Your points are valid, but the problem with Islam goes beyond the Arabs and well beyond polygamy. The reason why Islamic empires always and everywhere end up failing is because the entire legal structure of Islamic law is setup in an incredibly stupid way.

Under Islamic law there are only three possible outcomes for non-Muslims: convert to Islam, surrender and pay the jizyah tax as semi-enslaved dhimmi, or die. Islamic law dictates that Muslims cannot pay income taxes, so the entire burden of taxation falls upon Christians, Jews, and pagans who live in a state of fear and subjugation that is far worse than anything ever imposed by Christian conquerors anywhere.

The jizyah system always becomes so unbearable, and the tax burden so high, that eventually the majority of conquered peoples convert to Islam simply to escape the Hell of being a dhimmi. So inevitably the tax base of an Islamic Caliphate always collapses, and the rulers constantly have to seek out new territories to conquer – which places the empire on a permanent war footing.

This is incredibly destructive to economic activity, and the moment that Islamic expansion is stopped by force of arms, any Caliphate always goes into immediate decline. That has happened every single time an Islamic empire has been stopped from expanding.

The economic foundations of Islam are literally retarded.

On top of this is the fact that the "Arab" nature of early Islam is very likely greatly exaggerated. The latest evidence that we have available indicates that it was a Persian king named Khosrau II, who converted to a Reform Judaism proto-Islamic heretic sect of Christianity known as the Ebionites, that masterminded most of the early victories of "Islam" back in the 7th and 8th centuries. It was only about 100 years or so into the existence of the first Caliphate that the Arabs mounted an internal coup and proceeded to retcon the hell out of the origin stories surrounding Islam.

As far as we can tell, the entire scriptural and archaeological basis of Islam is suspect. Mohammed, as depicted in the Koran and Hadith, did not exist as a real historical figure but was most likely a composite of three or four historical, Biblical, and mythical figures.

And, inevitably, because Islam is founded on lies, it always and everywhere fails when confronted by the truth.

Before that period (especially in the middle east) it was common for a tribes to come take over a civilization who people had become wealthy and declaine in spirit and morals, only to start the whole process over again. This happen with the persians who came from the mountains.

Islam is different because it enforces its religion on the conquered people and promotes Polygamy (which mean long term a society full of dysfunctional men with no hope of getting married unless they either go to war and conquer or over throw the ruling party).

Everything else being equal it is not surprising the persian and Greek influence in the early stage of the islamic kingdoms but over time you are right the religion gets in the way. Killing off the people who question it. It also probably help push Arabs men (mainly the warriors) to mix with the local populations of the middle east and north africa at a higher rate than other conquerors.

I know the areas of south italy have never really recover from the Muslim pirating of the middle ages and later the Turks. They were not even fully conquered but the affect of the attacks and the capturing of their women is still being felt today. Whole populations move away from the ocean and trading to the hills and mountains, becoming more self sufficient, low trust and having more ingroup loyalties. No surprise the gangs come from these areas. The wealth fair, free trade, emigration, anti christian media is destorying the towns and population growth of the south.

Just think how different the Macedonians, Romans and Persians conquests went and how they treated the conquered people especially the skill and smart.

Another thing for you to watch out for is the "lost cause" mythos and "the civil war wasn't about slavery" bullshit emanating from the neo-confederates and some portions of the alt-right. You should reject it because a) it wasn't true; it was entirely about slavery, and b), it makes people see cultural differences that are either not there or not so pronounced or important as all that.

I wish to hell there had been some way for you to have gone into the US military. Inside it, you'd have seen that about 90% of the troops are of basically the same culture – and yes, that includes brown, black, white, yellow, and red – and very different from Megalopimarxistleninistfuckingurbania.

What I mean is that your post – and I think your wider outlook – is very large city centric.

Not a word of argument from me there, sir. You are 100% correct. I'm a city boy born and bred, and I've spent my entire life living in or around cities with minimum populations of 4 million people. And indeed this does affect my outlook.

These are the kinds of people who fought the civil war before, and would fight it again, but probably not on different sides this time.

I actually agree with you about this, for the most part. As I've argued in other posts, America is tearing itself apart along rural-urban lines, with the Left concentrated in the cities and coasts, and the Right spread out across the entire country.

You and I are also agreed on the need for a serious civil war to cleanse the filth. And it will be truly horrendous war at that – but an inevitable one at this point.

Where you and I disagree is in whether or not there will be one nation, or many, within the geographical footprint of the USA when the bloodshed is done. You think that the USA can be saved by simply exterminating the Left through bloodshed; I simply think that the regional cultural differences will result in related but separate nations after that bloodshed is done.

We'll see how it turns out, but the one thing that I am certain of is that bloodshed IS inevitable now. I wish to Heaven that it were not so.

I have indeed heard about it, but I haven't read it. I know of John Glubb – he was a legendary military commander who led the Arab Legion against Israel during their War of Independence. The Jordanians in that force were perhaps the only really competent Arab fighting force.

I happen to have a book called The Fate of Empires on my (extremely long) reading list, but it's by a completely different author. I haven't read it yet.

I'll check out the paper by Glubb Pasha, it should be an interesting read.

I think page 15 on the decline of the Arab Empire is the most surprising on the similarity to what is happening in the west.

It's a valid comparison, but the thing to remember about the Arabs is that they are first and foremost a bunch of desert traders – and that's before you get to the extremely destructive influence of Islam, which removes almost any incentive for self-improvement and civilisational development. There is considerable evidence to suggest that the "Arab" empire of the First Jihad, back in the 7th Century, was actually profoundly Persian in origin and owed very little to Arab military or administrative talent.

Some 15 centuries of evidence have shown clearly that Arabs are largely useless at managing actual civilisations and don't really know how to be good administrators. About the only thing that they do well is trading – and not even that much these days.

What I mean is that your post – and I think your wider outlook – is very large city centric. Cities aren't all there is to a nation, and they're less of America than most places. A way for you to look at it, and perhaps cure some of the recular octitis you've acquired from listening too much to certain doomsayers, is to look at how people in say, Hamilton, Massachusetts and, say, Chelsea, Alabama, have a lot more in common with each other than either does with Birmingham or Boston. These are the kinds of people who fought the civil war before, and would fight it again, but probably not on different sides this time. Another way would be to google "guide to gun rights in your Massachusetts town" to see how different most of that state is from the uber-leftism of Boston.

In short, you're seeing dying where quite possibly it's only a severe illness, easy cured with some old fashioned blooding.

people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

I think page 15 on the decline of the Arab Empire is the most surprising on the similarity to what is happening in the west. Though it is sad that we have gone much further than any other civilization in it decline. The Arab empire only went so far as to had female lawyers. They collapses before they put female judges.

From the article "There was an agitation for the appointment of female judges, which,
however, does not appear to have succeeded. "

Near-as-dammit 12 years.

Couldn't be helped. That's where the Master's programme was – and then work after that.

I got out of Gomorrah-on-the-Hudson eventually, of my own free will, after living there for 5 years. It wasn't bad, mind you, since I lived in a pretty nice neighbourhood, but I needed more space and more greenery, and ended up across the river for a while.