The History Of Exalted Figures

“They ‘trust me’.  Dumb fucks.”  –Mark Zuckerberg (in an e-mail re: the first users of [The]Facebook)

As we’ve seen, much cult activity surrounds (and proceeds from) a panjandrum who claims to have privileged access to hidden truths–often a mystic claiming to be in a unique position to provide esoterica to which the rest of us are not privy.

Such “theophany” dates back to the Bronze Age.  The notion of god’s representative on Earth (a chosen one) could be found with the Sumerian “en-si”, the ruling priesthood centered at Ur in the 3rd millennium B.C.

In the 8th century B.C., the Akkadian writer, Kabti-ilani Marduk penned an epic about the god of chaos, Erra, which he claimed was dictated to him by Erra himself.  This may be one of the earliest instances of revealed text.  In the book are magical incantations that were believed to ward of nefarious forces (e.g. plagues and famines).  Why, exactly, this deity chose HIM–and ONLY him–to deliver this importune message, Kabti-ilani never said.  It was he who was selected; and that’s all there was to it.  (The rest of the world was not privy to this nebulous source of information.  Everyone just had to take his word for it.  And so they did.)

In Ancient Antiquity, the schtick continued.  The Paphlagonian (Greek) prophet, Alexander of Abonoteichus, founded the cult of Glycon based on the claim that he was speaking on behalf of the gods.  Thereafter, there emerged myriad mystery cults and hero cults throughout the Greco-Roman world.

Insofar as a charismatic leader can make followers feel special, feel as though they MATTER, can get them to see a point to their existence, he can manipulate (nay, control) them.  The upshot is that each follower’s SELF-esteem is tied to the esteem accorded to their leader.

When seeking to captivate an audience, one quickly realizes that one’s enterprise is about presentation rather than about substance.  In other words, its success is primarily determined by the DELIVERY (read: the show that one puts on).  This is more a matter of exuding a mesmerizing air of sagacity than of being ACTUALLY sagacious.  After all, gravitas is rarely predicated on merit; it is more a manufactured pathos than a dependable gauge of credibility.  Refer to the panjandra enumerated above, and one will find that, regardless of what each of them said, they ALL projected unassailable air of authority when they said it.

As with any “motivational speaker”, the credence of what is said has minimal import; what matters is the confidence with which it is said, and the ability to convey a superficial plausibility of the claims being touted.  Thus: How COMPELLING the speaker manages to be is what determines the credence that his pronouncements are accorded.  The key, then, is to resonate with the audience (to “push all the right buttons”, to “strike a chord”, and to “hit a nerve”).  At the end of the day, it’s the appeal of the vision, not the merit of the vision, that counts.  And the appeal is invariably a function of the intensity and conviction with which the material is presented.

The efficacy of this approach is largely predicated on the demagogue’s charisma.  But we should bear in mind that “prophets” are like “magic”: “real prophets” don’t actually exist; and actual “prophets” are not really prophets.  As Lee Siegel once put it in his book about professional magicians: REAL MAGIC refers to the magic that is not real, while the magic that is real (that can actually be done) is NOT REAL MAGIC.

As has been demonstrated time after time: By sewing neurosis while fostering delusion, a savvy demagogue can have acolytes eating out of the palm of his hand.  If the ruse is well-orchestrated, the charismatic leader can recruit a large entourage of fawning proselytes, eager to evangelize on behalf of their leader.  Oftentimes, followers are willing to die for the cause (doing so in the belief that, after death, they will be magically transported to a wonderful place).

Again, the schtick is a familiar one:  “I have access to certain information to which nobody else in the world has access.  This is information, might I add, that is crucial to mankind.”  The scam is especially effective if one can convince the audience that the information is very, very, very important.  This was used in Judaic lore–most notably in the Book of Daniel (chapt. 7), where the eponymous prophet receives a dream-vision about the eschaton from the godhead.

As is the case with any other gimmickry, the more people believe them, the more panjandra are egged on.  By the time the Book of Daniel was written, the schtick was nothing new in the Abrahamic tradition.  Who else claimed to be relaying messages from the Abrahamic deity?  Hosea, Elisha, Ezekiel, and Ezra all claimed to have been commissioned by the godhead to pass along some propitious communique to Beth Israel.  Such men were no different from “channelers” who claim to be relaying messages from the spirit realm…or shamans claiming to be relaying messages from deceased ancestors…or any other huckster claiming to have powers of divination.

Interestingly, in Judaic lore, there is no difference between the concept of angle and a messenger–as the term in Classical Hebrew, “malakh” can mean both.  (These beings are variously referred to as “malakh elohim” [messengers of god] and “bene elohim” [sons of god].)

A demagogue needs to rationalize his self-aggrandizement.  If one is to be warden of the entire planet, potentate of all mankind, one needs to offer an extremely compelling reason for the appointment.  In most cases, one claims to be the mouth-piece of (messenger for ) the deity-in-question.  In the more extreme cases, one claims to be the literal incarnation of the deity.

Pleas like “Many people claim to have witnessed his miracles!” and “Many people were willing to die in his name!” are de rigueur; and so are seen to hold no water for ANY GIVEN case.  These two convictions are not unrelated; as many people would SWEAR ON THEIR LIVES that the revered figure was who he said he was.

Indeed, we find that in virtually ALL cases, acolytes (a.k.a. “disciples”) provide testimony of preternatural deeds, and were OFTEN willing to die for something that–in reality–was fraudulent.  Not only are such things not unheard of, they are COMMONPLACE.  One needn’t cite recent events like mass suicides of the People’s Temple or Heaven’s Gate; for supplicants are TYPICALLY willing to sacrifice their lives for “the cause”.

The “catch”, of course, is that for SUBSEQUENT True Believers, such testimonials / martyrdoms provide airtight confirmation of the veracity of their claims.  They are blissfully unaware of the fact that myriad other groups are engaged in a similar program of self-deception…based on THE SAME RATIONAL.

The story, we find, is roughly the same in all cases.  Insofar as he is seen as a conduit for the divine, the holy figure is esteemed for the ability to invoke powers and/or to furnish insight.  Magic and/or divination are his bailiwick.  The term “priest” seems to encompass a wide variety of phenomena; so I will use it as a general term for holy figures in the context of an institutional structure.

A priest’s social status derives from the fact that he makes important things happen and/or is a source of propitious insights.  Here’s the thing: It’s a short leap between priest as wonder-worker (i.e. MAGE; as in a witch-doctor, faith-healer, or sooth-sayer) to priest as proprietor of wisdom (i.e. SAGE; as in a guru or lam[a]).  An intercessor is a cross between the two–as with those who claim the capacity to influence the god(s) AND the ability to procure special insight (as with shamans).  Most priests wear two hats; as going back and forth between sorcery and sacerdotalism, magic and dispensation, allows him to serve two useful purposes.

Each and every vatic figure enumerated here claimed to be what is called in Classical Arabic the “mustafa” (the chosen one).  “Messiah” means “anointed one”.  The Messianic leitmotif often works like a charm–as it is captivating, enchanting, and–when the demagogue is especially charismatic–utterly enthralling.

And so it goes: “I am uniquely positioned to proffer crucial insights to which nobody else is privy.  Hence you need to listen to ME.”  The subtext is clear: “If you listen to everything I tell you, then your life might actually begin to mean something–and the future will hold wonderful things in store for you.  However, if you decline my invitation, then you’ll be sorry.”  There is no better way to stir up Messianic fervor.

The sales-pitch is can be highly persuasive–as the combination of apocalyptic foreboding and the anticipation of a “Shangri La” yields an intoxicating cocktail of fear and hope.  “An ominous future lurks just over the horizon; yet a fantastical destination awaits those who sign up for this special program.”  Put another way: “Wonderful things are in store for you…IF you play your cards right.  Otherwise, you’ll be sorry.”  This compelling narrative can be extremely seductive–even hypnotic; which is precisely why we find it all over the world.

Unsurprisingly, the result is usually a flock of glassy-eyed, timorous votaries deluded into thinking that euphoria lies just around the corner…if, that is, they are sufficiently penitent.  In the meantime, they will grovel in submission, and do as they’re told.

The success of the scam depends on the degree to which the scam-ARTIST can exploit credulity and/or insecurity.  Even better if he can offer something that satiates everyone’s yearning for something to look forward to.  With the right cocktail of fear and false hope concocted, sycophancy is easily engendered in those willing to “believe”.

In his 1922 “Sociology of Religion”, Max Weber noted that “there can be no priesthood without a cult” (though he allowed for the possibility that there to be a cult without a formal priesthood). {1}

Insofar as the priest is part of an institution, he is effectively a functionary (barring instances in which he is seen as the potentate).  That is to say: His charge is to ensure the continuous operation of the cultic enterprise.  In such a case, he is merely a “cleric” (as with the Buddhist “bonze”). {2}  Clerics exist for the maintenance of the institution–which, in turn, endows them with the stature they enjoy.  Intercessional ritual ensures the facade is upheld.  For when laity are convinced that they can only implore their deities via a worldly proxy, who claim to conduct affairs on behalf of the (putative) celestial powers, formidable social powers are arrogated to these vicars.

Insofar as a person claims to act on behalf of the god(s), he effectively fashions himself as a divine plenipotentiary–as in a prophet who claims to have the power to channel vital messages (Zoroaster, Moses, Mani of Ctesiphon, Mohammed of Mecca, Joseph Smith).  That is: He is a praxis for the divine.  In the event that he becomes the impresario of cultic activity (i.e. a panjandrum), the mage is rendered a mystagogue; the sage a demagogue.  (Both might be subsumed under the rubric “demagogue”, as the modern sense of the term intimates the demagogy characteristic of charismatic leaders.)

Otherwise, we are dealing with a sage in the vein of Siddhartha Gautama, Lao Tzu, or Jesus of Nazareth–who did not seek to found a cult.  The degree to which a following becomes institutionalized varies.  When sages form guilds, the beginnings of institutionalization can be observed–as with the various Hellenic “mystery cults” (of Dionysus, Isis, Mithras, etc.) or with the Hindu “gosains”.  To the degree that a mystical practice becomes ritualized, and the dogmatism systematized, the following becomes a congregation and the proprietors an institution.  Ritual tends to include holy rites (as with Hindu “yajnas” and Christian “sacraments”).  With a higher degree of institutionalization, the more ceremonial the practices become.

The hawking of special insight is only the beginning.  One of the hallmarks of a prophet are, of course, the making of predictions.  Prophets are, after all, supposed to be prophetic (i.e. prescient in some preternatural way).  EVERYONE finds themselves wondering, “What’s going to happen next?”  Insofar as a figure claims to be able to make prophecies, he / she will command our attention.  This is how fortune-tellers stay in business: People want to know what the future holds in store for them; because nobody enjoys interminable uncertainty.  There is something tremendously unsatisfying about the response, “Well, that remains to be see.”  It’s hard to accumulate an avid audience with a series of “too be determined”.  And one is unlikely to develop a following by saying, “You have access to the same evidence that I do; so see for yourself.”

Hence demagogues (qua prophets) have a proclivity to fashion themselves as oracles, and thus FORETELL pending events that their followers might care about.  Most (though not all) of the demagogues listed in this endnote are seen not only as channelers of divine wisdom, but as MANTIC…which usually entails pretending to have a hotline to the divine.

This means having the inside scoop not only regarding the way the world works, but regarding WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT.  Part of having privileged access to the secrets of the universe is being privy to FATE.  So most prophets deign to predict things-to-come…and are inevitably proven wrong.  When Messianic / apocalyptic, the prophet’s prognostications typically regard the Last Day (a.k.a. the “End Days”).  Those who claim to have privileged access to this vital information are invariably going to be held in high esteem by those hankering for it.  (“What’s around the corner?  I’m dying to know.  If you know, PLEASE tell me.”)

Such purported clairvoyance makes someone extremely valuable–for the same reason that witch doctors and seers tend to command a vaunted status in shamanistic traditions.  After all, what’s a prophet without the powers of divination?  Since the earliest days of Ancient Egypt and Sumer, one of the most exalted positions in society was that of the “high priest”, who was usually the right-hand man / woman of the ruler.  (“Want to know what’s going to happen?  Consult the oracle!”)  Insofar as people believe the oracle has such power, he / she will be seen as extremely valuable.  When the leader is HIMSELF the oracle, then all the better.  Who’s going to question a potentate who claims that he’s “had a vision” or “seen a sign” or “received a revelation”?

In sum: To be FATIDIC is, in part, to be ORACULAR (to be able to provide answers to pressing questions that nobody else can provide).  To (SEEM TO) be in a unique position to provide answers that people desperately want to have (yet can’t seem to find themselves) is to accord oneself tremendous prestige.  Once one can persuade everyone that one possesses such wondrous capabilities, the arrogation of power to oneself is much easier. {52}

The point can’t be emphasized enough: In order to be persuasive, one doesn’t have to say anything that is true.  One only needs to CONVINCE people that what one says is true.  The game is about getting people to believe in X.  This largely depends on having a great sales-pitch.  If X “rings true” to the audience; and one has a commanding presence, then the game is won.

The tactics usually the same: proffering some combination of carrots and sticks (that is: peddling hope while stoking fear).  Concoct (the impression of) a dire illness; then offer a (purported) cure.  After all, one must create the fog before offering the beacon.  Give the audience something to believe in; something to look forward to.  It is so much easier to control people when one claims to be notifying them of their “destiny”.

The goal, after all, is to get people–en masse–to do whatever one wishes.  Once a flock has been convinced that X is their destiny (be it claiming a particular piece of real estate for the chosen group…or drinking cyanide-laced Flavor-Ade so as to meet their maker more expeditiously), they will do whatever they can to fulfilling X. {53}

In the most extreme scenarios, followers will dedicate their lives to the cause.  It is no wonder, then, that this schtick is often employed by (despotic) heads of State. {56}

Demagogy (i.e. cults of personality) can even be operative in the context of BUSINESS–as with, say, Ryuho Okawa (Institute For Research In Human Happiness), Lewis Bostwick (Church of Divine Man; Berkeley Psychic Institute), and Richard M. DeVos (Amway; re-named “Quixtar”). {51}  The sales-pitch is simple: There is some hidden cosmic power for you to tap into…but if only you sign up for MY program.  The burgeoning self-improvement industry has parlayed this gimmick into a bonanza by garnishing “secrets to success” with a sprinkling of New Age mysticism.  “YOU TOO  can be a super-star…if you use our brand of hocus-pocus.”  Also note:

• NXIVM (a.k.a. “Nexium”) founded by Keith Raniere (a.k.a. “Vanguard”)
• MOBE (My Online Business Empire; where “Empire” was later changed to “Education”) founded by Matt Lloyd

Both used a similar shtick as “Landmark”.  Since then, myriad “secrets to success” and “get rich quick” schemes have proliferated.

Middle management at Wal-Mart is steeped in a cult-like atmosphere.  At one point, there was even a quasi-cult surrounding Steve Jobs at Apple Inc.  Indeed, corporate executives often command their own cult of personality through the sheer power of celebrity.  Note the likes of Jeff Bezos of Amazon and Ray Dalio of Bridgewater Associates–who are demi-gods to flocks of fawning acolytes, each of whom dutifully recites the sacred creed composed by their dear leader.  The examples of this are endless.

Charismatic leaders are charismatic leaders; acolytes are acolytes; regardless of the context.  In the final analysis, though, its the same gimmick with different window dressing.  So we might ask: What is the difference between, say, T.B. Joshua (of “SCOAN”) and “Osho” (of Rajneesh-puram)?  What is the difference between, say, Paul Twitchel (of “Eckankar”) and David Berg (of the “Family International”)?  What is the difference between Marshall Applewhite (of “Heaven’s Gate”) and, well, ANY of the other charismatic leaders enumerated above?  In every case, we find a loyal flock of delusive acolytes–each of whom would bet his life on the lofty claims of the charismatic leader.

Make no mistake: The particular creeds of the movements vary widely, as does the malignancy / benignancy.  In that sense, each demagogue is sui generis.  But while the superficial differences are quite glaring, these charismatic leaders are all manifestations of the same underlying phenomenon.

A demagogue does not have to found his own cult in order to rise to prominence.  Some demagogues are content with accumulating a following under the aegis of an existing cult.  The notorious Father Charles Coughlin (of the “Shrine of the Little Flower”) was a prime example.  Coughlin was a fanatical Roman Catholic radio orator who served as a bellwether for broadcast Christian evangelism.  His rabid anti-communist fervor, his militant hyper-nationalism, his virulent anti-Semitism, and his ultra-conservative Catholicism were the ideal recipe for fascist demagogy.

Other examples of subordinates “taking the torch” and going their own way have ranged from the heinous [Heinrich Himmler, impresario of Nazism’s occult aspects] to mixed [Saul of Tarsus, impresario of Pauline Christianity] to the relatively benign [Kirpal Singh and Daisaku Ikeda of “Soka Gakkai”]. {55}  We might also note virtually any mega-church pastor who operates under the aegis of “Christianity”, even as the operation is entirely about self-aggrandizement.

Suffice to say, anyone who claims to be uniquely positioned to relay privileged information is almost certainly a bullshit artist.  (The successful ones are invariably terrific performers.)  A man who purports to be bestowing upon the world messages from an ultimate source of wisdom (e.g. the Creator Of The Universe) is either completely deluded or a con man.  Either way, such a person is not to be trusted…on anything…ever.  (It is no secret that one must be quite full of himself–not to mention delusional–to tout the claim that “I have been chosen”.)

The “profile” of every one of the figures listed above is roughly the same–at least when it comes to salient features (charismatic, confident, and extremely shrewd).  Cunning and creativity help.  The prepossessing character of cult leaders enable them to enthrall their audiences without really needing provide much genuine wisdom.  There can be no doubt that L. Ron Hubbard had an amazing (and inordinately active) imagination.  For decades, his vocation was concocting outlandish stories for science fiction periodicals.  He became an expert at making stuff up…and doing so in a way that captivated an audience (so that they would keep coming back for more).  Translating this skill from publication to demagogy was logical.

It is no coincidence that Hubbard (like Ayn Rand, who also boasted a cult following) wound up in L.A.  After all, starting and maintaining a cult is a form of show-biz.  Had, say, Maximilian Robespierre been afforded the opportunity–by availing himself of a time machine–to go to modern-day Hollywood, he may well have jumped at the chance…as would have any one of the spiritual frauds listed in this essay.  For spectacle, Robespierre had to make do with a parade dedicated to the cult of the Supreme Being.

Note that demagogues don’t always make themselves the star of the show.  Though theatrics is invariably involved, sometimes impresarios of cult activity act behind the scenes (as with James Anderson and Laurence Dermott, codifiers of Freemason doctrine).  Typically, though, charismatic leaders want to be the focus of attention…and so will be found, as it were, “on stage”, in the limelight, preening before their swooning fans.

A good story-teller can have the audience eating out of the palm of his hand–be he a mere entertainer or a bona fide scam artist (or, for that matter, a politician).  EVERY ONE of the figures listed above were able to weave an enthralling yarn, and keep their audience rapt.  Their stories varied (and some were far more malign than others); but the underlying phenomenon was the same.

As successful con-men will attest: It’s all about the presentation.  Whatever their differences, every one of the figures listed above had a fantastic presentation.  Indeed, each of them was both a savvy impresario and a great performer.  Put on a good show, and people will come–as has been demonstrated countless times by celebrity televangelists and “pastors” at any of the world’s high-budget mega-churches.

Assessing each of these self-appointed, self-righteous, self-absorbed personages, one finds a common thread: narcissistic personality disorder coupled with bountiful charm.  As with virtually any cult leader, Mohammed of Mecca can be best understood in these terms.  Once trust is sewn, the leader can proceed however he sees fit.  Note that one of the monikers of Mohammed of Mecca was “al-Sadiq al-Amin”: He who is the most honest and trustworthy.  His followers TRUSTED him.

Typically, each member of the zealous flock hangs on the demagogue’s every word, treating each utterance–no matter how inane–as jaw-droppingly sagacious.  Any statement is summarily deemed “i’jaz” (inimitable); and thus unimpeachable.  The figure is seen as inexplicably remarkable and beyond reproach.  Those who have the temerity to impugn said figure are held in contempt by the more zealous followers–a sign of their undying devotion to the anointed one.

For each, we encounter gushing encomia from truckling acolytes.  In the final analysis, there was nothing unique about Mohammed of Mecca…other than, perhaps, the staggering magnitude of his legacy (which was based just as much on historical contingencies as on his own canny maneuvering).  Thing thing with accidents of history: they tend not to announce themselves AS accidents of history.  Demagogues typically fashion themselves as inevitable–the anointed stewards of everyone’s destiny.

And so it goes: When we hear anyone declare, “I shall bestow upon the world information to which ONLY I have access!” …we would be well-advised to disregard anything that person said ever again.  Why?  Because that’s not how the universe works.  And it is certainly not how genuine wisdom is gleaned.  Any purported mouthpiece of the divine can be seen for the nonsensical concept that it is the moment a coherent definition of “the divine” is established.

Alas, the human capacity for credulity seems to know no bounds.  When people are searching in desperation for something solid to hold on to, they will often believe almost anything that seems to “do the trick” / “fit the bill”.  When people are looking for hope in trying times, they will sign on to whatever “hits the right buttons” / “strikes a nerve”.  For, at the end of the day, memes are consumer products; and humans are notoriously irrational consumers.  Ironically, under such circumstances, the more outlandish and provocative the claims, the more enthralling (read: hypnotic) those claims become.  After all, people would much rather be enchanted than edified.

As demagogues have learned, the key is to ensure that the claims are both enthralling and easily digestible.  Simplistic yet provocative usually does the trick. (A veneer of mesmerizing profundity never hurts.  How quickly some are bedazzled by contrived mysteriousness.  There’s another term for “false prophet”.  “Prophet”.  To be a self-proclaimed “prophet” is–ipso facto–to be a scam artist.  There are no “real” prophets; there are just people who claim to be prophets.  (And many of them are, in the words of Matthew 7:15, ravening wolves disguised as sheep.) {5}

The leitmotif is shown to be fatuous once we spell it out: At one point in history (e.g. the early 7th century), the Creator of the Universe surveyed the homo sapiens of planet Earth and decided to deliver his most important message ever to JUST ONE of them.  According to this hypothesis, he figured that–of the more than 200 MILLION individuals alive at the time–making a single person privy to this crucial missive would suffice.  Presumably, he expected (hoped?) that the designated figure would effectively spread the word to the rest of the world.

Would this be the optimal way to make mankind aware of such vital information?  Of course not.  Nevertheless, the prospect of a “chosen one” seems to capture the imagination of most humans.  Ergo the success–to varying degrees–of the 120+ figures mentioned above.  Each of these procurers of deliverance were able to persuade acolytes of his / her preternatural abilities.

Even if people aren’t necessarily looking for a savior figure, they are often seeking someone who might have a proprietary “hot-line” to the divine–and thereby be in a position to relay profound, esoteric “truths” (crucial insights to which the rest of us don’t have access).  Presumably, the idea is that we should ALL be privy to such “truths”…and recourse to such privileged intercessors might be the only way.

On the other hand, the Koran makes it quite clear that its divine protagonist is perfectly happy with only a (pre-determined) segment of the human race “getting it”.  This affords him the opportunity to torture the rest for eternity in the hereafter–a prospect from which he derives immense satisfaction.  He makes no secret of this satisfaction–as, with most mentions of the punishment meted out to the damned, he spends much of his time gloating.

The distinction between spiritual leader and demagogue is often blurred; yet it often becomes evident after simply assessing the degree to which the figure personally benefits (e.g. financially) from the activities-in-question.  When it comes to dubious motives, avarice (self-aggrandizement and material gain) is usually a dead-giveaway.  Another red flag is the degree to which a charismatic leader demands conformity (complete submission to his will; strict compliance with his edicts).  Insofar as an authority figure cultivates a culture of obeisance (read: discourages autonomy), some form of cult activity is invariably afoot.  Other red flags include mention of “ancient” or “secret” knowledge / wisdom, opacity in the administration of the organization, hierarchies of status, and (invidious) demarcation of insiders vs. outsiders.  No legitimate organization has anything to hide.  The existence of proprietary (a.k.a. “insider”) information is usually indicative of insularity.  Spirituality does not require secrecy.

How can we know such figures are (or are NOT) completely full of shit?  We can never know for sure.  (Indeed, sometimes they swallow their own bullshit; which means they’re not deliberately trying to bamboozle their audience.)  For those who decide to “believe”, all they can do is close their eyes, hold their breath, and make a leap of faith.

To conclude: We homo sapiens are all suckers for a good story.  So a narrative that is sufficiently captivating usually serves as the best vehicle for the promulgation of an ideology.  A well-crafted narrative effectively serves as a memeplex-delivery mechanism.  Every religion depends on some sort of compelling narrative vehicle to “work”.  In this respect, the provocative, simple-minded narrative offered in the Koran (and, by implication, by Mohammed of Mecca himself) works extremely well.