David GoldmanHow Civilizations Die: (And Why Islam Is Dying Too)

The author postulates that there have been three (and ½) great extinctions due to people not having enough babies to replicate themselves, and that there is a fourth great extinction of one or more civilizations facing the world. The first great extinction is the end of Bronze Age event, when Geek Mycenaean civilization, the Hittite empire, and other cities in the Eastern Mediterranean disappeared. The Author's hypothesis is that the last man in every city walked out, closed the gate, and then pushed the button for the pyrotechnics to burn the city to the ground, and then pushed the other button to destroy the walls. It's a nice story, but wrong. Later on the author talks about how there is no archeological evidence to support the Muhammad of Islamic beliefs until almost a century after his historical death, so maybe the Islamic Muhammad never existed. There is also no archeology to support his hypothesis about the Bronze Age extinction. While the author quotes some royals talking about killing each other and each others children, that is sparse evidence that depopulation actually occurred. Even if the royals were that bloodthirsty, that doesn't mean the rest of the population was. While there is a little archeological evidence for some population loss in the regions of Elis and Arcadia, there are still many more cities in Greece, the entire Hittite Empire, cities in Syria, along the Eastern Mediterranean, in Cyprus, and down towards Egypt, that were all burned, with walls destroyed. Some were repopulated. That all of these disparate cities and populations all decided to stop having babies simultaneously is pure conjecture, not even worthy of consideration without greater proof. What really occurred is still a matter of great conjecture, but depopulation is a least likely scenario. In Greece, after the extinction, there are indications that the population may have fallen by as much as 90%. Once again, did the population fall that far, or did the survivors just leave such a light archeological footprint that they are invisible to us today? In any case, first the apocalypse, then the population decline. It's just like a disaster movie. First civilization is destroyed, and then the survivors scrabble in the ruins. Strike one against Goldman. The Spartans were always a shaky civilization. Earthquakes, losses in battle, the Peloponnesian War, and the wars against the Thebans, all contributed to Spartan losses. Goldman quotes the battle of Leuctra in 371BC, a Spartan loss to Thebes, stating that there probably weren't more than a thousand Spartans in the fight. Nine years later, in 362BC, the Spartans and Thebans faced off again, but this time the Spartans won and Epaminondas, the Theban leader, was killed. So even 999 Spartans were still pretty good. Yes, the Spartans did die out, but they were oddballs. The Athenians had too many people circa 476BC, and they started sending them out to form colonies. There were lots of conflicts with everyone, then the Peloponnesian Wars started. Athens had the plague go through in 430BC, and again, much worse, in 427BC. The Athenians lost the wars, losing 40% of their population to plague, and 40% more of their men to the disastrous wars. After that were more wars. Suffering those defeats and devastation went a long way to decimate Athens, and the remaining citizens must not of thought the future was bright, as it had been a century earlier, so they also, became too few to be more than ordinary, but they did not die out. Ball one against Goldman. The Roman empire is complex, but not for Goldman. He likes Theodore Mommsen for his Roman historian. However, an advantage of Gibbons over Mommsen is that Gibbons is great literature, its actually readable, and Gibbons is talking about the last 296 years of the entire Roman Empire, while Mommsen is about the Republic (BC). Gibbons is also about the entirety of the Byzantine Empire. Gibbons partly blamed Christianity for the fall of Rome, and I agree with that as my review of  It's Not the End of the World, It's Just the End of You: The Great Extinction of the Nations  states. Certainly the Romans had population problems, and yes, the upper classes always had trouble having enough children survive childbirth and live into adulthood. So did everybody back then. The Empire went along OK, with the greatest economic activity in the world up until the early/mid 1800's. Marcus Aurelius' reign was fine until Lucius Verus returned in 165AD after defeating the Parthians. He brought the plague back with him. Best information says it was probably Small Pox. Perhaps up to 35% of all Romans died. The same plague returned several times over the next 60 years or so. In 250AD, just before the worst of the 3rd century, another plague came through, probably a precursor of Measles that was then quite deadly. Another 25% or so died. After the death of Commodus, in 192, civil wars were the method for choosing the next emperor more often than not, for the next 200 years. How many died in those civil wars is hard to gage, but far too many Romans did. Edward Boak writes about the de-population in  Manpower Shortage and the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West (Jerome Lectures) , but his work is greatly questioned. The empire came back until the Goths and the battle of Adrianople in 378AD. But, if the Romans had waited for the two armies to unite before engaging the Goths, instead of trying to one up each other, the Goths would have been toast. So, yes, there was some depopulation, but the plagues and internal wars went far to depopulate them. One analysis, by Tainter in  The Collapse of Complex Societies (New Studies in Archaeology) , uses a marginal utility theory, i.e. when the Roman citizens saw no more value in being a Roman citizen than in being a Barbarian, then they would switch sides. The miracle is that Rome lasted as long as it did. To say it is just population loss is shallow, vapid, and without sufficient documentation to be a worthy thought. Was it a part of the reason for the fall in the West? Probably. Due only to too few babies? Less likely. The Byzantine Empire was doing great until Krakatoa gave them two non-summers and crop losses in 534-536AD, and then the Justinian Plague hit. This was the Black Death, or Bubonic plague, in 540AD. An estimated 40% of all Byzantines died. It reverberated around the empire for the next 40 years. The Sassanid Persians also suffered, but the Arabs did not. In 602 Maurice was overthrown by Phocas, and the empire started to collapse. Bad Leadership. The Persians and Avars from the Balkans invaded, and the empire was fast disappearing. Along comes Heraclius, and perhaps the greatest comeback of all time. The two superpowers of the Middle East fight WWII on the Russian Front against each other, and the Byzantines win big in 628. They disbanded their army, just like the US after WWII. Along came the Muslims. The battle of Yarmuk, a Byzantine loss in 636 AD, is well documented on the Byzantine side. The Byzantine armies in Egypt and North Africa were smaller, poorly led, poorly trained units that fought, but not well, against the Muslims. It wasn't a cake walk for the Muslims, either, per Byzantine records. About three hundred years later the Byzantines came roaring back, and were doing good until the traitorous Ducas family lost the battle of Manzikert in 1071AD. Strike 2 and 1/2, Ball two and three against Goldman. Islam today. It is a liberal wet dream that people will stop having babies. There is no more liberal wet dreaming organization in the world than the UN. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is a UN adjunct organization. To measure climate change, you need to be able to read a graph properly and a thermometer. The IPCC can do neither. It is a worthless, biased organization that cannot read data, or develop any thing other than its pre-possessed ideas. Overall, the UN is a totally worthless organization. Goldman says he would sentence anyone to a years hard labor at the UN database that believes the US is in population decline. Goldman should run, not walk, as far away from the UN as he can. Liberals can't ask questions properly, they can't add data properly, they can't design studies properly. As a Statistical Engineer, I know there are liars, darn liars, and statisticians. I don't believe their data any further than I can through it. Goldman says he has no population date for Europe, and then he pops up with a plethora of birth rate data. Once again, don't trust liberals, and especially population control liberals at the UN. While there is little doubt that the population of Muslims is slowing down, is it going to slow down enough and start falling in Europe? Per Mark Steyn, the Austrian demographic center says there will be more Muslims under 18 by 2050 than non-Muslims, which means for howsever many people are left, Muslims will be the majority. I believe the Austrians before I believe the idiots in Turtle Bay. Per Fareed Zakaria, per Putin, the Russian population is starting to increase. I don't believe Muslims in Russia are being educated, and with the population they will also continue to increase, only at a faster pace, so Russia could still become an Islamist majority nation this century. The PEW folks are uber liberal George Soros supporting and supported by Soros folks. They say that the global Muslim population is still increasing by 15% for the next couple of decades. This would be the Pakistani's, the Maududi's, taking over England, the Afghanistani's, the Kurds, and whoever else. The open question is won't they continue to increase after the next couple of decades, also? Why would they slow down or stop having babies? Muslims live in enclaves that are self-reinforcing with their own peer pressures. That is more important than the general population. Babies will keep coming. South America, per PEW, has over 11 million Muslims. South America has a population growth rate of over 2.4, even though some countries are less than 2.1. The Islamic population of South America should continue to increase, probably outpacing the Hispanic population. Per PEW, the USA Muslim population will triple by 2030. This will give Michigan a 20% Muslim population. As the USA grows, why would not the Muslim Population continue to grow and outpace the USA generally? Our Muslims in Michigan are all saying they are having over 10 babies per family. CAIR dominates Michigan and its politicians in both parties. Goodbye, Michigan. The greatest concentration of Muslims in Canada is in London, Ontario, only two hours from Dearbornistan in MI. It is in the non-Quebec part, so it will keep growing also. I am glad that Africa and China are being converted to Christianity. Of course, South Korea is dying even faster than Japan, so how many Christians will be left there? The Bishops SWAG (Sorry Wild --- Guess) about converting 10,000 a day, and Goldman's belief that the number is even higher is pie in the sky, marketing hype. Plus, the Christians in Europe are dying, and the Christians in China are off the books. With the Islamic population increasing (not dying) globally, circa 2030, there will be more Muslims in this world than Christians. Saudi Arabia will keep spending $4 billion/yr putting up Mosques, Maddrasses, Islamic Centers, and they will be well prepared to receive the multitudes of converts to Islam when the headline reads that they are the world's largest religion, surpassing Christianity. So the explosion in converts in Europe, America, and elsewhere will fuel an increasing number of Muslims in the world for quite some time. Dawa wins! Strike Three - Goldman is out!PS - Read  The Real German War Plan, 1904-14  by Terence Zuber - The Schlieffen plan Goldman references as the German plan to win WW I is an urban myth; another example of the ignorance of this author.

Here in Brazil, I read this good book. This book was writen by David Paul Goldman an economist (a complete polimath) and author. He is also a religious Jew.There's dozens of good things in this book. I'll show some of these:1- This book shows clearly that abortionist societies and religions ever goes to extinticion. The author, David Paul Goldman, don't remember only old Greece and Rome's religions, now extincted religions, abut also shows that abortionist religions of today are falling. See page 151 and 196, as examples of this fact.2- Israel is very good and in all ways. See pages 200 to 204 as an example. See page 255 showing Israel, as an economic power house.3- Between pages 264 to 266, there's suggestions for American policies, that I found short and good.4- Even being a Jew, David Paul Goldman knows about Saint Augustine. See pages 251 and 252.5- Beyond doubt, the author knows very much about Islam. David Paul Goldman shows this fact dozens of times, in this book. In fact, only on page 90, David Paul Goldman made a mistake about Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966).6- David Paul Goldman shows clearly how gay marriage and gayzism in general, killed former potencies, such as Creete, Old Greece, Sparta and Rome.7- David Paul Goldman clearly shows that just secularism can't support any society. Only deep faith can suppport a civilization.8- David Paul Goldman show how supperior was Bible and Judaism, compared to other Pagan religions of antiquity. David Paul Goldman gives dozens of examples of this fact, including opposition of Bible to infanticide, abortion and gays.9- The chapter three, about the Arab revolutions is the best thing about this subject that I ever read, about the Arab revolutions.10- The author, David Paul Goldman, show the "Sprengler laws" that are very short good.There's some problems, in this book.1- The author is blinded by his hate, against Iran. Please I hate Iranian government as much as the the author of his book, but Iranian people isn't so bad as Iranian government. The author, David Paul Goldman seeems to think that Iran is a theocracy, but in my opinion, Iran is just another cleptocracy claiming to be a theocracy, such as Libya was under Muammar Gaddafi really was. When I was a child, in late 1970 decade I remember Muammar Gaddafi ( June 1942 - 20 October 2011) claiming to be the number one Israel's enemy, against infidels, Americans, supporting Islamic terrorism,etc. here in Brazilian TVs. And this continued by decades. The " anti-Occidental theocracy" that Muammar Gaddafi rulled for decades was nothing more that a façade to a complete cleptocracy and nepocracy. After decades of things equal in preaching and doing the same things and addresses that Iranian aiatollahs of Iran are doing and talking since they toook power 1979, what was the Muammar Gaddafi's end? He died not warring against Jews or other infidels, but scaping and lyched by his own people. Libyan people lynched the useless fake and tyrant that talked about Allah and ever really thought, about Swiss bank accounts for himself and his criminal family and mafia. In my opinion, Iranian aiatollahs have atomic bombs since years ago, but they they will use them for to stay and power and steal Iranian people money. Today's Iran isn't more theocractic than Syria was three years ago.2- The author has a clear Americanist view of history, above any American president ever had. The pilgrins exterminated millions of American Indians; all in the name of God and Bible. Also, until 1960 decade, United States had laws against negroes and miscigenation. United States and not Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, was the first modern times' nation to enacted Eugenics laws. In the last few decades and years, Mubarak and other Arab cleptocrats recieved billions of US Dollars from American government. Pakistan's government made its atomic bomb with massive American help, firsts against "pro-Soviet" (and democratic) India and in 1980 decade, Osama Bin Laden was recieving many money from CIA. Please, Taliban isn't just a a Pakistani creation; it's also an American creation. Even so, the author hasn't a single sentence about all these terrible facts combined. I read about 2,000 boook in my whole life, but I never read any other so Americanist book, as this.3- About the fall of Islamic fertility, the author is right about the fact that Islamic women are having less children and this fact is combined to more education. Even, this happened in all other peoples were education policies were did. Here in Brazil, when I was born in 1970the fertility was about 5.5 sons for each woman, but today our fertility is less that 2 sons for each woman. The causes of fall of women's fertlities in so different countries such as Iran, Brazil, El Salvador, Tanzania,etc. hasn't nothing with Islam. Yes, fertility fell deeply in Iran, with more than 98% of its population Islamic, but also fell, here in Brazil, a country with less than 1% of Islamics, at the most the same levels and for the same reazons: education level growing, economic crisis since 1980 decade onwards, urbanization and political corruption.4- Even giving a good place for Roman Catholicism, the author forgot that Traditionalist Catholics have a bigger level of fertility than "liberal catholics", also because of religion. Opus Dei's families Catholics, when married almost ever have many children.In a simple sentence, this book is good and deserves to be read. Even so, anyone reading this book, must see how Americanist and Israel's zealot, the author is. Please, I'm not an Anti-Americanistin any real sense and I'm a complete supporter of Israel and of Zionism. Just I think that even with so many qualities, United States and Israel aren't perfect creations as any other countries in history were and will be. United States and Israel are countries that I have admiration above all others, but perfections isn't a thing that a person, a religion or a country can't have. At least not in this world and life.

Astonishingly important, reassuring book. Informed, insightful, grand strategic scope historically and into the immediate future.High up among the best informed, visionary and relevant geopolitical books I've studied.I've read tons of great geopolitical books, but this gave crucial insights against fresh and deep historical analysis. I was stunned.Only downside is a Judaeo Christian bias - but then that's anyway a key component of our Anglo American and European cultural heritage.Otherwise buy it and read it - or remain crucially ignorant.

I did start by enjoying the new way of looking at the decline of western 'supremacy' and how some populations might actually disappear. However I felt about 1/2 way through that it was rather repetitive, simplistic and possibly driven by some religious agenda, that I could not quite put my finger on. I did power through to the rather conclusive end. Fun enough as a audiobook/cd.

A pile of Jewish lies

Goldman's book is fascinating, explaining why western consumerist countries are not reproducing themselves in the face of cost benefit analyses by citizens of whether it's financially viable for modern couples with good pension plans to have children.We think of muslim countries where there on the face of it this problem does not apply, but relatively advanced muslim countries such as Iran and Turkey have exactly the same problems, and are faced with extreme problems by the middle of this century as pensioners will exceed tax payers.Countries such as Egypt have no problem with reproduction, only in feeding the masses. If Saudi Arabia didn't support that country with tens of billions of dollars each year, they would starve.The statistics Goldman brings are not his own but taken from the UN.A comparison is made with Europe on the one hand, and Israel and the USA on the other, two nations that are the new/old Jerusalem. Their birth rates are the highest, and Israel is even exceding reproduction, which means Israel will have a country of 20 millions by the middle of this century. Not so many in relationship to Pakistan with 200 millions existing on a subsitence level, but then Israel's 6 million Jews have already built one of the most (if not the most) technologically advanced societies in the world.Goldman explains why Israel is the central focus of the world's media and of constant distortion of it, not only in terms of traditional hatred of Jews, but of a jealousy of those who know their peoples are fated to disappear with a people who will never disappear.They see that even after the Holocaust wiped out around a half of their people, Jews of Israel have rebounded, are successful, happy and forwards looking, and already ten times the number they started off with in 1948.As consumer societies are dying, Israel looks to a bright future. God's promise to the Israelites can be denied and the Bible debunked or explained away but the facts are there to be seen.

Der amerikanische Publizist David P. Goldman, der sich mit seinen "Spengler“-Kolumnen in der Online-Ausgabe der Asia Times einen legendären Ruf erworben hat, legt mit diesem Buch eine ambitionierte Arbeit über sterbende Zivilisationen vor. Die Ursachen und der Verlauf von deren Ableben sind für Goldman von der modernen Politikwissenschaft nie richtig erforscht worden. Die am rationalen Eigeninteresse festhaltende Politologie hat sich stets nur mit dem am Überleben orientierten Interessenausgleich beschäftigt.Eine solche Logik ist aber für Zivilisationen, die den eigenen Untergang vor Augen haben, gänzlich ungeeignet. Sie ähneln vielmehr einem todkranken Menschen, der sich über seine Zukunft keine langfristigen Gedanken mehr machen muss. Dementsprechend lässt sich ihr Verhalten nicht mit den üblichen Kategorien der politischen Theorie erklären.Um diese Grundannahme zu verdeutlichen, untersucht Goldman zunächst den Niedergang der Islamischen Zivilisation. In den letzten Jahren hat sich nämlich in der arabischen Welt, in der Türkei und im Iran ein dramatischer Rückgang der Geburtenraten eingestellt, dessen sozioökonomische Konsequenzen für die islamischen Gesellschaften und Staaten verheerend sein werden.Im Gegensatz zur ebenfalls schlechten demographischen Situation in Europa, wo die Nettoreproduktionsraten in vielen Ländern schon länger ungünstig ausfallen, fehlt es der Islamischen Zivilisation an einer hohen wirtschaftlichen Produktivität und an einer guten Ausbildung ihrer Bevölkerung im erwerbsfähigen Alter. Die gesellschaftlichen und politischen Folgen werden deshalb noch gravierender sein, als beim langsamen Siechtum des mittlerweile wörtlich zu nehmenden "Alten Kontinents“.Als Hauptursache für diese negativen Entwicklungen macht Goldman den fehlenden Glauben an eine lebenswerte Zukunft aus. Die meisten Menschen im säkularen Europa haben sowohl ihren christlichen Glauben als auch den Glauben an die eigene Nation verloren. Auch die islamische Welt wird aufgrund der Globalisierung in zunehmender Weise mit der Moderne konfrontiert. Hierfür ist der Islam, der sich aus einer Stammesgesellschaft heraus entwickelt hat, denkbar schlecht gerüstet.Das europäische Christentum und der Islam haben sich von ihren Ursprüngen her mit den jeweils vorhandenen ethnischen Sitten und Traditionen vereinigt. Hieraus entstand eine gefährliche Mischung, die eine partikularistische Kultur mit einem universalistischen Glaubensbekenntnis verband. Als Resultat dieser unheiligen Allianz ergab sich eine "Theopolitik“, in der sich ein gruppenspezifisches Sendungsbewusstsein manifestierte. Der eigene Stamm oder die eigene Nation wurde so zum neuen auserwählten Volk, das nach Vorherrschaft strebte.In Europa führte dies zu einem Prozess der Selbstzerstörung, welcher vom Dreißigjährigen Krieg bis zum Ausbruch des Ersten Weltkrieges reichte. Auch der zeitgenössische Islam weist für Goldman analoge Tendenzen auf. Vor allem der Iran mit seinem religiösen Fanatismus stellt eine sehr ernstzunehmende Gefahr für die regionale Stabilität dar. Aber selbst die Türkei entwickelt sich mit ihren neoosmanischen Machtansprüchen zu einem echten Problem.Lediglich die Vereinigten Staaten und Israel haben sich trotz des Drucks der Modernisierung ihre religiöse Vitalität bewahrt. In den USA bildeten sich die Glaubensgemeinschaften aus einem eigenen, freien Antrieb heraus. Der Glaube wurde den Menschen nicht wie in Europa von oben aufgezwungen. Israel war von Anfang an als jüdische Heimstätte konzipiert worden. Die Juden waren und sind ihrem Selbstverständnis nach das "auserwählte Volk“; sie mussten nicht erst dazu gemacht werden.Den Vereinigten Staaten bleibt es in einer Welt von sterbenden Zivilisationen allerdings nicht erspart, sich mit diesen auseinandersetzen zu müssen. Hierbei ist es weder möglich, die Islamische Zivilisation zu demokratisieren, noch ist es erfolgversprechend, sich gänzlich auf den eigenen Kontinent zurückzuziehen. Der politische Realismus und die klassische Geopolitik sind für Goldman gleichfalls keine sinnvollen Alternativen, da das nationale Interesse mit dem theopolitischen Ansatz unvereinbar ist.Der Autor empfiehlt deshalb den Rückgriff auf den Kirchenvater Augustinus, der in seinem politischen Denken noch nicht vom verkürzten Zweckrationalismus der Neuzeit verdorben war. Nicht gemeinsame Interessen, sondern gemeinsame Vorlieben seien für eine erfolgreiche Kooperation und Bündnispolitik von Nöten. Geteilte Werte und Ideale, wie beispielsweise die Freiheitsliebe, seien als Richtschnur für die auswärtigen Beziehungen der amerikanischen Republik unentbehrlich.Gerade bei seiner Formulierung des "augustinischen Realismus“ und seinem Verständnis der "Theopolitik“ zeigen sich aber auch deutlich die Schwächen der Argumentation von Goldman. Sterbende" Zivilisationen können durchaus rational darum bemüht sein, den negativen demographischen Trend umzukehren und außerdem noch politische Erfolge zu erzielen. Für den Iran bestünde ein solcher Erfolg etwa in der Beschaffung von Nuklearwaffen, die dann als Absicherung und Rückendeckung für weiterreichende geopolitische Ambitionen genutzt werden könnten. Ein Rückgriff auf die "Theopolitik“ als Erklärungsmuster für das iranische Verhalten ist jedenfalls nicht erforderlich.Auch die Behauptung von Goldman, dass der politische Realismus zu zweckrational und defensiv ausgerichtet sei, um mit einer Theokratie wie dem Iran fertigzuwerden, trifft nur bedingt zu. Zwar ist es richtig, dass viele Realisten den Status quo bevorzugen und das Risiko von militärischen Aktionen scheuen. Dies bedeutet aber keineswegs, dass es prinzipiell undenkbar ist, eine realistische Begründung für ein militärisches Eingreifen zu entwickeln, wie es z. B. Matthew Kroenig im Fall des Iran getan hat.David Goldman verabschiedet sich also zu schnell von den Möglichkeiten der traditionellen Realpolitik. Seine Flucht in den Scheinrealismus der geteilten Vorlieben kann demnach kein Maßstab für die amerikanische Außenpolitik sein. Dennoch enthält sein elegant geschriebenes Buch viele interessante Überlegungen, die es wert sind, gelesen zu werden.Jürgen Rupp