I haven’t seen anything like Glubb’s historical analysis outside of right-wing opinion commentary, which is possibly because either Glubb’s conclusions are politically incorrect and thus ignored by the mainstream, or because Glubb’s conclusions are sufficiently vague that they are not considered valid by professional historians (especially inasmuch as those conclusions contradict the historians’ own research). But it is possible that Glubb’s work is unique in that few historians take the long view as he does here.