some people think only a Khazar elite were converted, but this seems unlikely in view of the large numbers in Poland, Russia, and eastern Europe generally). In effect modern Zionism is something like a Jihad, but operates differently.
*Although both ideologies are parasitic, the differences are caused by population numbers, and by geography. Judaism is (vaguely) like a behaviour-changing tapeworm, Islam like a swarm of dangerous locusts. Islam until recently, unlike Judaism, had no great resources to exploit. A similar comment applies to democracy: both are theocratic rather than undemocratic, but in practice there have been many more Muslim theocracies
*Judaism is almost always a minority cult (though in pre-USSR Russia, in some areas Jews and Orthodox Russians were about equal in numbers). It is therefore natural, and almost inevitable, that Jewish power must be secret - with lies, deception, secret 'education' amongst themselves, long-term secret planning, subversion of some goyim and their institutions, vicious reactions when exposed - if possible; if not, slimy and wheedling reactions when exposed.
*Descent is supposedly by female line in Jews, male line in Muslims

How are the similarities evaded?
* Selection of sources. Western newspapers are mostly owned by Jews. Intelligence stuff is usually from secret sources. Absurdly biased funded quangos - In Britain, corrupt outfits such as the Runnymede Trust, the 'Equalities and Human Rights Commission', the Muslim Council of Britain, are treated as though independent.

* Simple bias. Omission for example by Jews of the Deir Yassin massacres, or British troops hanged in Jerusalem. And nothing about remote killing by drones in e.g. Afghanistan, so we have the ridiculous hypocrisy about a few deaths in one area vs. huge numbers of the 'enemy'. Assumptions about 'liberal democracies' compared with Islamic societies and Marxist societies - 'In western societies.. pluralism is encouraged and realised. .. there are commitments to equality..' I'd rather live here than there, but the blithe easy assumptions are untrue, as wars in Vietnam, Iraq and so on, and attacks on democracy in for example the EU, and censorship, prove.

* 'Group memory' of official lies, such as the 'Holocaust', 9/11, the USSR as 'socialist', the manufacture of wars. More recent examples include 'Al Qaeda' - does it exist, or is it just 'the database'? Did Ahmadinejad really say 'wipe Israel off the map'? Was Osama bin Laden a friend of the Bush families? Are judges 'independent', given that their promotions are by secret decisions? And there are pervasive false beliefs pushed by the media. For instance, immigration to northern English towns was not 'cheap labour' - all the housing, education, police, health and other costs were offloaded onto the taxpayer. The law was deformed to allow access to the social safety net to people for whom it was never remotely intended.

* Refusal to mention Jewish secret activities. People like Ken Livingstone in London take their instructions from Jewish-funded seedy 'lefties', but, like much Jewish activity, all this goes unreported. All the big political parties are backed financially by Jews. Race Relations Acts and the like were largely promoted by Jews in Britain and in European countries, just as in the USA. This of course now has parallels with secret Muslim activity.

The outcome in Europe now
* Immigration levels to the UK are so high that the entire population structure will be altered, unless something is done.
* In Britain immigrants get more rights than the 'natives' and deliberately outbreed them. Women have few rights (the police and the system collude in not helping them; Muslim police are known to be relatively corrupt). The women have arranged 'marriages', polygamy, are often uneducated and linguistically incompetent, and have little choice but breed.

So what should be done? There are roughly four possible approaches: [1] do nothing with the virtual certainty there'll be an ineducable underclass - or overclass; a sub-scientific society might result; [2] hope they can be reformed, and encourage reform; [3] withdraw their benefits etc; [4] explicitly do everything to remove them, by, for example, enforcing laws against ritual slaughter and mosques, preventing separatist education, and prosecuting all apostles of violence.

The options must be faced.

[rerevisionist]

NOTE ON PARASITISM

I'd say that creativity, building an entire organic reasonably-functioning society, is the most difficult task of politics. The easiest is pure destruction: bombing, killing, looting, raping, demolition are easy.

Intermediate is parasitism. All that's needed is the ability to spot a chance: money, assets, weak points can be exploited. This is a common characteristic of the uncreative tribal cults of Judaism and Islam. Neither has built any society of its own of any stability, and neither has produced any first-rate thinkers or creative people. The psychology must presumably be very deeply rooted, possibly even to the level of being genetically fixed.

If you consider someone who made money by working for aristocrats (in the 17th century maybe) - there seems to outsiders no obvious reason why such people couldn't sit back, be wealthy, and observe things. But presumably such people as the Rothschilds are continually faced with requests from money for schemes - everything from cornering meat, buying up rentable property, purchasing newspapers for propaganda reasons, financing scientific fraud, financing wars, buying up politicians, corrupting education, and so on. To the extent that, now, and for a century at least, they have become a worldwide nuisance.

My best guess is that their sheer recklessness is a function of parasitism, too. A parasite has little understanding of the host; it simply has to assume the host will limp along, doing what it always has, and contributing to the parasite's well-being. I think this psychology explains why, for example, huge genocides over Russia, vast wartime cruelties and killings, huge environmental risks, enormous frauds, calculated false-flag killings, vast speculative financial corruptions and risks, and huge population replacements are undertaken without apparently the slightest thought, as under a sort of robotic genetic programming. The same sort of thing applies to Islam, which has a history of both casual and deliberate destruction, of environmental damage and desertification, and casual vast cruelties reminiscent of Jews.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Jews and arabs are brothers, genetically. Jews often playact at arabs, for propoganda/'false flag' operations.

They both have their own law, which is often in contradiction to the 'host' nation they are living in.

[rerevisionist]

FiirstClassSkeptic, you don't seem aware of the 'Khazar' hypothesis, which despite suppression has existed through the whole 20th century and has been spread widely by Internet. I don't think there's a good brief outline, but Arthur Koestler's book 'The Thirteenth Tribe' is OK, though for my taste too novel-like and long-winded.

But I may be misreading you - Arabia and the Khazar areas aren't that far apart.

[rerevisionist]

Cultural desert...

The following extract is from C N Parkinson's East and West (1963), which does its best to survey world history, excluding the Americas and most of Africa, so far as it was known to official historians by about 1960. He predicts Russia will ally with the 'west'. Incidentally Parkinson attributes massacres of Jews, before the Crusades, not to e.g. swindles or child murder, but to removing an alien force. Following is from pp. 143-144 of the paperback edition:---

...
When all this has been said, [a review of Islam after its first couple of centuries up to about the 9th century, when they still had civilisations to pillage] there is something to be placed on the debit side. The Arab was a nomad, not a cultivator, and brought with him not only mental stimulus, but agricultural disaster. As C. S. Jarvis [Three Deserts (London 1936)] explains:

The Arab is sometimes called the Son of the Desert, but, as Palmer said, this is a misnomer as in most cases he is the Father of the Desert, having created it himself, and the arid waste in which he lives and on which practically nothing will grow is the direct result of his appalling indolence, combined with his simian trait of destroying everything he does not understand ... In his campaign of destruction, the Arab has been most loyally supported by his animals, the camel and the goat...

Is this the sour comment of British officialdom? If so, it is anticipated in the Prolegomena of Ibn Khaldûn of Tunis (1332-1406), which reads thus:

Mark how all the countries of the world which have been conquered and dominated by the Arabs have had their civilisation ruined, their populations dispersed, and even the soil itself apparently transformed. Thus Yemen is in ruins, except for a few districts; similarly Iraq, which was so flourishing under the Persians, is devastated; so, too, in Syria at the present day. In North Africa and the Maghrib . . . ruin and devastation still prevail. Yet before that time all the country lying between the Sudan and the Mediterranean was the centre of a flourishing civilisation, as witnessed by the remains of building and statues and the ruins of towns and villages . . . Yet Arabs are withal, the quickest of peoples to follow the call to truth and righteousness. For their natures are relatively simple and free from the distorting effect of bad habits and evil ways ...

[An Arab Philosophy of History. Translated by Charles Issawi.]

In the ninth century, the merits of Islam were much in evidence, and the longterm devastation had still, perhaps, to be fully realized.
....

[Sorensen731]

I seriously distrust Koestler thesis.

A more serious and old one, and not so recently and easily propagandized is;

Identity of the religions called druidical and Hebrew; demonstrated from the nature and objects of their worship, and, from a careful consideration of certain customs, formerly prevalent in Egypt, Canaan, Carthage, Babylon, Persia, Arabia, America, India, Greece, Italy; and, among the Etruscans, bonzes, Gymnosophists, Chzldeans, &c (1829)

https://www.archive.org/details/identityreigion00idengoog

Why do you trust a jew, Koestler? It's disinformation.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

In North Africa and the Maghrib . . . ruin and devastation still prevail. Yet before that time all the country lying between the Sudan and the Mediterranean was the centre of a flourishing civilisation, as witnessed by the remains of building and statues and the ruins of towns and villages .

There was a man that talked about this, in a series of lectures, back in the 1930's. I think it was this man:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrc ... 20|%20NRCS

I lost the original page that I found. It would take a while to find the part I was reading.

This man toured all over the world looking at agriculture (if I have the right man) In north Africa, he noted the ruined cities, that had public baths, fountains, stadiums, stone buildings. There were orchards surrounding that, according to ancient accounts, had grown just about every fruit and nut.

Why did it die? The prevailing theory is that there was a climate change, and the trees wouldn't grown any more.

This man didn't think so.

Some people went there and did an experiment. They noticed what looked like ancient irrigation canals. They fixed them, and planted some fig trees, or such, and they grew. Proving that it wasn't climate change.

The man mentioned that there were only Bedouins living in the area, but failed to make a racially based connection.

[rerevisionist]

@FirstClassSkeptic - yes, probably. No one honest will deny the truth about Jews has been kept secret for a few centuries. There's no reason why the same shouldn't be true of Islam, though it's less obvious why.

@Sorensen731 - the book you link to was printed in about 1820. It claims to show similarities between Druids and Jews - not their beliefs, since the Druids left no written material - but things like stonehenge and metals. I haven't read the book, but it seems irrelevant to the Khazar issue.

Koestler only popularised the idea, and I mention his book because it is fairly easily available - it's not that I trust him. Koestler did NOT originate the Khazar idea. Russians, and some Poles, and Hungarians, did, at least in the 20th century. Koestler mentions his sources, but at no stage clearly lists them - you have to read through the whole book to pick up clues - but it's clear the idea predates these people, who were in effect rediscovering the idea. If I can find the time, I'll try to make a list of them. I have a Polish book, in English, pre-dating Koestler, which includes the Khazars. H G Wells's 1920s Outline of History has material too. So it's not an idea of Koestler - and it is likely he misrepresented the previous writers in a way flattering to Jews.

The strength of the Khazar theory is that (i) It explains numbers- how could some tiny exclusivist tribe populate big chunks of central and eastern Europe? (ii) It explains the geography - if there was a 'diaspora' of some sort, why would they all move north east? (iii) The language - I assume Koestler, familiar with Hungarian and other languages, made some link with central European languages and Yiddish. (iv) It seems consistent with a political mass conversion postdating the rise of Islam, and makes sense as an ideology for a narrow group.

And no doubt other things.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

I had the wrong man. It wasn't Bennett. But close. It was Lowdermilk that I was thinking of.

Timgad, Lost Capital of a Lost Agriculture

Further to the south we stopped to study the ruins of another great Roman city of North Africa, Thamugadi, now called Timgad. This city was founded by Trajan in the first century A.D., laid out in symmetrical pattern and adorned with magnificent buildings, with a forum embellished by statuary and carved porticoes, a public library, a theater to seat some 2500 persons, 17 great Roman baths, and, if you please, with marble flush toilets for the public. After the invasion of the nomads in the seventh century had completed the destruction of the city and dispersal of its population, this great center of Roman culture and power was lost to knowledge for 1200 years. It was buried by the dust of wind erosion from surrounding farm lands until only a portion of Hadrian's arch and 3 columns remained like tombstones above the undulating mounds to indicate that once a great city was there.



The ruins of Timgad -- an ancient Roman city built during the first century A.D. The few huits seen in the center background now house about 300 inhabitants, which is all the eroded land will support. Note that the eroded hills in the background are almost as desolate as the ruins of the city.



Since discovery of the site, the French Government has been excavating this great center for 30 years and has disclosed remarkable examples of building, of art, and of ways of living during Roman times in North Africa, all supported by the agriculture of the "Granary of Rome." The mosaics that lined the public baths were beautiful in design. Within the city we found ruins of a great bakery with its many grist mills turned by slaves to grind the wheat that grew on the plains. But today this great center of power and culture of the Roman empire is desolation; it is represented by a modern village of only a few hundred inhabitants who live in squalid structures, the walls of which are for the most part built of stone quarried from the ruins of the ancient city.

We saw also where water erosion cut a gully down into the land and exposed an ancient aqueduct that supplied water to the city of Timgad from a great spring some 3 miles away. Within and surrounding Timgad, we studied remarkable ruins of great olive presses where today there is not a single olive tree within the circle of the horizon.

On the plain of Tunisia we came upon in El Jem, the ruins of a great coliseum, second only in size to that of Rome, for the amusement of a city in a populous region. It was built to seat some 65,000 people, whereas it would be difficult to find 5000 persons today within this district. The ancient city now lies buried around the coliseum and a sordid modern village is built on the buried city.

What was the cause of the decadence of North Africa and the decline of its population? Some students have suggested that the climate changed and became drier, forcing people to abandon their remarkable cities and works. But Gsell, the renowned geologist who studied this problem for 40 years, challenged the conclusion that the climate has changed in any important way since Roman times. So Director Hodet, of the Archaeological Excavations at Timgad, decided as an experiment to plant olive trees on an unexcavated portion of the city where there would be no possibility of sub-irrigation. He planted young olive trees in the manner prescribed in Roman literature, watering them in the following two long dry summer seasons. These olive trees are thriving, indicating that where soils are still in place, olive trees will grow today probably very much as they did in Roman times.

https://journeytoforever.org/farm_librar ... Lowd2.html

Repeated here, I think.

https://www.soilandhealth.org/01aglibrar ... a/cls.html

[Sorensen731]

But rerevisionist, the truth is that Jews ruled England, and France and America too, not "the East", the central and Eastern Europeans were anti-Semites, the Russians specially, and the Germans, so, how can that be? And how came to be that Britain and France loved them and had them in government and always together?
It's disinformation, Jews may have come, or traveled from the East, maybe, but their power wasn't there, it was in Britain and France, and the US.
It's not the numbers, but the powers, where do they got power and where were they put in ghettos (In Eastern Europe, because they didn't like or trust them).

I recommend the book I pointed out. The Khazar theory makes no sense.

[Sorensen731]

Timgad, Lost Capital of a Lost Agriculture

the city disappeared from history until its excavation in 1881.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timgad

Read that part again, the city disappeared for 1200 years!

Let's put the facts straight. Ruins are discovered in 1881... Why? Why where they lost?

The most probable reason is a massive terrible cataclysm, you don't loose a city, you don't waste a perfectly planned city, which can be used to save time and rebuild houses easily and cheap. You don't do that, the neighbors would use it, occupy it, or travelers, it won't go unnoticed for too long.

I'm sure a cataclysm type event happened in XVIII, XIX century and history was badly misconstrued by the survivors or just faked by the perpetrators.

See a summary of proofs here;
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&u=livehistory.ru/forum.html%3Ffunc%3Dview%26catid%3D18%26id%3D17200

[rerevisionist]

Sorensen731 » 09 Sep 2011 11:51
But rerevisionist, the truth is that Jews ruled England, and France and America too, not "the East", the central and Eastern Europeans were anti-Semites, the Russians specially, and the Germans, so, how can that be? And how came to be that Britain and France loved them and had them in government and always together?
It's disinformation, Jews may have come, or traveled from the East, maybe, but their power wasn't there, it was in Britain and France, and the US.
It's not the numbers, but the powers, where do they got power and where were they put in ghettos (In Eastern Europe, because they didn't like or trust them).

I recommend the book I pointed out. The Khazar theory makes no sense.

I may be missing your point here. But---

* I take it that there were 'Hebrews' who may have been defined by language and/or some area in the eastern Mediterranean, and/or may have been a violent group hiding in mountains and preying on cities in plains, and/or may have been wholly or partly religious in the sense of having books/scrolls/ practices. They may have had connections with Babylon or other places, may have had a language related to (e.g.) Chaldean. They may have been arranged by something like castes. Their 'priests' may, or may not, have been learned in some sense - possibly including astronomical and calendar matters. Their books may have been intended as truth and/or made up as propaganda.

* I don't think there's much doubt that the Khazar conversion took place. Any other 'Jews' - or whatever they called themselves - may not have recognised them as Jews. But in a de facto sense they were Jews. It's perfectly possible they were savages compared with genuine Jews, and possibly the general brutality of these modern 'Jews' was not shared with authentic 'Jews'.

* I think* Jewish power was a matter of organisation and learning and calculation. (Christian power had an analogous basis, including its own language, which settled down into Latin, and a clerisy if that's the right word).

* The money side of things of the Khazars seems to have been based on trade, facilitated by a common language which mutated into Yiddish, and straddled a large area in northern Asia.

* More or less modern banking seems to have been started by Italians and Venetians, but because of the divide with northern Europe and Germanic tribes and the Reformation etc it seems to have been Jewish in northern Europe. I *guess* if there were traditional Jews in France, England etc they would have allied with Khazar Jews.

*In Spain, there's the complication of the Islamic invasions.

* Going back to the 'dark ages', I'm personally agnostic. For instance, it's *possible* that skilled traders could have claimed or pretended to be 'Jews' by adopting some fanciful mannerisms to impress people. A bit like actors putting on white coats in TV ads, pretending to be scientists.
__________________
IDENTITY of the RELIGIONS CALLED DRUIDICAL AND HEBREW; ... THE AUTHOR

This book you mention has Greek and Latin passages, and a some Hebrew and other words and scripts - e.g. Etruscan alphabet. The author is anonymous, and I wondered if he might have been a Jew, but probably he was conventionally educated in the 'classics' with a smattering of 'oriental' languages. He doesn't refer to any Jewish books at all, and doesn't seem to know they exist, but only quotes from the Pentateuch. He doesn't seem to know Aramaic or demotic Greek - I think he sees the Pentateuch mostly in English translation.

He seems to be saying that the same religion held in ancient times (round about 5000 BC) throughout Britain, Egypt, India, Iran and even in the Americas. Judaism and Druids - and I think he's saying everyone else, including Brahmins - believed the same. But his evidence is inevitably a bit of a ragbag --
* Words. He notes Baal and Bel and so on. (My own examples: it's true that the Goddess Nut sounds like la nuit, and Nacht; it's true the word for a neck ornament in Egyptian was toq, very like torc; it's true Ammon sounds like Amen). But of course this isn't conclusive, as shown by, these days, many people saying 'Allah' is the same as 'God'.
* Mithraic cult of bulls and stars. The author seems to think the constellation Taurus in which the sun rises at some times of the year was always regarded as a bull everywhere. But presumably the arrangement of stars was fancifully called 'Taurus' because of bull worship, or some bull-related reason. The constellation doesn't look anything like a bull. The author doesn't realise constellations can be of different types, either - for example the Egyptians regarded a sequence of stars, spread out over the sky in a long but separated chain, and which rose at regular intervals, as a 'constellation'.
* Round stone monuments. The author takes descriptions of stone monuments in the Pentateuch as evidence they had stonehenge-style constructions. This seems not at all convincing, even allowing for the ruin and destruction of monuments. Incidentally he seems ahead of his time in suggesting stonehenge is a type of calendar which even 100 years later was hotly contested.
* The sun, gold etc. The author doesn't seem to realise that sun worship makes a lot of sense and could have developed independently.
* Metempsychosis, life after death etc. The author is anxious to show that the whole India/ Europe/ Egypt area believed the same thing, but of course there's not much sound evidence. He says for example Moses must have believed in life after death, because everyone did, even though he never actually said so.
* Woodlands, groves etc. The author's description of dense woodland just doesn't seem to apply to other countries - the whole ecology and biology is different. 'Oak trees' don't seem to be as universal as he thinks.
* Human sacrifice, remains burnt in fires etc. The author doesn't seem to realise how little actual evidence there is, or how equivocal it is.
* Missing stuff: the author doesn't mention sex, which Victorian explorers in Egypt found evidence of, to their embarrassment: crux ansata, maybe, priapic statues. Maybe mistletoe berries resembled semen? He says a bit about scarabs, and of course these aren't found everywhere - he suggests cancer the crab was a scarab. But if the religion was universal, why aren't they mentioned? What about food taboos, and cleanliness rituals? What about the fact that the constellations and moon look different at different latitudes; and the fact that northern latitudes are very often cloudy? What about Norse Gods? There are plenty of other things which could be mentioned, suggesting the author was just choosing examples to fit his case.

Even if he's right, that much the same rituals and beliefs and daily practises applied in this huge area, what's the relevance to a group identifiable as 'Jews'? Is he saying everyone is a Jew?