/lit/ - Literature

>>17546231
can you explain the influence and importance of Goethe's thought on Spengler's work

>>17546288
Goethe had a theory about the plants that every part of a plant comes from the form of the leave. Every part of a plant is a kind of leave grown in a curtain way.

Spengler thought that every aspect of a culture stems from a prime symbol (for the west infinite space).

I think this is what he meant when he says that he was inspired by Goethe. The idea of morphology is very important

>>17546231
when is the new print with the nice cover coming out ?

>>17546288
>>17546343
It would also be very helpful to note for the anon that Goethe's science always borders on philosophy. Which is why his science has always been a source of inspiration for philosophers, such as Heidegger's connecting the Urphänomen with Beyng. This is a very good article for understanding Goethe's science, once you get past the earlier part it becomes a lot more lucid:

https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/seminars/urphaenomen.htm

It sounds like he subscribed to a sort of metaphysical relativism - I.e. religion is an expression of a high culture. How does he justify that or does he just not address it?

Did Chinese civilization encompass all of the Far East or are they distinct?

>>17546231
I know very little of him, can you explain me in general, his philosophy?

>>17546447
Decline of the west in one sentence: highcultures are like organism: they blosom and die.

>>17546231
Why do you think Splengler and his philosophy have become popular here all of a sudden? Do you think we'll see him become more well known in mainstream circles as well?

>>17546438
A religious feeling is connected to the prime symbol. Spengler says that christianity is different for magian and faustian culture.
Faustian culture places god at an infinite distance and magian culture experiences religion as a group.

>>17546406
I don't know. I am Dutch and I read the Dutch translation of the decline of the west

>>17546482
>suddenly

>>17546482
It puzzles me as well why he is becoming more popular. I think his philosophy is a breath of fresh air compared to the cult of progress philosophies.

>>17546438
This is actually an interesting question that I'd like to answer too.
Spengler described the Ur-Symbols of nascent cultures as developing in response to the fear of death. He also believed that not only does this seed of every nascent culture encapsulate all of the inner potential that in time unfolds and becomes outwardly expressed, but also that in the seed of each nascent culture lays the cause of its eventual demise.
So, in fact, it is best to recognise in metaphysical terms, that the birth of each culture is a fall, an involution from the absolute - the relativism you refer to is that which in each culture both makes it characteristically unique, and dooms it.

>>17546567
But what about his personal relativism. I don’t think this is a man who was any sort of empiricist and you’ve appropriately described the metaphysical sort of, I don’t know, malleability/interchangeability that he allowed for in his philosophy. So how does he ultimately ground his logic and justify any of his claims at all? It just smells of total relativism to me. Wouldn’t he at best be implicitly biased in his approach as a member of Faustian culture and at worst, well...something worse?

>>17546646
It's been years since I last read Decline, and I'm waiting for Arktos to drop the unabridged before returning to it, so I can't quite recall enough to answer this. I do think throughout his various works that he quite explicitly acknowledged his speaking from the Faustian perspective, however.
I don't think his personal relativism diminishes his work, in any case. The observations he makes of cultures, even if coloured through that lens, aren't any less correct for doing so. The best way I can think of it is by analogy, that the way I perceive myself, my character, my strengths and weaknesses will be different from how other people perceive me. But that doesn't render either of those perceptions false, just that they come from a different perspective and through their value judgements, focus on and place import on different aspects.

The problem then becomes if he's meant to be taking a step back and trying to expound a more objective and disinterested perspective where each culture is seen in its own light, the exercise becomes self defeating because he cannot help but see it through his own subjective lens. And to that end, he didn't necessarily to penetrate the mind of each culture as it were in much depth, but worked from inferences from the most overt manifestations of those cultures.

>>17546231
MY NAME IS ASAC SCHRADER, AND YOU CAN GO FUCK YOURSELF

Spengler is great and all, but a lot of what he says just sounds too specific for what one would expect to be more metaphysical ideas; but I guess that's just the more scientific Spengler.

reminder /lit/ has not actually read the book, yet loves to give their wikipedia/youtube video opinion on this guy.
My guess is there are 12 daily posters who have read this guy here.
>>17546288
IMO, Mr Anon, in respect to what this guy says >>17546421
>that Goethe's science always borders on philosophy.
I would instead form it that Goethe has his own philosophy and it is the polar opposite to Kant's in the faustian spirit.
You can take neat concepts form either and contrast them and see how Spengler builds on them himself, but it really is just that Kant's philosophy is the hyper rational, transcendental, thinking in abstract notions, concocting holistic philosophical systems to measure everything by,
while Goethe has a lot more of a Lebensphilosophy where the abstract is perceived as impeding actual life and hindering how you actually should (could) live.
Kant is the monk in his little cloister room writing grand philosophical systems, while Goethe is the poet who becomes a politician and actually 'does things'.
To say Goethe is not a philosopher is a total offense to people like Spengler who definitely see him as a great (the greatest) philosopher.
Spenglers adresses philosophers in his introduction when he says to not be an academic recluse who wants to come up with the next epistemological system, but instead to become inventors, diplomats, governors, etc. It would have been foolish for any of the great roman philosophers to have run away on some greek island and write obtuse texts instead of becoming consuls, generals, senators, etc.
He doesnt disregard Kant at all btw. He states that kant with his work brought faustian epistemology and metaphysics to its acme, jsut dont become a neokantian.
You need to be able to set Kant and Goethe opposed yourself if you want to understand Spengler this requires being of the faustian spirit though
>>17546438
>Did Chinese civilization encompass all of the Far East or are they distinct?
China is only the heartland china for him. The south was colonized and tibet probably wouldnt even be considered in any way chinese to him. He states that japan (and probably korea for that matter) were also jsut colonized by chinese culture but shed that off again and now have become colonized by american civilization (he actually calls Japan then a faustian nation; no I am not a weeb wehraboo, he actually wrote this)

>>17546480
Interesting... thank you

What are your thoughts on Giambattista Vico?

What is Spenglers position on technology and it's role in his view of the inevitable collapse of Western culture?

>>17546231
Anon, is Spengler a pseud? I didn't like him anyway because I disagree with his system, but I read Hour of Decision yesterday and he seemed open to the idea of 14+ hour work days and perpetually depressed wages etc. Seems really fucking weird to me, since he wasn't even that affluent.

>>17547897
He was German. 'Arbeit Macht Frei' wasn't intended as a cruel joke to camp inmates, it was an earnest expression of a German propensity for being a busybody, and feeling that one's efforts are contributing to a higher purpose.
Needless to say, I disagree with some of the assertions he made in that book on the basis that he wasn't an economist, and overextended past the fields in which he was apt to speak. But what I found interesting about that book is how, at a time when the Frankfurt School was in its early days, he foresaw - as he called it - the coloured world revolution in response to the white - in a conservative framing of the same phenomena focused on by intersectional critical theorists in the last few decades.

>>17547897
>>17548150
Did he not basically feel that the economic strata of society, could and should be brought down basically to efficiency and predictability? A 14 hour work day doesn’t even sound so absurd for example for an agrarian society wherein 60+ days of a calendar year might be festivals or holidays.

>>17548150
It seems like a ridiculous oversight, but apart from some of his boomer takes on socialism, he does have some valuable insights, although personally I've found that Evola gives me everything Spengler does and more. What do you think anon? Have you read them both? What is your experience? I wish I had read more Spengler so that I could ask you good questions, it's rare to find people that actually read.
>>17548212
>Did he not basically feel that the economic strata of society, could and should be brought down basically to efficiency and predictability?
What do you mean here?
>A 14 hour work day doesn’t even sound so absurd for example for an agrarian society wherein 60+ days of a calendar year might be festivals or holidays.
It does sound absurd, since no peasant has worked such long hours at least until the development of artificial lighting. Peasants typically worked from dawn until dusk.
>t. peasantfag

>>17546231
I'd like to read him but the book is too long. Can you shill him convincingly to get people to read that tomme? Everyone knows empire collapse and the West sucks and so on

>>17548334
Yes, I've read both Spengler and Evola
Spengler:
-Decline (abridged)
-Man and Technics
-The Hour of Decision
-Prussianism & Socialism
-The "other essays" in 'Prussian Socialism and Other Essays'
Evola:
-Revolt
-The Mystery of the Grail
-The Hermetic Tradition
-The Yoga of Power
-The Doctrine of Awakening
-Ride the Tiger
... I don't know if I've read any of the others I have on my shelf though.

Of course, both of them were displeased with the state of our culture (and humanity more broadly), but both recognised the pointlessness of nostalgic, rose-tinted reactionary utopianism. We can get an idea from their works of their view of an ideal society, but given the aforementioned point, there's a disconnect with that view, and what each respective author thought we ought to do with the opportunities and within the strictures of our current predicament. They differed in this respect, in that Spengler was a man of history, whilst Evola was a man of tradition, each intending to reach a likeminded audience. As such, Evola's opinion (particularly post-war) was to eschew worldly matters entirely and focus on one's inner development, whilst Spengler proposed that people should still engage, albeit stoically and dispassionately, determining what we should do not through trying to pursue what we think ought to be, but in light of assessing what opportunities your time in history offers.
Therefore, if you are looking to engage with history as per Spengler, but with the ideas of Evola and the traditionalists in mind, you have to realise that doing so means engaging with involutive processes that, from the perspective of both traditionalism, and your erstwhile naive "ideal world" conception, you would balk at. Realising the broad direction humanity is headed in, the task as I see it would be to take what opportunities you can to steer and to nudge the process in such a direction that the ashes of our culture prove more fertile ground for the renewal of tradition.

>>17548489
What do you find valuable in those two thinkers? I must admit that I find myself very partial to Evola's views, so I've had great difficulties accepting other thinkers' systems in general, since I found Evola's own to be so accurate, at least in my eyes.
Also, you might want to consider Evola's Men Among the Ruins for his more politically minded postwar strategy (or perhaps his political version of that strategy, if you prefer). Evola's essays are also very fun and more accessible and applicable, since they don't always rely on his specific metaphysics and the Traditionalist method.

>>17548526
>What do you find valuable in those two thinkers?
It's been a long while since I last read Evola. I'm not gonna re-read him until I've gone through the traditionalists. I've read a bunch of Coomaraswamy, some Eliade, and Alan Watts' 'The Supreme Identity' which is surprisingly good, but probably because he wrote it after reading Coomaraswamy and Guénon, and made a start on Guénon, and have a couple Schuon and one Burckhardt in my stack.
The main value I find in them is primarily in feeling like they elucidate foundational cosmological truths, which I just naturally wanted to read into. When it actually comes to applying their ideas in terms of the mastery of the self, I've been hopeless. I still go through persistent existential crises multiple times a week when I consider my mortality and the ramifications of not getting things in order during my life, wasting an opportunity.

As for Spengler, I'll tell you something, as a half-kraut by descent with a lot of native German speakers in my extended family, reading Prussianism & Socialism sold me on Spengler because the way it framed the whole Anglo/Kraut dichotomy spoke to me personally. What he was describing in more outward terms of different peoples, I felt reflected an internal dialectic within myself.

As I've said before, the way I unite Spengler with the traditionalists is by framing them within the context of men of history versus men of tradition - and then the question arises, who am I and where do I want to focus my efforts? Upon self reflection, the task of the traditionalists seems too daunting to me, and I think I'm more naturally inclined to wanting to exert myself in external pursuits primarily. Although I can't say before the fact, it's as if my existential angst would dissipate if I could expend all of this nervous energy and reach the end of my life having spent all of my inner potential in externalising it, shedding it that way. But I have not managed to find myself in a position where I am able to do so, and so have found myself increasingly turning my focus inward.

Fuck it, I honestly don't know what I'm rambling on about.

>>17547897
Spengler is the most unsystematic thinker. He advocated harsh working conditions because he knew that the white man was spoiled and the coloured races would become the principal producers, which is exactly what happened.

>>17548419
It should interest you since it's not about empires collapsing and not about how the west is degenerate. Really he only ever beats on Germany, mostly out of disappointment.

>>17546231
Have you considered other possibilities? What do you say to climatic cycles?

>>17548725
He mentions this in the chapter state and history

>>17548639
>When it actually comes to applying their ideas in terms of the mastery of the self, I've been hopeless. I still go through persistent existential crises multiple times a week when I consider my mortality and the ramifications of not getting things in order during my life, wasting an opportunity.
I am going to be reading into the Dao soon in order to see if there's a solution to some of these problems in it. One thing you might benefit form knowing is that emotional and mental agitation, doubt, restlessness etc. are not actually problems unless you allow them to become such. If you maintain a detached attitude and structure your life according to your purposes, including spiritual and ascetic purposes, all you have to do is go ahead with that and you will be fine. Emotional and mental crises don't really trouble the spirit if it is already in order.
>As for Spengler, I'll tell you something, as a half-kraut by descent with a lot of native German speakers in my extended family, reading Prussianism & Socialism sold me on Spengler because the way it framed the whole Anglo/Kraut dichotomy spoke to me personally. What he was describing in more outward terms of different peoples, I felt reflected an internal dialectic within myself.
I understand what you mean. There's a very strange historical dynamic with the Anglos and the Germans and I can only imagine that being half of both, especially today with the clash between German legacy and American postmodernity, offers a path for inner growth.

>>17548639
>As I've said before, the way I unite Spengler with the traditionalists is by framing them within the context of men of history versus men of tradition - and then the question arises, who am I and where do I want to focus my efforts? Upon self reflection, the task of the traditionalists seems too daunting to me, and I think I'm more naturally inclined to wanting to exert myself in external pursuits primarily. Although I can't say before the fact, it's as if my existential angst would dissipate if I could expend all of this nervous energy and reach the end of my life having spent all of my inner potential in externalising it, shedding it that way. But I have not managed to find myself in a position where I am able to do so, and so have found myself increasingly turning my focus inward.
I should reiterate what I said earlier, then. You should be wary of simply "looking" for your own path if these are your true feelings. A path is not something you stumble onto or "find" in the generic sense of the word, it is something you forge as you walk it, especially so today where things like caste and heritage don't really exist anymore. You must decide what your path is and walk it firmly and with perseverance, which is what actually makes this path "your own" and solidifies it into a destiny. If you do this to the utmost, the spiritual element may manifest as well. In fact, if you are looking to apply yourself to action (Kshatriya) rather than contemplation (Brahmin), you will be especially interested in Evola. He wrote for a Kshatriya, action-oriented perspective. You will still benefit form ascesis if you try it, though. I will be looking for an initiation into kundalini practice after the pandemic is over and if I can't find anything on that, I'll be practising zazen, preferably for at least an hour a day.
>Fuck it, I honestly don't know what I'm rambling on about.
Don't worry anon, I know. I am in a similar position myself. Who knows, if we can both steel our resolve and walk this path, then with some luck maybe we will even get to work together in the future. For now, try to structure your daily life according to your cherished principles, learn and educate yourself on these matters, look for spiritual enlightenment and just live.
I will be going to sleep now, but if the thread is still up tomorrow and there's anything I can respond to, I will make sure to get back to you on it.

>>17548702
Sure, but advocating for a total reversal of course and a return to a 14 hour workday is first of all insane and second of all futile. It's simply never going to work. Rather, if anything a more practicable policy would be to limit the construction and maintenance of industry to the European continent only.

>>17548770
No worries anon, sleep well.

>>17546231
>rejects darwinism because it contradicts his metaphysics
What did he mean by this?

>>17548639
>and I think I'm more naturally inclined to wanting to exert myself in external pursuits primarily.
You might really benefit from reading the Bhagavad Gita, which is a text primarily directed at the men of action, the kshatriya caste. It can help you harmonise spiritual pursuit and external action.

Also, very nice thread.

>>17548798
Darwinism is a construct of perfidious albion.
Another way we can look at this is in the more recent kin selection vs group selection debate between people like Richard Dawkins and Edward O. Wilson. Their difference in opinion (which is, really, what it is) arises from the fact that both are addressing the same subject matter, yet neither hypothesis is falsifiable given what empirical data we have or are able to accrue. The difference as it stands, is a difference in conception only. No one is - at the moment - "truer" than the other.
Rationalism, positivism and the running presumption that we can remain external observers of objective and unchanging truths with intrinsic existence beyond the observer have created a blind spot in the modern (and particularly Anglo) mind in which we have not been able to countenance the thought of how we interact with the external world, and how we draw lines the delineate and divide phenomena within that world is informed by that interaction - how it reflects something of ourselves as much as it does the objects of observation.
No matter how empirically verifiable Darwinism may be, Spengler's main argument was that it arose as a theory from the English mind, and reflects an Englishness not proper to other peoples - and he criticised the Nazis for trifling with such notions (which may be his saving grace, given Social Darwinism has become one of those ideas seen in a more dim light since the war).

>>17548878
I mean, one day I'm going to have to read the Bhagavad Gita. I've just got so many other books to work through.

>>17548761
I think people like Evola and the rest of the traditionalists were doing something completely different from what Spengler did with Decline of the West. Spengler first and foremost was a historian and not a political philosopher or a revolutionary. His dive into civilizations was far more expansive and true to history than the traditionalist. The traditionalist didn’t have a sense of history, outside of Mircea Eliade with their conception of tradition being an ahistorical quasi-platonic call for a universal traditional society that all previous civilizations mirrored in some way, which is simply not true. Every civilization has its own foundational Ur symbol. The Greeks for example didn't have a conception of transcendence other than Orphism and the mystery cults, so going back to "tradition" for the ancient Greeks would have been going back to the theology of homer. The traditionalist were very postmodern in this sense.

>>17548887
How does Darwinism "reflect an Englishness"?

>>17548929
I think Spengler is for people who's very historical minded. He's a great framework to do research for particular civilizations. He's a philosopher in the sense that he has a concept on how the civilization operates on a metaphysical level, but I don't think you're not going to get much out of him if you don't look through the civilizations he mention through your own research.

>>17548944
English Empiricism. Nothing exist outside our observable perceptions of the world that we can measure out through science and mathematics.

>>17546567
I enjoyed this
>>17546836
sex gifs
>>17546970
but I loved this

>>17548639
I think one of the best things men of history could do is seize the day and all but throw even the tiniest bone to the men of tradition. I.e. a place or community or anything that could be a lasting structure that can exist outside modernity. Creating an amish community or just a hidden monastery somewhere honestly. The allowance for any tiny flame of Tradition to live on in the wake of the men of histories inevitable failure to "hold back the night" would be literally invaluable. I hope to achieve something akin to this in my lifetime.

>>17548725
CHeck me if what I'm saying gets to wild here. My intuition of the world and history is that conscientiousness/spirit>material/physical. If one conducted a spell for example which used mental energy to change something in the world akin to a lucid dreamer in their dream it would seem consistent with the laws of the material world, as they would alter for this purpose. So, if the soul of a nation is dying its land and agricultural output will to. Think of the classic idea of when the King is just and good the land is fertile but when the King is bad and lives in sin or evil etc. the land becomes cursed.

I can't articulate it as cleanly as I want to, and I certainly can't defend it but the more I read and think on it the surer I get that there's something to this.

>>17548761
How do you feel about the comparisons of Athenians and Spartans to Anglos and Germans? I've heard WW2 discussed as a battle between a modern athens and modern sparta for example.

Also, I'd like to echo the distinction between the German and Anglo mindsets as being something that really altered my perception of history and the world around me.

>>17548929
The traditionalists were not political philosophers either. Their subject was metaphysics and esoterism. The political critique has never been a central theme and is only part of their works because of how it connects to subjects like the doctrine of the cosmic cycles.

>>17546231
So, the barbarians that will eventually take over the US are the cartels, right?

Barbarian invaders vs effete city dwellers. Will this country be carved up into cartel run fiefdoms bound together by a decrepit DC/Papal states hybrid

>>17548887
What would be the more German equivalent to the Darwinian view? Action springing from an eternal will or something like that?

Good thread
>>17550265
In Spengler’s view that is quite far ahead. His whole point about decline is the death of animating culture and transition of the west into souless power mechanism. Vacuousness of modern cultural life is apparent. Though final dissolution of our civilization might not be imminent we are for a time for considerable upheaval. Godspeed

What's something Spengler got wrong?

>>17546406
https://arktos.com/upcoming-titles/

You can track it here

>>17551194
the age at which we are as Faustian civilization.

>>17547178
Seconded

I've read the unabridged German version and I liked the book a lot, although I often found I lack the necessary education to follow every bit, especially when he talks a lot about art, music, architecture and such. Any books that I could read before reading Decline again that would help

>>17550565
Not quite. Be careful not to conflate Faustian with German, because the rest of Northern/Western Europe are spoken of as Faustian too.
I don't think I could explain it quite as well as Spengler, and on this point you would be just as well to read Prussianism & Socialism, which addresses the differences between the English and German mentalities, which discusses Darwin among others.

>The first maxim is for a stateless country, for egoists and Viking types with the urge for constant personal combat, such as we find in English sportsmanship. It implies extreme independence of mind, the right to gain happiness at the expense of all others, as long as one’s strength holds out—in other words, scientific Darwinism. The other, however, is an expression of the socialist idea in all its profundity: the will to power, the struggle for happiness, but for the happiness of the totality, not of the individual. In this sense Frederick William I, and not Marx, was the first conscious socialist. The universal socialist movement had its start with this exemplary personality. Kant, with his categorical imperative, provided the movement with a formula.

The English mind saw, in Darwin's theory of natural selection, a reflection of and justification for a philosophy of every man for himself, a dog eat dog struggle of all against all.
Interestingly, the currently insoluble dispute regarding kin selection vs group selection centres on the discussion of how eusocial or "altruistic" behaviour could have evolved and been selected for, when on the surface it seems to be an exception to the rule. Had a German had the success in this field of study to propose a theory of evolution, and not Darwin, the evolution of eusociality would have been considered at its inception, and any rule whereby eusociality would present this exception would be discarded as untruth from the outset.

What version of this should I be reading? Has to be English.

>>17548489
Spengler and Evola are diametrically opposed. Spengler is a philosopher of absolute becoming while Evola is one of absolute being. As someone who thinks the Kantian/Rankean transcendental approach to history that Spengler uses is the best way to study history, I could not take Evola or traditionalism seriously at all, which seems to begin with a preconcept and conforms history to it.

>>17546343
I don't think this understanding of morphology is quite right. Is this how Spengler saw it?

>>17551599
>Any books that I could read before reading Decline again that would help
no.
go and see these paintings, statues, buildings, musical performances in person or you will never get it.
Best: start in munich's museums, since he lived in munich and frequented these the most.

>>17551846
kopf

I just think Spengler was wrong. Why am I wrong?

>>17551846
>>17551896
Here are your options.
1) Original Knopf Press unabridged volumes, which will be old, expensive and worn.
2) The cheap, probably print-on-demand unabridged volumes available on Amazon which look like the pages are scans of the aforementioned Knopf Press volumes.
3) A more recent single volume abridgment such as Oxford University Press'.
4) Wait for Arktos to finally print their unabridged 2 volume republication so you can get new, properly formatted and reasonably priced unabridged volumes.

Personally I wouldn't try to grab original Knopf volumes. You'll be paying through the nose for something that'll become redundant as soon as Arktos prints. I'd be most inclined at this point to go for the cheap print-on-demand 2 volume paperbacks on Amazon to tide you over until Arktos prints, and then replace them.

>>17551874
Their worldviews are not irreconcilable when you consider their differences as individuals, and the different people they wrote for. To say only one of them can possibly approach truth, given their differences, would be to admit there is only one type and quality of person in the world, which is untrue. From your reply, your preference is clear, and there's nothing wrong with that.

>>17551904
Can you articulate what you think he was wrong about?

>>17549680
look up aarvoll hes doing exactly that.

>>17551895
Nice, but since I'm a third world wagie chances are very low, are there still any works that I could reference?

>>17552067
>I'm a third world wagie
then why read a book on the faustian spirit for those faustians when you are not faustian?
not meaning to be rude btw

>>17552093
Why would Spengler write on the Apollonian and Magian if he was not it, why would he read anything on it or perceive it if he ultimately wasn't a part of it anyway.

>>17551896
>>17551927
Is there a good pdf or epub version if I wait for the arktos?

>>17552067
He doesn't delve too much on art. Yes, he talks about counterpoint, but he just mentions it, he doesn't go deep on it.
>Counterpoint
Listen to Palestrina, read people talking about his music, try to get in the mindset of this music, which has no "main melody" nor most of people tend to think when saying "good music" today, except it's consonance. Idk if you know something about Art music, if not, maybe watch a couple vids on YouTube, and skim Palisca's History of Western Music.
>Other Art
I learnt it in classes, no textbooks. Maybe you can search for the pieces mentioned in his book and read about the movements they are related to. Again, musically he didn't go too deep, more like a music lover than a music scholar/critic/theorist.

>>17552150
I'll look into it Anon, my biggest problem was following the part on the musical analogies. Thanks

>>17552138
https://archive.org/details/declineofwest01spenuoft/
https://archive.org/details/declineofwest02spenuoft/

>>17550265
Spengler =/= America-is-Rome. Faustian Man will follow the same cycle as Chinese Man, Apollonian Man, and on and on and on. If you're lucky, it means you get to end up like India or China: an eternal yet stagnant culture. Faustian Man does not get that luck.

Having said that, I personally would agree, yes. We haven't even gotten Caesar yet, however, and in Spengler's view Constantine is just the final victory of Magian Man over Apollonian Man, and there doesn't seem to be a Magian Man equivalent around for Faustian Man to oppress, so Spengler would posit that the US will see a different course than Rome. I personally disagree, however.

>>17552252
Did Spengler not believe that the decline of Faustian man would be marked by the ascendance of the Russians, and in this respect would it not make sense to see Faustian man's counterpart in the Eurasianists, from Danilevsky to Dugin, for example?
And what about China? Nothing seems new in China, their society is a mix of stagnant ideas from their past, and western pseudomorphosis via the CCP. They seem to have tied their fate to Faustian civilization, their global political ascendance is build on a house of cards.
The collapse of the Soviet Union means now, for those not benefiting from the subsequent cronyism and oligarchy, space has been cleared for something new to be expressed, something which consciously rejects Faustian man in principle, rather than playing one-upmanship as the Chinese are.

>>17546231
What is the prime symbol of Babylon and Mexico?

>>17552429
I don't recall him addressing Babylon, at least not in the abridgment.
As for Mexico, I do remember him discussing the Aztecs and the conquistadors coming into contact with them, although I'm not aware of him having ascribed any prime symbol to them.

>>17552429
Here's an article that may interest you
https://www.academia.edu/5727285/Scenarios_of_Colonialism_and_Culture_Oswald_Spenglers_Latin_America
>The reason why Mexico remained an exception in Spengler’s world history is twofold. First, the Americas were spatially isolated from other known empires: “this Culture lay so remote from the rest that no word even passed between them” (Decline II: 43). Second, until today, little is known about old American cultures, and in particular about their chronological age. Spengler points out that there are only three unreadable books left from before the Spanish conquest—he refers to the Madrid, Dresden, and Paris codices that remained then undeciphered (Decline II: 44). Spengler therefore finds it impossible to further analyze analogies between the Aztecs and other cultures, which is why there are far fewer mentions of Mexico in The Decline of the West than of the other seven world cultures.

>>17552454
How does statue, arabesque and fugue relate to geometry, algebra, and calculus and Apollonian, Magian and Faustian cultures?

>>17552342
The CCP isn't a pseudomorphosis at all, it's a complete rejection of Faustian Man and his ideals. It's Chinese to the core. It's just taking a novel foreign idea and completely re-interpreting it through a Chinese eye. Marxist-Leninist dialectics is just the Tao, wreckers are Small Men, labor is Ru, so on and so forth. The Chinese under Mao did this literally, Mao quoted from Chinese Classics and was constantly talking about how actually all of this is literally just Chinese shit. Taiwan is China under pseudomorphosis. Mao was ultimately Chinese Man shaking off the yoke of Faustian Man. This is precisely why China is a weird mixture of foreign ideals: it's actually foreign. The USSR was the same thing, a rejection of Faustian Man. China finished its development in like 200BC.

Spengler's personal chronology seems a bit divergent, as he didn't expect America, but rather Prussia, to become the global power. One could argue that it is precisely because Russia takes up Communism and shakes off Western influence that this happened (after all, Germany could very well have won WWII had Russia and the US not worked together), of course.

>>17552429
There's an image floating around that says Babylon is the Ziggurat, and Mexico is the Stepped Pyramid, but that image also cites Toynbee.

>>17552478
Thanks.

>>17552480
I have another question. How does Spengler name Tolstoy as the former Russia and Dostoyevsky the coming Russia?

>>17552480
And last, what culture does Philippines belong or is it a fellaheen type?

>>17548929
>Spengler first and foremost was a historian and not a political philosopher or a revolutionary.
Neither were the Traditionalists.
>His dive into civilizations was far more expansive and true to history than the traditionalist.
I don't know about expansive, since I have not read too much Spengler. I would disagree about it being more "true to history".
>The traditionalist didn’t have a sense of history, outside of Mircea Eliade
Evola did. I can't speak for the rest.
>Every civilization has its own foundational Ur symbol.
Does the object precede the subject or the opposite?
>The Greeks for example didn't have a conception of transcendence other than Orphism and the mystery cults, so going back to "tradition" for the ancient Greeks would have been going back to the theology of homer.
The Hellenes (at their peak) were a transcendent civilisation as a whole, where everything was geared towards transcendence. Dionysian cults mark the lower levels of spiritual initiation. If you want to know about Classical spirituality, the Traditionalists are precisely who you need to go to.
>The traditionalist were very postmodern in this sense.
No idea what you are referring to here.
>>17549734
You could draw parallels between the two pairs, yes. Though I'd say this is more applicable to Anglos and Prussians, rather than Anglos and Germans. Prussia is the product of warrior aristocracy and the Teutonic Order. The rest of Germany does not have such "Spartan" credentials.
>>17551874
The Traditionalist objection to this would be that you are missing the forest for the trees. Can you truly, rigorously study history if you don't understand the forces that drive it? A study of data will reveal information, but not principles. Evola advances the idea that in a "normal" world, the subject rather than the object is what drives history. Once you understand what distinguishes one from the other - which the Trads also explain - you can trace the course of the forces of history, or rather more specifically of civilisation.

>>17546288
I would call it something like 'Fatalist Vitalism', the living thing here follows rules that can't be reduced to the mechanisms of nature, but have a kind of metaphysical fate, a Nature that guides their becoming, Spengler takes Goethe's view of the development of plants and applies it to civilizations, the Cultures, though he says Goethe himself had this presentiment of Living Nature in general. Relevant quotes:

> Each Culture has its own new possibilities of self-expression which arise, ripen, decay, and never return. There is not one sculpture, one painting, one mathematics, one physics, but many, each in its deepest essence different from the others, each limited in duration and self contained, just as each species of plant has its peculiar blossom or fruit, its special type of growth and decline. These cultures, sublimated life essences, grow with the same superb aimlessness as the flowers of the field. They belong, like the plants and the animals, to the living Nature of Goethe, and not to the dead Nature of Newton.

>Such an eye was Goethe's. That which Goethe called Living Nature is exactly that which we are calling here world-history, world-as-history. Goethe, who as artist portrayed the life and development, always the life and development, of his figures, the thing-becoming and not the thing-become (,'Wilhelm Meister" and .. Wahrheit und Dichtung ") hated Mathematics. For him, the world-as-mechanism stood opposed to the world as-organism, dead nature to living nature, law to form. As naturalist, every line he wrote was meant to display the image of a thing-becoming, the .. impressed form" living and developing. Sympathy, observation, comparison, immediate and inward certainty, intellectual flair - these were the means whereby he was enabled to approach the secrets of the phenomenal world in motion. Now these are the means of historical research - precisely these and no others. It was this godlike insight
that prompted him to say at the bivouac fire on the evening of the Battle of Valmy: "Here and now begins a new epoch of world history, and you, gentlemen, can say that you 'were there.''' No general, no diplomat, let alone the philosophers, ever so directly felt history .. becoming." It is the deepest judgment that any man ever uttered about a great historical act in the moment of
its accomplishment. And just as he followed out the development of the plant-form from the leaf.
the birth of the vertebrate type, the process of the geological strata - the Destiny in nature and not the Causality - so here we shall develop the formlanguage of human history, its periodic structure, its organic logic out of the profusion of all the challenging details.

>>17552485
>Spengler's personal chronology seems a bit divergent, as he didn't expect America, but rather Prussia, to become the global power.
Never in my reading did I get the impression that Spengler thought Prussia was fated to become a world power - his writing in large part expressed an urgency for Germans to vie for that power and wrest it from the Anglo-Americans. He knew the 20th century would be the stage upon which the Prussian and English ideals would fight for supremacy, and he obviously wanted the Prussian to win out, but he was well aware of the possibility - even probability - that it wouldn't.
IIRC in 'The Two Faces of Russia and Germany's Eastern Problems', he addressed the matter you refer to - that of which between the English and Prussian among Faustian men, could win Russia over. After all, Russia's alignment with the Allies in the subsequent war cannot be explained by their wholesale rejection of all Faustianism, regardless of how factual that may be, since the Anglo-Americans are as Faustian as the Germans.
Spengler never typified the Communist revolution as a shaking off of Western influence, however. He was it as a progression of Petrinism, and a reaction to the West which failed to articulate itself outwith Faustian dialectic. And naturally, Spengler's association of Marxism as an expression of the English rather than Prussian ideal (as per 'Prussianism and Socialism') may well be inferred within his framework as the reason why Germany lost influence over Russia, lost the war, and lost the ideological battle.

>>17552572
cont.

>In other aspects, mankind is habitually, and rightly, reckoned as one of the organisms of the earth's surface. Its physical structure, its natural functions, the whole phenomenal conception of it, all belong to a more comprehensive unity. Only in this aspect is it treated otherwise, despite that deeply-felt relationship of plant destiny and human destiny which is an eternal theme of all lyrical poetry, and despite that similarity of human history to that of anyother of the higher life-groups which is the refrain of endless beast-legends, sagas and fables.

>>17552252
What do you mean that Faustian man does not get that luck?

>>17552485
>Marxist-Leninist dialectics is just the Tao
Bro fucking what lmao
>Mao did this literally, Mao quoted from Chinese Classics and was constantly talking about how actually all of this is literally just Chinese shit.
Hunting for legitimacy isn't the same as telling accurate history.
>The USSR was the same thing, a rejection of Faustian Man. China finished its development in like 200BC.
Did Spengler not claim the opposite?

>>17552485
>The CCP isn't a pseudomorphosis at all, it's a complete rejection of Faustian Man and his ideals.
It's literally based on Marxism, which is uber-Faustian gibberish about the arc of history bending to the horizon.

>>17546480
Surely things become far more complex post WW2, as there are government and academic actors who wish to subvert the cultures of Western nations. That is far more than just death, that is being killed.

>>17551357
It's been like this for like a year.

>>17546231
What did Spengler mean with ethical socialism?

>>17548778
Or change China's status (in the eyes of the US establishment) from 'developing nation status' and thus impose more restrictions upon them. Obviously the Biden administration will never do this, despite it being 'good for climate change'

>>17552609
the ccp pretty clearly threw out marxism roughly the time mao came along dude. someone else can dig up that mao quote where he not only compares himself to qin shi huangdi but says that he is just going to be qin shi huangdi times twenty or whatever. it's literally just the confucian bureaucracy wearing a bunch of mao suits instead of those dorky hippie-bead curtain hats.

>>17552585
Spengler's predictions for the end of Faustian Man end in global catastrophe.

>>17552588
Read The Party: Secret Life of blabbity blabbity blah. Read fucking anything on China. The CCP is not some uber-lefty Soc. Jus. organization, it's literally just what China has been doing since they invented writing. Mao was constantly trying to demonstrate to China that Maoism was literally just China, but with a new coat of paint. Hell, you can look at East Asian Communism as a whole and see this. Ho Chi Minh was a devout Buddhist and a patron of many monasteries all the while leading a Communist guerrilla organization.

Often, when people adopt an ideology or religion, they're doing it as an excuse to do what they really want, but cannot. This is not to say that their beliefs are not genuine or that they're LARPing or whatever, but rather, that things like "Communism" are airy-fairy abstractions that can be twisted around as they please. When Mao says dumb shit like "look guys, we're doing Communism, just roll with it, dialectics = Tao" this isn't him just making excuses or whatever, it's him demonstrating a worldview. The fact that it disagrees with yours and what Communism is (wherein you, as an Anglo, see Communism as a mystical utopian doctrine) under that worldview doesn't mean that they don't believe it to be true.

>>17551938
How is he? He just has videos of philosophy and spirituality

>>17552850
Could you elaborate on the global catastrophe? Is it the nuclear war and global warming combined?

>>17552850
>>17552817
I don't know much about Chinese history but were the idiotic policies Mao implemented based on Marxist theory par for the course?

>>17552890
As I recall Spengler's basic prediction is that Faustian Man ends up conquering the entire world and then either snuffing itself out, or ends up destroying the entire world in trying to conquer the entire world. He touches on "later Faustians" getting upset at "earlier Faustians" for not treating them equally.

>>17552905
Idiotic policies are very common throughout Chinese history.

>>17552923
>>17552905
Are the farm equipment to pig iron and the pests campaign the main idiotic policies, or are there more?

>>17552817
>the ccp pretty clearly threw out marxism roughly the time mao came along dude.
What are you saying? Mao was the most radical Chinese Marxist. It is after Mao that they become revisionist.
>it's literally just the confucian bureaucracy wearing a bunch of mao suits instead of those dorky hippie-bead curtain hats.
The Confucian bureaucracy recognised a mandate of heaven and served under a hierarchy with a god emperor at the top. Confucianism is somewhat pragmatic and materialistic, yes, but Confucianism promoted its virtues in order to sustain a divine order. The complete inverse is the case with Marxist-Leninist ideology which is focused on mass, progress and quantity.
>Read The Party: Secret Life of blabbity blabbity blah. Read fucking anything on China. The CCP is not some uber-lefty Soc. Jus. organization, it's literally just what China has been doing since they invented writing. Mao was constantly trying to demonstrate to China that Maoism was literally just China, but with a new coat of paint. Hell, you can look at East Asian Communism as a whole and see this. Ho Chi Minh was a devout Buddhist and a patron of many monasteries all the while leading a Communist guerrilla organization.
This is a propaganda drive and it should be obvious. It's like French leftists arguing in the 30s that anti-semitism and racialism are "un-French" and "anti-nationalist", since those go against the Jacobin principles of the French revolution. It's the classic strategy of appealing to tribalism in order to push destructive and subversive shit. Western politicians do the same shit today with "western values".
>When Mao says dumb shit like "look guys, we're doing Communism, just roll with it, dialectics = Tao" this isn't him just making excuses or whatever, it's him demonstrating a worldview. The fact that it disagrees with yours and what Communism is (wherein you, as an Anglo, see Communism as a mystical utopian doctrine) under that worldview doesn't mean that they don't believe it to be true.
I am not an Anglo, I am from the former Warsaw Pact. Communist bureaucracy typically has two types of people - a majority of opportunists and a minority of ideologues. The opportunists approach government in a purely pragmatic fashion and the minority makes sure certain communist principles and values remain in place. History is also recast to fit the communist mould and everything is framed as leading up to the communist regime, but that does not factually make it so.

>>17552679
Basically corporatism.

>>17552890
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt_rnVA7AlM

How true is pic related?

>>17553909
the person who made this image couldn't even make a proportioned pie chart. The very general picture does reoccur in many civilizations anyway

Was the wave of populist politicians beginning around 2014-2015 a Faustian analog to the Gracchi? Or is that too specific of a connection?

>>17553909
It's an overly pessimistic view based on Spengler's own pessimism. He was only concerned with the cycle up to Caesarism and never gave any thought to what Toynbee called the Universal State phase. The Imperial Age is not all bad, in fact early on it is a golden age for most civilizations, after they recover from the chaos of Caesarism. For example, the Good Emperors of Rome. There is also the reign of Emperor Wu Ti in China, Mehmed II in the Ottoman Empire, Amenhotep II in the Egyptian Empire, who all ruled over their respective Universal States at the height of its power and respect. There will probably be an American emperor of the 22nd century who will go down in history as a similar "Good Emperor".
>>17553974
Trump losing the election is probably the American Gracchi event. Even if the election wasn't rigged, the legitimacy of democracy has been seriously damaged.

>>17554023
>the legitimacy of democracy has been seriously damaged
It's probably been irreversibly damaged since around 2008-2014 (Occupy), the powerlessness of the average person laid bare for all to see.
Trump is more like the reaction and the start of the spiral.

>>17554080
there was a sort of domino effect there, Recession>OWS>Woke>altright/Trump>whatever is forming right now in reaction.

>>17550265
>>17551081
Yeah reminder that we are transitioning to Imperium, not getting conquered/overrun by barbarians anytime soon. I think it's the slavs who Spengler believes will overtake Faustian man at some later point once our Imperium is exhausted and can no longer hold back the tide.

People always forget Caesarism leads to empire not to collapse, collapse comes after. The American republic will fall, the American empire is just getting started.

>>17550265
>>17554687
Do the effete city dwellers ever truly realise what is happening until it's time to move away somewhere safer/less diverse? I see them always as subversive yet stupidly innocent in a way. I know that the cartel invasion you are speaking of is a long while off, but there are certainly issues that are close in western societies

>>17554687
How does Britain fit into that category? It did have an empire yet not after a republican collapse

>>17551465
Agreed, we’re later in decline than he thought

>>17554850
Right so did Athens. You know its interesting if you've ever read Sir John Glubb aka Glubb pasha one thing people criticize him on is setting the age of empire at 250 years but dividing Rome up into Republican and imperial Rome, like why does this civilization get two empire periods per his cycles of empires theory. SPengler solves this. These civilization states essentially get two goes at the whole thing, first being the era of the republic for America and Rome, then after contending states and during the chaotic transition phase they become an empire and then they have another go. So, to answer your question Britain is not Faustian man's civilization state so its empire has come and gone, the American nation is imo Faustian man's civilization state. Britain doesn't fit into the category just like Spain and France don't. They were contending states in earlier culture period like Athens, Sparta, Thebes or Macedon. Now it's civilization universal state time baby, American empire here we come.

>>17551890
Not that anon, but Goethe is kind of right since what he observed was basically fractal symmetry in plants.

>>17554791
Spengler writes that the history of any culture is of a (relatively) few families and that the masses are victims of history. Consider that for so long most people in the world were farmers, the actual political religious or cultural happenings have been the realm of no more than like 10% of the population at any given time. Effete city dwellers are descendants of farmers who were urbanized by moving into city and have been undergoing dysgenic effects ever since.

Unfortunately as far as they are concerned I see its likelyhood about the same as a mass redpilling where everyone magically wakes up, or the great reawakening that some onliny mystics promote. That is to say, like any other populist fantasy of one day everyone using common sense to realize my ideology is correct. History is moved by elites, and until these people see TV ads 10 hours a day telling them that history says they will be overrun by barbarians and its time to wake up and defend ourselves they will never independently realize it, it's like waking a heavy sleeper up in middle of night it won't just happen until someone acts decisively on their minds. In conclusion, yes they are stupidly innocent, then again how good are you at farming? Let's just them play their role.

>>17546231
Please answer this, what is the Sumerian ur-symbol, cardinality? As in I don’t understand how he is using the word.. feel free to give concrete examples on how it is expressed in Sumerian art

>>17547178
Seconded (or thirded?).

>>17555458
Not OP and not a Spengler expert, but wouldn't the architecture of the ziggurat be a good example of the expression of cardinality?

>>17555639
Yes that is the example he has given, but what about that makes it an expression of cardinality? In other words what is this cardinality?

>>17555224
How do you see movements that go against liberal democracy then? Military coups, ww2 Germany etc etc

>>17555771
ww2 Germany was a manifestation of liberal democracy

>>17555783
Explain

>>17555786
Natsoc was a mass movement(democracy) that emphasized capitalist production(liberal).

>>17555810
But it was neither democratic nor liberal

>>17555820
liberal democracies are never democratic or liberal, they are just insane mobs + capitalism

>>17555786
not that anon, but populism and demagoguery are fulfillment of democracy and quantity>quality. It's worth noting that both Italy and Germany's fascist movements achieved power in completely legal circumstances, Mussolini was appointed through legal means and Hitlers was as well and also in charge of the largest political party in Germany at the time. So I'm not sure what argument that anon will make but I do agree military coups and what the fascists did in the 20th c are not the same.

>>17555771
I am no expert on Spengler so I will leave it open for his opinion to be given by someone more knowledgeable, but since you asked me... These are proto-Caesars. Remember in Roman history we have Sulla, Marius and others who being this dance with demagoguery and keeping dictatorial power. So fascism is a partial glimpse of what's to come, but it will not be a fascist movement. As far as military coups I can't remember one in quite a while in any western nation, but they will come.

>>17552622
You couldn't be killed if you weren't already weakened to begin with.

>>17552571
>Neither were the Traditionalists.
I'll concede to this point. I was mainly thinking of Evola when I wrote this.
>I don't know about expansive, since I have not read too much Spengler. I would disagree about it being more "true to history"
I've checked Spengler's homework. For the most part, his analysis on civilizations is pretty spot on. The ideal of the body is very prominent in Greek religion and art. Just compare Michelangelo's David to the Antikythera Youth, same style of art but focused on other points of the body(David's face, the torso in Antikythera)
>Evola did. I can't speak for the rest
Nah he really didn't. Just like another poster previously said, Evola's understanding of history was him trying to imposed a universal theory of "traditionalism" upon every historical civilization. As I mentioned in my first post, Greek had a different conception of tradition than us or the Chinese. Tradition is not some universal platonic ideal it is contingent on a particular culture, people, and historical context.
>Does the object precede the subject or the opposite?
The subject in this context would be the symbol of the civilization. The symbol defines and describes the characteristics of a people.
>The Hellenes (at their peak) were a transcendent civilisation as a whole, where everything was geared towards transcendence. Dionysian cults mark the lower levels of spiritual initiation. If you want to know about Classical spirituality, the Traditionalists are precisely who you need to go to.
Hellenism would of been homologous to the 19th century for us. It was a completely materialist society at that point, with non-metaphysical philosophical doctrines like stoicism and epicureanism becoming the popular forms of thought at the time. A good book to read on that would be Psyche Cult of the Souls by Erwin Rohde.
>No idea what you are referring to here
I was manly talking about how the traditionalist would take concepts from the past divorced from their cultural and historical context and try to wedge a narrative together that is inconsistent of their time in history or the past. Evola is notorious for doing this.

>>17546504
>Faustian culture places god at an infinite distance and magian culture experiences religion as a group.
Incredible. I never thought about it like this.

What is/will be Russia's architectural expression? Don't they already have the onion domes? Or was than an import (from Byzantium maybe)?

>>17555846
Yeah, and some Christians still do this, usually the really old ones that were spun off pre-Islam: Coptic, Nestorian, etc...

>>17555834
This is the correct answer. There is a reason those same evolutionary pressures and negative behaviors exhibited by Jews were finally resisted and rejected throughout Euro history. They were expelled because we still had an immune system as it were. Now, we have over-analyzed and defeated ourselves in many ways, leaving us open. It is only natural that in an age of money rule and the domination of lies that these people, or kinds of people would rise to the top. Rest assured, the return of the blood rule and the end of money politics is what comes next and we can still rest back control of our nations into the hands of better elites than the current crop (for a time at least).

>>17555827
>>17555810
Let me rephrase: how do you see movements that go against the desired ideology of the elites, in this case the axis in ww2, are the processes Involved the same as anon said >>17555224
here?

To those in this thread; do you see the views expressed in this video as a correct analysis of civilisation? If so, why. If not, why not.
And do you think that the identity and willpower of Western civilization has decayed?

https://youtu.be/xLgHuOskHAY

>>17555849
I saw it once said that it's the military cathedral but I'm not entirely sure on this.


Also, question for this whole thread. Where do the eastern Europeans fit into it all. Russia is Russian, so is Belarus and Ukraine. Where does this leave say Romania Poland and Hungary? Fellaheen?

>>17555845
>As I mentioned in my first post, Greek had a different conception of tradition than us or the Chinese. Tradition is not some universal platonic ideal it is contingent on a particular culture, people, and historical context.
Isn't the general idea the Traditionalists hold that every culture/religion has a universal truth that they all point to?

>>17555845
>I'll concede to this point. I was mainly thinking of Evola when I wrote this.
Evola wasn't mainly a political philosopher or revolutionary either. He wrote two books on politics and their subject matter is essentially metaphysical.
>I've checked Spengler's homework. For the most part, his analysis on civilizations is pretty spot on. The ideal of the body is very prominent in Greek religion and art. Just compare Michelangelo's David to the Antikythera Youth, same style of art but focused on other points of the body(David's face, the torso in Antikythera)
This is an interesting observation on the mode of expression of a culture, but I do not find that to be the central point of history.
>Nah he really didn't. Just like another poster previously said, Evola's understanding of history was him trying to imposed a universal theory of "traditionalism" upon every historical civilization. As I mentioned in my first post, Greek had a different conception of tradition than us or the Chinese. Tradition is not some universal platonic ideal it is contingent on a particular culture, people, and historical context.
This is an obvious case of clash in terms here. You are referring to lower case T traditionalism. Evola's ideas mainly revolve around capital T Traditionalism. Very, very different things. Obviously, expressions (traditions) are contingent. They still stem from Tradition (not "a Tradition" or Ur-Tradition, but simply Tradition).
>The subject in this context would be the symbol of the civilization. The symbol defines and describes the characteristics of a people.
Symbols can not be subjects since they are not persons. At best, they can condition persons and influence them that way. Who determines which symbols are privileged and which ones are not? The hierarchy. Spengler's views on this are inverted and inaccurate.
>Hellenism would of been homologous to the 19th century for us. It was a completely materialist society at that point, with non-metaphysical philosophical doctrines like stoicism and epicureanism becoming the popular forms of thought at the time.
Your view of the Hellenes is too uniform. There were different elements espousing different values at different times. Stoicism and Epicureanism also obtain interesting new meaning when considered in certain contexts. Evola has written on this too.
>I was manly talking about how the traditionalist would take concepts from the past divorced from their cultural and historical context and try to wedge a narrative together that is inconsistent of their time in history or the past. Evola is notorious for doing this.
This is a very popular misconception alongside the accusation of Theosophy and syncretism. The Traditionalists trace the existed of all Traditional forms to a pre-formal principle. Traditional forms are diverse and may share very little in common other than a common origin - common, that is, in a completely non-temporal and non-spatial way.

>>17555945
>Isn't the general idea the Traditionalists hold that every culture/religion has a universal truth that they all point to?
It is, that anon is contrasting it with Spengler's relativism

Answer me this then, anon, why read Spengler at all besides some vague desire to "read em all" ?

>>17555954
I think Pluralism is better to describe Spengler than "relativism".

>>17554023
>>17553909
Yeah, in Spengler's thought the world-spirits just kind of... ossify into stagnancy. They don't "die", "collapse" and "Decline" are more John-Michael-Geer-slash-Borzoi-Boskavich than GOLLABS MAD MAGZ :DDDDDD. There's no cycle, Apollonian Man being murdered by Magian Man is just historical accident.

>>17555991
predictive model of history where he claims to be able to predict next two centuries of Western history. He gets many things right so far, with others pointing towards his analysis being true. If having a somewhat accurate model for predicting the future of Faustian man doesn't interest you, then simply revert to pleb state and go cultivate rice or something lol

>>17556009
>He gets many things right so far,
and many things wrong as well? Like some cold reader of history, making somewhat vague educated guesses that in the light of certain interpretation can be made to fit current events or does he make super specific predictions?

>>17546231
Does he elaborate on his thoughts regarding specific religions such as one of the various Shamanistic traditions, Daoism, Buddhism, Islam, ancient Egyptian polytheism, etc? I imagine he does but I haven't seen his takes on them.

>>17553833
>This is a propaganda drive and it should be obvious. It's like French leftists arguing in the 30s that anti-semitism and racialism are "un-French" and "anti-nationalist", since those go against the Jacobin principles of the French revolution. It's the classic strategy of appealing to tribalism in order to push destructive and subversive shit. Western politicians do the same shit today with "western values".
Not the anon you're replying to but the difference is that Mao and the CCP tried to directly destroy the Chinese soul via the cultural revolution and they were not at all trying to hide what they were doing. Mao directly destroyed while French leftists and modern leftists only subvert. Maybe the Chinese go about things differently? I'm not sure I've never read Spengler frankly but I probably will after this thread. Honestly one of the best /lit/ threads I've read in a while.

>>17556009
>predictive model of history
pure cope.

>>17556028
Spengler isn't really concerned with this, as I understand it.. Men under the influence of his world-spirits will twist religions to fit whatever they want, so it's sort of irrelevant. The Greeks have been Apollonian, Magian, and Faustian, for example, having been Dodekatheists while Apollonian and Magian, and Christians while Magian and Faustian. People who aren't influenced by a world-spirit don't matter and don't really come up with anything anyways (at least at the level Spengler cares about).

>>17556022
He completely rejects Whiggism, linear history, and any notion of Progress. He's decisively pluralist. That makes some people, as this thread demonstrates, REALLY butthurt, as most Westerners are adamant that history moves towards universal liberal democracy (this is what the butthurt about China upthread is about, as China is too Chinese, so why did they win and Taiwan, which is a Liberal Democracy, lose?), and Spengler, like many others, just completely throws that out the window. His models are based on looking at previous cultures and civilizations, so "overfitting" is certainly a possibility.

>>17556022
when you asked why read him at all, I assumed you haven't read him. If you have correct me, if not then why are you telling me and others your interpretation of him as a cold reader of history? That's just you inventing things, if you don't want to actually read him check out "promethean gnosis", "oswald spengler" and (if you prefer more in depth/longer videos) "John david ebert". This way you can see what he says and why he's saying it without having to do the work of reading it all before you're sure if you want to. I think he's a very worthwhile read. I mean he predicts the fall of democracy it's not like that's some vague thing it's pretty clear if it does or does not happen by the time he states.

>>17554687
I can't imagine anything less than a cataclysmic collapse in the next decades. A statement like "The American empire is just getting started," sounds unbelievably silly to me. The world has already spent a good amount of time being twirled around America's fingers, what makes you think things are just getting started when things look so dreary right now?

>>17556061
>Spengler isn't really concerned with this, as I understand it.. Men under the influence of his world-spirits will twist religions to fit whatever they want, so it's sort of irrelevant. The Greeks have been Apollonian, Magian, and Faustian, for example, having been Dodekatheists while Apollonian and Magian, and Christians while Magian and Faustian. People who aren't influenced by a world-spirit don't matter and don't really come up with anything anyways (at least at the level Spengler cares about).
Surprised to find myself agreeing with him. What authors should I read as a prerequisite to Spengler?

>>17556061
Adding onto this, there's times where Spengler just defers to empiricism, such as the "Why" of the world-spirits. What makes the Faustian natural feature the primeval forest, and why is the Slav's the steppe? To put it as one very butthurt Ruski on here once did, did they just not have trees in ye olde Russiae? But then, empiricism makes people on here mad in general.

>>17556074
Go look at a map of Rome's historical territorial borders and remember that shortly after winning the Punic War everyone in Rome was absolutely dead certain that Rome was literally going to crumble to dust within a generation.

>>17556043
>Mao and the CCP tried to directly destroy the Chinese soul via the cultural revolution
No, they tried to remake it. They failed. Ironically, they failed because that's literally part of the Chinese soul. You're looking at this from the Faustian perspective, where things like souls and character are these discrete things that are entirely inorganic. They're formed, and you just have to preserve them. Every dynastic change results in some madman coming around and doing exactly what Mao did. China literally starts with Qin Shi Huangdi trying to remake the Chinese soul. He does exactly what Mao does. I mean this literally, Mao based his Cultural Revolution off of Qin Shi Huangdi's. As long as the Chinese are, China will be. This is why they make their temples out of wood, and are okay with knocking them down. They can rebuild them. They're Chinese. They're allowed to. They want to. Why? Because they're Chinese. Tradition in the West is not worship of the ashes, but preservation of the fire. In China, tradition is reigniting the fire if it goes out.

>>17556043
You see the modern lefts attempts to destroy (and therefore there would be intentions are revealed) in their speech and actions. E.g. Early last year they went full iconoclast

>>17556074
Well the re-phrase that I liked was that the West wasn't going to be renewed it was going to be re-conquered. There will be a cataclysmic collapse and total breakdown of democratic norms and how we view politics, but strong men are going to win out and get their way. They end up in charge and you have a sort of renewed warrior elite which allows us to keep going on. Keep in mind this does not really fix societies problems. Rome was still decadent as hell under the empire, it was just slightly better for a time before getting even worse down the line. Augustus implements his policy of taxing the elites who weren't having children, to his dismay many just decided to pay it and still lived without care.

>>17556106
The geographical feature and its role in the High culture is the part of Spengler I get the least, I understand how the Ur-symbol interacts with the development of the culture but most of them feel a little dubious, except the Greeks' being the archipelago which clicked right away when I read it.

>>17556141
the forest/cathedral thing works pretty well too

>>17556106
>Go look at a map of Rome's historical territorial borders and remember that shortly after winning the Punic War everyone in Rome was absolutely dead certain that Rome was literally going to crumble to dust within a generation.
I'd argue that Italy, and Rome, at that time didn't suffer from such radical demographic change as America has over the past 60 years

>>17555858
That's exactly why it makes so much sense to me, although I specifically had Shia Islam (magian) in mind.
>>17555888
Checked. I'm not sure how control can be wrested at this point. The rollercoaster is sliding down and it looks like nothing can stop it.

>>17556062
ok now I'll read it.

>>17556083
Just read him. The man was one of the last members of a generation whose scholars literally just got thrown into a library and were told to read. Keep wikipedia at the ready to look up anything you don't get, and go find a book on libgen if you want to know more.

>>17556106
Ai Wei Wei drops an urn, made in the Han Dynasty, 202BC-220AD. It shatters. But, is the urn that old? How do you know? Because he said so? This is China, you can go across town and find a plastic one being sold for $0.50. Or, you can bike out to a village and find a potter, making an identical pot, on the exact same pottery wheel (handed father to son), using the exact same techniques, on clay dug from the same pit, and he will fire it in the same oven, and glaze it using glaze made according to the exact same recipe. Culture and tradition are living things, and they are nurtured by people, not external objects. The Chinese are aware of this, and it's why they have no problem knocking down their own shit like careless manchildren: because as long as there are Chinks around, they'll remake it. The Chinese have a sense of self that we in the West lack. Part of that sense of self is tracing your genealogy back 85 generations, and praying in the same temples Confucius did. Part of it is also eating monkeys and rubbing their brains on your dick as an aphrodisiac.

Also China is MASSIVELY into Chinese archaeology so they are apparently self aware of "but what about if they REALLY fuck things up". The obvious end point of China is eventually someone imitates Qin Shi Huangdi and succeeds, maybe like nuking China and turning them all into literal bugmen or something.

>>17556153
>>17556141
I personally think it makes perfect sense, but I totally agree that it could be fucking anything. But then, Spengler is also a sort of action-philosopher. He's not just theorizing systems, he's in a sense trying to predict the future. Why the Primeval Forest? Because that's just what it is, someone else can pick through and find out "Why" the Primeval Forest for Faustians.

>>17556176
Then which one of his books is a good starting off point?

>>17556157
You say that, but remember that at the time people from the next valley over were seen as subhuman invaders. By the time of the Punic Wars, the demographic shifts that mattered (away from Rome and the fields around it to the Latins period) had already happened, just as by the time of the American Civil War the demographic shift that mattered (the non-Anglo Europeans, namely Jews and the Irish) had already happened.

Is there more of a difference between a White man and an African than an Oscan and a Latin? Yes, but how these differences are conceived is what matters, not what these differences actually are.

>>17556159
It looks so difficult partially because frankly, it really is but it's also the fact that people always think about how hard it is to win in their systems not new ones. Think about someone who wanted the system to change looking at Trump, seeing the president get in charge and still barely move against the bureaucracy. How can we out-compete them in funding, we can't, in manipulation? We can't. It'll be the lions that change things up though.
"About 53,000 U.S. contractors were in the Middle East last year, compared with 35,000 U.S. troops, according to a study by Boston University and Brown University. That ratio was 1 to 1 during the height of troop levels in Iraq in 2008."
Okay, so we've oscillated between equal numbers private armies vs state backed to 53K-35K. Recently, the national guard members were undergoing interviews to determine ideological commitment to Biden-tier neoliberalism. Pepe and other symbols were banned from special forces and members are being screened for this sort of thing. In Germany, multiple plots were supposedly uncovered of right wing guys in special forces, they ended up disbanding a special fores unit called the KSK because of this. Where do these people go?
There was a study somewhere showing most Gen Z are woefully unfit for military service. Standards are being lowered across the board for entry to the elite as ideological conformity and loyalty become increasingly important, and competent people start to pursue means outside the current institutions. Those special fores guys, they're in private militaries, alongside the highly competent, and highly ideologically opposed (to current regime). This is a feature of civilization and democracy as it leads to Caesarism, these loyalties shift from the nation to individuals. This is how we win.

>>17556106
>No, they tried to remake it. They failed. Ironically, they failed because that's literally part of the Chinese soul. You're looking at this from the Faustian perspective, where things like souls and character are these discrete things that are entirely inorganic. They're formed, and you just have to preserve them. Every dynastic change results in some madman coming around and doing exactly what Mao did. China literally starts with Qin Shi Huangdi trying to remake the Chinese soul. He does exactly what Mao does. I mean this literally, Mao based his Cultural Revolution off of Qin Shi Huangdi's. As long as the Chinese are, China will be. This is why they make their temples out of wood, and are okay with knocking them down. They can rebuild them. They're Chinese. They're allowed to. They want to. Why? Because they're Chinese. Tradition in the West is not worship of the ashes, but preservation of the fire. In China, tradition is reigniting the fire if it goes out.
I suspected you'd say something like this. But what do you say to those in the west right now, on both the Left and the Right, who advocate for demolishing society and then rebuilding it just the way Mao or Huangdi did? They aren't Chinese men surely, so then how do we know that Mao's sentiments were purely Chinese when non-Chinese people in the rest of the world would share the same feelings? Is it merely because oriental sentiments were exported from Russia into America covertly during the Soviet Union (like Yuri Bezemov says), and are now taking root in a completely different, non-Chinese, organism? Or is there a less practical and more esoteric reason for it?

>>17556106
>No, they tried to remake it.
Do you actually expect me to believe that the guy who told the Dalai Lama “Religion is a cancer” was concerned with “remaking the Chinese soul”?

Am I the only one who becomes less interested in reading Oswald Spengler whenever I read through a thread about him?

>>17556125
>but strong men are going to win out and get their way. They end up in charge and you have a sort of renewed warrior elite which allows us to keep going on.
What if the "strong men," turn out to be charlatan scammers like Trump? Would that short-circuit the whole process? People are very demoralized right now because it seems like there is not a single public figure right now who speaks even a single honest word.
>>17556239
>Those special fores guys, they're in private militaries, alongside the highly competent, and highly ideologically opposed (to current regime). This is a feature of civilization and democracy as it leads to Caesarism, these loyalties shift from the nation to individuals. This is how we win.
Where are these guys hiding because I don't see them anywhere? Ironically, autists like you and me on 4chan are probably the closest to being these people.
>>17556195
>Is there more of a difference between a White man and an African than an Oscan and a Latin? Yes, but how these differences are conceived is what matters, not what these differences actually are.
Are you telling me that an African man would have no problem assimilating into the Faustian spirit, or any other world-spirit, like the rest of us? Because we've been hearing that kind of lie for the last 60 years now.

>>17556164
if you're anything like me you won't be dissapointed anon

>>17556304
Watch this instead. this board is full of retards
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFQxSESQo3I

>>17556239
The average special forces guy is a run of the don’t tread on me boomer, a neocon, or a bernie bro, not exactly this dissident you’ve portrayed them as here.

>>17556391
apologize to the board

>>17556309
>What if the "strong men," turn out to be charlatan scammers like Trump?
The Caesars in Spenglers view are men who will take power at any cost, likely extremely self-interested. So, in some ways they will share qualities with Trump, but they will not be charlatans about taking power and destroying the old regime.
>Where are they hiding
Trump is a good example of these types rising. You wouldn't see them yet though. The meme phrase I've seen tossed around especially during the whole election fiasco is that our Augustus is watching this whole mess unfold and is learning. He's picking up on where things are going and we don't know who he is, but per the timeline of democracies decline and the rise of Caesarism in all likelyhood the first emperors are around right now, maybe not 100% famous yet. Who knows, maybe it will be a 4chan autist with elite connections and career ahead of him. If you want to read more of this I suggest "the coming caesars" by Amaury deRiencourt, which I read the first chapter off but still need to get through. That's why I'm starting to get stretched thin on my answers, I should finish that book.

>>17556252
Yeah, because that's literally what he said he was doing. The Cultural Revolution as an actual historical event was nothing but a giant "ohohfuckohfuckohfuck" moment, but Mao was never some kind of wide-eyed SocJus idealist. Westerners conceive of Communism as the utopian mystical doctrine, but that is NOT how the Chinese saw it then, or see it now. Mao was always very clear that the Chinese were a distinct ethnicity with a distinct telos and that they needed to be reformed. In particular, they needed to remain as a distinct ethnicity and telos so that Mao could start a global nuclear war, exterminating all non-Han life, so that the Han could repopulate the world.

>>17556309
In as much as Spengler's world-spirits are not bound by race because they're understandings of space-time, yes. Having said that, I personally would postulate that there's probably an IQ minimum necessary to partake meaningfully in a world-spirit, which is why we see none of them showing up in Africa proper. So, a Black on the right end of the bell curve certainly could be a Faustian Man, but the vast majority of Blacks, just like the Whites on the far left end of the bell curve, are destined to be fellaheen. The natural end result of this is the incoherence that you rightfully point out. The problem is in assuming that everyone is identical. This idea is a Faustian ideal. Having said THIS, however, just because a (smart) Black can become a Faustian Man does not necessarily mean he can ever meaningfully be, say, a Southerner, or a German.

>>17556250
I'd say this period "remaking" is part of Chinese Man. It's necessary to get the "periodicity" of China. Chinese history is a series of unified "garden scenes" interspersed by a period of chaos. Ever period needs a gardener. Qin Shi Huangdi was the gardener of the Qin Dynasty, Mao was the gardener of the CCP. Someone will come along and tear up the turf for whatever comes next. That doesn't mean that the desire to reform or Culturally Revolutionize is distinctly Chinese, however, just that this pattern of self-reinforcing creative-destruction is. The Faustian ideal of creative-destruction is a constant, perpetual one, with no end. The Cultural Revolution in Mao's eyes would eventually end, but the adherents of SocJus, like their Puritan forefathers, wanted an eternal Christianization, the young constantly burning the old, with no lull. This is obviously bad and not sustainable (in the manner that Faustian Man does it).

>>17556417
Yeah of course. Most of Caesar's legionnaires weren't intellectual dissidents who wanted to end the Republic. Though you are right I portrayed them wrongly here. Someone pull up that video of that special forces guy saying people don't know how many guys with my background are ready for violence, and how close they are to using it. Caesar is going to be the guy who pulls a Trump and rallies a lot of people behind him with populist will and also has a personally loyal group of soldiers. Think of a proto-Caesar like Hitler having backing of Freikorps and large popular support. Not saying that's what it will be like exactly but similar. Yes, the soldiers won't be dissidents but he'll be backed by plenty of them. There's a reason Cross the Rubicon Don starting becoming a big deal, as Spengler said when the time comes the people will welcome it, right now it's dissidents and twitter BAPists and various autists, these people are just ahead of the curve.

>>17556448
>Yeah, because that's literally what he said he was doing.
A lot of people say a lot of things.
> Mao was never some kind of wide-eyed SocJus idealist
I watched a documentary on Mao and that sure made it seem like he was an idealist. Simply not being a participant in the moral perfection arms race doesn’t make him not an idealist.
> Mao was always very clear that the Chinese were a distinct ethnicity with a distinct telos and that they needed to be reformed. In particular, they needed to remain as a distinct ethnicity and telos so that Mao could start a global nuclear war, exterminating all non-Han life, so that the Han could repopulate the world.
Yeah, totally not an ideologue or anything.

>>17556391
Seconding Ebert's talk also check out his series on the decline of the west. But this board is not 100% retarded, it's only 80% retarded, so take that back.

>>17556437
By strict numerical calculation I think we have a few more decades before Caesars start showing up. Trump is the first flareup, but Biden is a die down back to oligarchic rule. I'd also caution against hyping up Caesar as some kind of giga-based White Nationalist hero or whatever. The Caesars come along precisely by reifying the system at hand better than chaotic oligarch ycould. Whatever you feel about the United States Federal Government, consider this: if some guy who very earnestly believed in what the USFedGov stands for came along and said
>fine, I'll do it myself
and took power, would that be based? Remember, USFedGov took down the American Flag and put up the Fag Flag and the BLM Flag on every military base across the world, and very earnestly believes in that mission.

>>17556448
>so that Mao could start a global nuclear war, exterminating all non-Han life, so that the Han could repopulate the world.
...

>>17555849
>>17555943
In my opinion it will is brutalism or the apartment block.
Firstly, consider the West's prime symbol, the forests of central Europe. Now see how the West's architecture is reflected by this symbol, you have the vaulted ceilings, towers and flying buttresses of a gothic cathedral and, nowadays, skyscrapers reaching endlessly up to heaven.
Now consider Russia's prime symbol, an endless plane (originating in the steppe). Think of the difference between a Russian city and a Western city (London or New York), a typical Russian city is very flat, dominated by medium rise housing blocks (whether they are commie blocks or much prettier Stalinkas and Tsarist apartments), what is a flat if not a series of planes layered on top of each other?
Russian architecture stays low to the ground, a Russian city in, say, Siberia is barely discernable from the steppe or forest that surrounds it, while a city like Chicago towers over the (former) prairies. Saint Petersburg's waterfront or Moscow (outside of the brand new CBD) is probably five stories on average, while Manhattan is probably hundreds of stories.

>>17556466
I’m just convinced it’s nonsense to be honest. If you there was a Faustian Caesar, it was Hitler and we all know what happened. A handful of frog and tree emojis on Twitter getting “cross the rubicon” trending, doesn’t make for some American Faustian Caesar. In fact, I’ve grown increasingly suspicious of these sort of comparisons with Rome or whatever to the point where I wonder if anyone has actually validated these comparisons at all. There’s more than a handful of pseuds out there making a name for themselves off these comparisons these days usually on some pseudo-scientific basis. I just think Spengler was wrong desu. The more I learn about him the more I realize that his philosophy was highly speculative, relative, not at all grounded or justified on any basis, could be interpreted in a whole myriad of ways, and I think worst of all it leads people down paths of either false hope or despair mistakenly. I just don’t buy it, frankly.

>>17556528
>The more I learn about him the more I realize that his philosophy was highly speculative, relative, not at all grounded or justified on any basis,
Have you even read the introduction to his book lol, how is this news to you

>>17556475
In my view Caesarism describes an entire sociological phenomenon that is equally bound up with the Second Religiousness. It describes the disappearance of individual agency and rational thought as the social makeup of society turns into religious group think and emotionalism. Today everyone already thinks in a religious mindset even if religion itself has yet to make a comeback. Individualism has almost completely disappeared, most people now belong to some pseudo religious cult centered on the worship of an anointed holy one - celebrities, social media influencers, streamers, preachers like Jordan Peterson, and of course Trump. Caesarism and the Second Religiousness thus describe the same phenomenon. There is no switch that is flicked, it is a long slow process. This is a theory I've been working on but I don't know what to call it.

>>17556528
The truth is that the current time is so unprecedented in recorded history that all we can do is speculate. Spengler at least makes a strong case for his own speculation. And you don't have to either completely accept or dismiss him, you can take elements from his work that make sense to you and incorporate it into your own views on the state of things in the world right now.

>>17556475
The timeline I've been most comfortable with is that by 2050 America will have its first Caesar, they may (and likely will continue to for a long time) use the title of president, but in every facet that matters they will be emperor.

I like the youtuber "AltHist" geopolitical videos, I say this despite usually hating alternate history and especially alt hist YT channels. It draws on works like Malthus population as well as other things to discuss why things are changing and why coming decades will be p crazy. Water wars and such.

This seems to be something commented on a lot and noticed by many especially dissidents. The period of late 2020s and 2030s will involve significant changes in the world system little shakeups and chaos. The way I see it these will be perfect times for potential Caesars to start making or continue amassing fortune and fame. American CW is also often talked about and on the table (though it's more likely to be a low level civil conflict or something at least for the foreseeable future). That's my take.

I portray Caesars as such for two reasons. One is obvious, that's what I want to happen. The second, is because by their very nature they are against money power and traditional oligarchic rule, so they necessarily have to fight against the people I dislike the most in current regimes. Like I said earlier in this thread my hope is for a double strategy of actionable men like Caesars coming along and changing things up, while also having some based Benedict option style stuff going on on the side, which I hope would be easier to accomplish in an Imperium. Worst comes to worst I suppose I'll just live fight and die for the glory of the emperor.. or whatever

>>17546231
Ok smart guy. What was Spangler's opinion on anime?

>>17556555
>Today everyone already thinks in a religious mindset even if religion itself has yet to make a comeback. Individualism has almost completely disappeared, most people now belong to some pseudo religious cult centered on the worship of an anointed holy one - celebrities, social media influencers, streamers, preachers like Jordan Peterson, and of course Trump.
Checked. But all this happens on our computer/phone screens in our rooms where we are atomized and isolated from the world. How can there be group worship if we're all sitting alone in our rooms? Its even illegal now in many places for people to show their faces in public. Everyone is utterly alone and the congregation is merely an illusion. Something is unbelievably grotesque about this whole situation.

>>17556528
>>17556543
^More or less, yeah this is exactly his intention. I suppose the positive side of this is you can strike out the idea that its leading people down false paths, since you criticism of his philosophy is what he states at the outset. If someone is tricked by that they literally just haven't read him.

>>17556543
Obviously not. That’s why I said above every time there’s a thread, I become less interested. I’m not going to pretend like I’m a Spengler scholar but I think it’s fair to say I’ve gotten a sense for the man and what his project was.

>>17556562
It sure seems to me like he makes no actual case at all. The problem with Spengler is that he’s one of these people, like the geopolitics crowd, that come up with these pseudo-scientific theories to try to explain something as “this is the one thing” like a Naval vs Land power or whatever. Problem is, it’s usually nonsense and really just shows how desperately trapped in the englightenment paradigm we are. It tries to distill everything down to a science, to a framework so now you can make claims about the Caesar, about Russian architecture, about the CCP or whatever when all of it is more or less unfounded. Spengler was a logical, metaphysical relativist. He quite literally had no justification for how and why he argued what he argued or claimed what he claimed. It’s highly speculative empiricism without any actual empirical evidence brought to the level of global history and nothing more to me.

>>17556391
This is a great thread. You're a retard who hasn't even read through it.

>>17556555
I think it's been mentioned somewhere before but this is fairly correct. What happens is the lost individual agency and "rational" thought is so awful that people willingly give up everything for someone who promises to come in a set things right. To put things back in order and end the chaos.

>>17556566
>The second, is because by their very nature they are against money power
Yet you specifically mentioned caesars amassing fortune and fame.

>>17556594
>Obviously not. That’s why I said above every time there’s a thread, I become less interested.
Holy fuck are you that same retard that keeps coming into Spengler threads and going on about 'Im just not interested in reading this guy'

>>17556581
We're in isolation but we're not alone. The internet itself is the most Hegelian god consciousness invention. Anyway I am describing a particular psychology, where people no longer form idiosyncratic and rational judgements on things but pick up on the beliefs of whatever community they feel they're a part of. These groups still exist on the internet.
>>17556603
You're right, I don't read these threads because I'm one of the 2 people on this board that has read The Decline of the West and reading these retarded threads gives me a migraine.

>>17556582
If you put your faith in this idea that there will be some Faustian Western Caesar that unites two diametrically opposed paradigms and that never happens, it sure seems to me like you’ve been led down a false path.

>>17556621
No.

>>17556578
Spankler
>>17556594
Fair enough, I do wonder though, why bother coming to multiple Spengler threads if every time you are less interested in reading him? Surely you'd eventually get tired of coming into threads to discuss an author you're increasingly uninterested in? I can say from my point of view there is at least one or two sometimes more posts with this exact same sentiment (and often similar phrasing) in every Spengler thread and it is relatively annoying thing to read. Okay, no one will make you read him or come to thread if you don't want to. Still its better than a lot of other threads on lit where you can't discuss anything without every single detractor coming out of the wordwork to call the entire thread idiot/pseud/chud/tranny for discussing the topic of the damn thread. So thanks for keeping your cool even if you don't agree with the dude/us talking about him

>>17556637
>I do wonder though, why bother coming to multiple Spengler threads if every time you are less interested in reading him?
I don’t know. I used to be interested in him but just never got around to reading him so every time I’d see a thread on him, I’d just click on it and read. I guess I do it out of habit and curiosity still. Let’s not be dramatic here though. I’m talking about I lurked in like a handful of threads at most. I’m not even trying to detract from the author or conversation, just wanted a discussion I guess, to get my views challenged or something.

>>17556608
Yes.

I think Caesar once said that he was an Optimate at heart and a Populare by circumstance. Think in those terms. This is intra-elite conflict. It's people who are able to amass this fame and fortune not through traditional means and perhaps even in ways that directly disadvantage the current financial elite causing them to feud.
In an empire there's still rich people, and the emperor being the head of state and often merging his personal treasury with the states is richest of them all, but money power doesn't dominate the society, he can still be stabbed in the back anytime. If his soldiers decide they're done, than he's done regardless of the wealth. Hopefully that gave a better idea. Note that nothing I just said has to do with Spengler that was all me personally so feel free to criticize it.

>>17556655
you are definitely that faggot, you could have read the entire first volume in the time you've spent whining in these threads

>>17556670
Nigger, I have no idea who you are or what you’re talking about. Leave me the fuck alone and take your meds.

>>17556622
>We're in isolation but we're not alone. The internet itself is the most Hegelian god consciousness invention.
The effects on the body and on the mind are different when you're physically alone than when you're in a mass. A real stupor and Dionysian intoxication to the point of complete depersonalization is just not possible in the internet age. That is why irony prevails and sincerity doesn't exist anymore. Everything that is great has become pitifully shrunken. No matter what we say we believe in, we all live our uninspired lives in relatively the same way, and a life without physical gatherings is pointless. The abstract cannot impose a potently strong effect on man, no matter what way you try to cut it.

>>17556623
Lol yeah if I believe my stocks are going to do well in future markets, that they will continue to average 7% year-by-year growth over X period and they don't, I've also been lead down a false path. Hell, if I make a career choice and then am replaced by robots I was lead down a false path by my job training instructor or whatever. Life consists in making plans for the future if I'm wrong than oh well, I didn't accurately predict history itself, I'll be alright I'll live lol. What's the point of learning any philosophy of history (especially of entering in a thread dedicated to it) or discussing the future at all if you're not willing to actually decide this or that event is likely to happen. "Let's talk about the future bro, what do you think is going to happen?"
"Idk"
"damn bro me neither, okay end the thread"
Using terms like false path makes it look like I'm going to hell for agreeing with who I see to be a very well-read and intelligent guy's model for the lifecycle of High Cultures.

Oh so you guys have read Spengler?
But are you prepared for the man who overcame Spengler's model?

>>17556693
In all fairness I don't think you're that guy but the anon you're replying to isn't exactly wrong to sperg out. I've read a bunch of Spengler threads on lit due to personal autism and no life for 'rona year and have seen this exact pattern it feels like a million times now. Try to understand it's like working in retail and its the 100th time in a day someone asked you if the shirt with the 50% off sticker is still 50% off.

>>17556712
I'm getting Eliade vibes from that title.

>>17556730
I have never heard of him before.
I'll have to look into him.

No one ever talks about math as art and another way of exploring the metaphysics of the culture in these threads. Can someone go in depth a bit more on this? Also, if China is constantly repeating the same cultural revolution -> new dynasty imperial cycles over and over, can someone with some knowledge on Spengler explain what India's been up to for the last millennia?

>>17556704
>makes it look like I'm going to hell for agreeing with who I see to be a very well-read and intelligent guy's model for the lifecycle of High Cultures
Exactly. That’s one possible outcome.

>>17556744
Eliade himself thought 'The Myth of the Eternal Return: Cosmos and History' was the best introduction to his work. 'The Sacred and the Profane' is another. I've read both, and the subject matter of the two books is so alike that it would have been better if he had consolidated them into one.

>>17556778
Can someone make an Eliade thread after this one hits the limit?

>>17556788
I have no intention to. It's 1AM here and I plan on going to bed.

>>17550265
>>17551081
>>17554687
>Yeah reminder that we are transitioning to Imperium
>Pic related.

>>17556778
Thanks for the rec!
Going to look into him now.

>>17556813
Look up for Karl Kerenyi too.
>pic related.

>>17550265
Latinos are Faustian, although torn. They're probably most like Macedonia when compared to Athens and Sparta.
The "barbarians" are likely to be physically close to the Faustian forge (Western Europe) but utterly contemptuous of this way of life (either Russia/Eurasia, China or Africa, or maybe the Arabs get another turn, probably all four in concert).

>>17556043
>Not the anon you're replying to but the difference is that Mao and the CCP tried to directly destroy the Chinese soul via the cultural revolution and they were not at all trying to hide what they were doing. Mao directly destroyed while French leftists and modern leftists only subvert. Maybe the Chinese go about things differently? I'm not sure I've never read Spengler frankly but I probably will after this thread. Honestly one of the best /lit/ threads I've read in a while.
I was replying to an anon who was claiming the the CCP were just "reviving" old Chinese heritage, which IMO is ridiculous.
>>17556074
I fully agree with you anon. I don't think there are any people left who would lay down their lives for America. Even if there are some, they'd be kept away from any position where they might be useful because of "diversity" initiatives etc. The army is already a playground for identity politics activists.

The Spengler threads always seem to bring out the maximum amount of cope possible. "Bro Caesarism is really coming! Things just WILL change, because, well they will!" I guess I can see why Spengler is a midwit magnet. On one hand, he's written copious amounts of confused word salad that pseuds can bask in to feel smart and on the other hand his conception of cultures makes it very easy to cope. It's like historical materialism for rightoids. "N-no bro, i-it's destiny, it's historical determinism, the world revolution- i-i mean Imperium is inevitable!"

Nothing in Spengler's framework is worth engaging with except for the most peripheral and tertiary elements, which are at least not harmful to the mind.

>>17557075
>Imperium is inevitable!
If you're a right-winger or even read Spengler, you'd know that's not meant to be a good thing.

>>17557005
Julius Evola wrote an essay about Spengler where he claimed that Russia would be the one to fall to the West.

>>17546231
i found an old copy of decline of the west vol. 1 at my library and i keep trying to read it but its kind of boring when does it get interesting? all i can remember was how he related newtonian fluxions to gothic cathedral design which i thought was interesting

>>17557138
That's the claim. In reality, everything that isn't liberalism is a good thing and anyway Spengler's ideas have gone from "pessimistic" to rather optimistic over the decades. A whole lot of people here seem to think that the new American Empire is right around the corner and that this shitshow can be maintained for even longer than a generation! Not happening.

>>17557227
What's your opinion on the near future?

>>17556578
Clearly it's an expression of Japan spreading its influence over the world so that when it develops catgirls and sex robots everyone else will be primed to bow down to them and they can rise as the new world power.

>>17557249
only man ITT who has read Sengler

>>17557256
>Sengler
anon, this is a Spengler thread. If you wanna discuss Sengler start your own

>>17557244
We're in a crucial phase of historical development right now so it's impossible to predict. Long story short, I see three possible options:
>hyper cynical American woke oligarchy that drags humanity to a level so low as to be previously unforeseeable
>woke pseudo-revolutionaries take power in the USA and destroy what's left of the country, Europe turns into a bunch of Latin American style dictatorship, eventually the industrial system collapses and the entire world starves to death but not before culture and demography has been sufficiently homogenised and mangled by capitalism in order to prevent the rise of any healthy cultures in the event of a recovery
>somehow magically the right organises across the northern hemisphere, it somehow magically adopts the political principles of its best thinkers and somehow narrowly manages to overcome the world system of libtardism and institute something both sustainable and politically healthy

>>17557284
Good predictions, could I bother you to explain why you think each of those is likely? Preferably with intellectual rigor, and why they differ with Riencourt, Yockey, Toynbee and Spengler?

If anyone who has read Spengler is still browsing this deep into the thread I'm wondering if it's worthwhile to go through some of his other works while I wait on Arktos to publish. There are epubs available for man and technics and prussianism and socialism. Dive into them now or better to wait until I've read decline first?

>>17557316
Of the people you listed I have only read Spengler and skimmed bits of Yockey. I have never even heard of Riencourt and the name "Toynbee" seems only faintly familiar.
I don't want to spend too much time writing on this topic atm, but I'll try to write a quick summary of the power dynamics as I understand them:
Option 1:
>neoliberal democrats and their woke allies still have opposing class interests, so if the right is ever thoroughly beaten, they will need a systemic solution to reconcile their differences
>the neoliberals have institutional control and money power, whereas the wokies have nothing, so it's likely that they the Democrats will just form a "liberal" one-party state where the opposite party just can't win and the wokies are just attack dogs with privileges and pay, like some form of mob aristocracy to keep the plebs in line
>this will have disastrous consequences for the power of the USA, so the elites will pursue increasingly drastic technological solutions until people are basically getting cyber lobotomised
Option 2:
>the same libtard-wokie tension is resolved instead by a wokie victory because the neoliberals have promoted them too much and there are literally no people left loyal to liberalism in the elite. the wokie elites self-coup themselves and kickstart a "revolution" with tons of mob violence and a breakdown in law and order
>this destroys the USA entirely
>European liberals press the military coup panic button
>economic crisis rocks the world as a result of the sharp changes to global production and consumption patterns, everything comes crashing down
Option 3:
>suddenly every rightoid's IQ increases by 45 points and they outmaneuver the libs
>this happens across all of Europe and maybe optionally the USA, meaning that these new states can form a united autarkic bloc and assert their interests rather than destroy each other mutually in the process of transition from liberalism to rightism

>>17546231
Hey I have more questions:
>>17552480
>>17552528
>>17552532

>>17557329
I don't think reading Decline first is essential for understanding what Spengler was trying to get across with Prussianism and Socialism.

>>17557404
thanks anon

Is it accurate to say that the Apollonian culture had 2 hegemonies, Greek and Roman, while the Faustian culture has had 3 so far, Spanish, British, and American? And with centuries left to go, and the US in its current state, it is hard to imagine it being the final equivalent of Rome. Will there be multiple other empires succeeding and reigning over the centuries to come until the fossil fuels run out? Who would they even be? China, even though they aren't Faustian?

>>17546231
In your opinion which of his points are the most salient and should be your biggest takeaways, and which of his points are the weakest (aside from historical inaccuracies as a result of his time period not having access to certain knowledge).

>>17557329
>>17557431
Technics fills in some of the gaps from Decline (prehistory), you could read them in either order.

>>17557514
I don’t think Spanish never really held hedgemony. They were powerful for sure but they hardly had the same strangle hold over Europe as well as culture and thought as the British had in the 19th century or the Americans had in the 20th century.

>>17557514
>And with centuries left to go, and the US in its current state, it is hard to imagine it being the final equivalent of Rome
It would be more accurate to call this the late Roman Empire imo. The world wars were the equivalent of the crisis of the 3rd century.

>>17557514
>Will there be multiple other empires succeeding and reigning over the centuries to come until the fossil fuels run out? Who would they even be? China, even though they aren't Faustian?
Nothing’s impossible, but China? That’s a completely different civilization never mind the fact an Asian mind could never properly understand Faustian civilization just as a european could never properly understand sino civilization.

I would assume some sort of United States of Europe would replace the US if it collapsed assuming Faustian Civilization doesn’t collapse with it.

>>17557549
The Spanish almost united the entirety of Europe in a universal monarchy, lol.

>>17557284
You guys are too doomer. The west would collapse well before demography in Europe is fucked up enough to seriously destroy the white race. Even in America places like New E gland and the Upper Midwest would in all likelihood remain white even if the worst demographic projections come to pass. The big cities of Europe are messes but those will be the first to perish never mind the fact everyone will flee when the collapse happens. Within a couple generations everyone not white will be dead, have fled, or bred in the case of captive women, and it’ll look no different then it did during the medieval age besides with at most (and I mean at the uppermost limits possible) on average 2% non European admixture.

>>17557514
Faustian has only two: Anglo Vikings and Prussian Teutonic Knights. America is an extension of the Anglo-Viking spirit of capitalism.

>>17557606
That was the habsburg’s and it was under the reign of a single inbred king. They as well ankrupted their empire trying and failing to keep the Netherlands. You could make the argument that the HRE held a sort of hedgemony (though a different sort of kind then the Bongs or mutts) but not the Spanish.

>>17557642
How is the west going to collapse? Barring some magical cope like a spontaneous economic or ecological world-class disaster, it seems the liberals have a pretty strong grip on power.

>>17557678
The American people elected Donald Trump as president and you think it has a strong grip on power? I don’t know what’s gonna happen but my guess is something either like the collapse of the USSR or the French Revolution.

>>17557657
Just because the Habsburgs were in charge doesn't mean the Spanish empire was any less Spanish, unless you also mean to imply that in fact Britain was a German empire (and a French state prior to the House of Hanover) or America the only actual English empire.

>>17557075
as someone who's most influential philosopher has been Spengler, these threads indeed read like schizo garbage. His most valuable idea is his method of historical analysis, not his fortune telling. It is of course due to the rightoids on /lit/ who read trash like Evola and are attracted to Spengler because of the ominous sounding title The Decline of the West. If you read the book he has almost nothing to say about the decline of the West in 1.2k pages. As to why its called that is another story.

>>17557686
>The American people elected Donald Trump as president and you think it has a strong grip on power?
What changed? He did nothing and when he tried to do something at all - productive or not - the establishment brazenly overruled him. The Presidency alone - even if it is occupied by a principled genius - can not overcome every other American institution at the same time.

>>17557692
With your casual assertion of intellectual superiority over your fellow Spenglerites and the simultaneous snide remark towards Evola, I believe you fit more or less exactly into the type of poster I was describing in my post earlier.

>>17557688
Not in the non Spanish parts of Europe lmao. You think they were forcing the Austrians to speak Spanish? Ffs the Dutch fought the 80years war just so they wouldn’t have to be catholic.

>>17557713
Did the English force the Indians to speak their language and follow their religion?

>>17557700
He made no serious changes to the system (which you were a dumb ass if you were expecting that) but he had some positive developments, half the wall was built, he kept us out of foreign entanglements, and he’s inspired an entire generation of nationalist leaders around the world.

IMO though Donald Trump was the last chance for the west or at least this American dominated era of it. The establishment is too afraid to make a single reform though they’re probably af it’ll be like Kruschev reforms all over again.

Anyway the point is less about what Trump has done and more the message it sends. Trump is a fucking clown, like a Rodney Dangerfield impersonator, yet he was elected the president over the republican and democratic establishment candidates as a result of how disgusted the voters are with how things are going.

18/19 bulwark counties went for Trump too idk for sure if dems did cheat in 2020 but it was a razor thin victory if it even was one.

>>17557752
For the upper classes they did make them speak English, and they sent out tons of missionaries into India. Also the Habsburg’s did force everyone in their empire to be catholic.

>>17557757
>He made no serious changes to the system (which you were a dumb ass if you were expecting that) but he had some positive developments, half the wall was built, he kept us out of foreign entanglements, and he’s inspired an entire generation of nationalist leaders around the world.
All of this is cope.
>
Anyway the point is less about what Trump has done and more the message it sends. Trump is a fucking clown, like a Rodney Dangerfield impersonator, yet he was elected the president over the republican and democratic establishment candidates as a result of how disgusted the voters are with how things are going.
And it still achieved nothing. As I said, the liberals have an iron grip on power. Trump could have changed that, but he didn't. There may never be another chance for it again.

>>17546231
i can't seem to start an OP so i guess im checking if i can post. bump because spengler is interesting

>>17557678
Free speech restriction are harsher in the west then in the eastern bloc countries during the Cold War. Situations like this are very far from permanent and usually don’t end great for those in power.

>>17557768
>For the upper classes they did make them speak English, and they sent out tons of missionaries into India.
Really? Can you point that out as a matter of policy? As far as I am aware the Indian elites voluntarily studied English in order to benefit from getting closer to their colonisers. Missionary activity was also severely curtailed after the establishment of the Raj.
>Also the Habsburg’s did force everyone in their empire to be catholic.
This is not really comparable, because at that point Protestantism was viewed as a particularly virulent form of heresy and little more. The characteristic understanding of Europe at the time was of one Christendom with one (Holy) Roman Emperor and one Pontiff.

>>17557792
Trump couldn’t have changed things seriously at an internal level, only made reforms. This isn’t cool this is the political reality. If liberals had an iron grip he would’ve never been president. It shows how scared they are that they literally have the military guarding the capital on lockdown at this point.

>>17557812
>the stronger your enemies are the worse it is for them!
No. This is cope. Liberals are extremely unpopular right now and their lack of popularity brings a plethora of disadvantageous, none of which are owed directly to the amount of power they hold. As you can see, woke people and libs don't mind any of the censorship. Only the ones on the receiving end of power do and they lack the means to do anything about it. Maybe that will change, but it won't change magically.

>>17557823
Not that anon but comparing Germany when the Habsburg’s controlled the HRE and Spain to British India is literally retarded.

>>17557840
Anon when people really have control on power you don’t even notice it. Liberals peaked in 1998 and everyone more or less got along fine then, free speech was mostly allowed because they had confidence. Trump showed the emperor has no clothes and now they’re scared shitless.

Any commentary on this thread?
>>/lit/thread/S17506475#p17506618

>>17557829
>Trump couldn’t have changed things seriously at an internal level, only made reforms.
Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm5xxlajTW0
>This isn’t cool this is the political reality. If liberals had an iron grip he would’ve never been president.
They impeached him twice lol. He never accomplished any of the things he promised and they sabotaged the little things that he actually attempted. They do have an iron grip on power. Trump was just an unexpected accident, since they thought their control on democracy and elections was also perfect.
>It shows how scared they are that they literally have the military guarding the capital on lockdown at this point.
Oh, they are scared and desperate and by no means omnipotent. But they have an iron grip on power and no one else has any power at all. They can't control the nation in the way they want, but they can prevent anyone from taking over from them if they so wish.
>>17557856
Excellent post, but if you disagree that liberals hold all the power I ask that you share with me what power you think dissidents have? Especially a power that liberals don't? They are on the way down, but they are still extremely powerful and will simply not lose hold of their institutional control.

>>17557678
The energy crisis. All is dependent on fossil fuels, a limited resource, and alternative energy isn't feasible, so the west will slowly decline into a dark age again. Without progress, Faustian culture is dead.

>>17557841
>"it's retarded because I say so!"
No anon, what's actually retarded is thinking that the Spanish were never world hegemons or that their imperial power was limited exclusively to Spanish-speaking areas.

>>17546231
Was he wrong about Russia? As you read the situation today, is Russia going to be the last?

>>17557881
This is a classic cope from the aforementioned type. How and when is this energy crisis going to set in? There are plenty of fossil fuels to go around yet and the USA - the imperial center of the West - has immense, barely tapped reserves on its own territory.

>>17557867
I think we’re having two different conversations. Liberals have all the institutional power sure, but there are powers besides this blunt force. In their acting out they’ve lost a great deal of legitimacy and potential power, they no longer have the sort of control on the minds of the populace that they used to have. The historical wind is blowing against them. It’s clear to everyone this regime is in decline. A matter of when is in question but to say they have an iron grip is far from the truth. It’s more like their using an iron grip to hold sand and it keeps falling through their fingers.

>>17557884
The Spanish weren’t transactionalky extracting resources from Austria, the Habsburg powerbase you fucking brainlet.

>>17557913
>It’s more like their using an iron grip to hold sand and it keeps falling through their fingers.
This is an apt metaphor so long as the grip is so strong that it actually stops the sand from falling. The liberals are getting EVERYTHING they want. Everything. Sure, literally everyone else hates it, but that doesn't matter. That's my point. It might matter in the future, but not in and of itself. Something else has to happen in order to make it matter.

>>17557922
Total non-sequitur and the fact that you think what you just said matters in the least demonstrates how little you know about the early modern era, the British Empire and imperial power in general.

>>17557934
Sand is falling through their fingers though. The fact everyone hates them shows this. You can look at history regimes like this don’t last long. Even the best and most popular human organizations break down given time. If you think this is anything permanent you’re a schizo.

>>17557942
Seethe you 70 iq nigger monkey

>>17557952
>Sand is falling through their fingers though. The fact everyone hates them shows this.
How does it show this if they are getting everything they want and hogging all of the power? It boggles the mind how you can hold that opinion. Just because it's a ridiculous, unsustainable crisis situation does not mean that it won't be sustained indefinitely - just look at Latin America for reference.
>Even the best and most popular human organizations break down given time. If you think this is anything permanent you’re a schizo.
Their control is not permanent, but I can see no end in sight to it as of now.

>>17557958
>another non-sequitur
Like pottery. Go whine to Spanish people on facebook now, maybe if you get the frustration out of your system you will feel better.

>>17557969
>Their control is not permanent, but I can see no end in sight to it as of now.
No one saw the fall of the USSR coming, or ww1 or the rise of Prussia, or the French Revolution, or the revolutionary war, or you know you could take this all the way back to the assyrian collapse or Bronze Age collapse. Hell no one saw trump coming. When it happens it’s gonna a be like a freight train but it’s gonna happen.

>>17557976
Lick my balls

>>17557866
Pic rel is basically everyone going back to being grug, but it is hard to happen with the "world-improvers" in power today.

>>17558014
>No one saw the fall of the USSR coming
A lot of people on both sides saw this coming. Certainly Reagan and Thatcher did. A lot of people who lived in the Eastern Bloc also saw it coming. Gorbachev's reforms obliterated stability
>ww1
Marx, of all people, actually predicted it lol.
>rise of Prussia
It was engineered by the Anglos after the Napoleonic wars in order to ensure France can never invade Germany again.
>revolutionary war
The American one? I don't know all the details on that so I can not comment.
A lot of the things you list are not really applicable btw. But yes. Something will, in all likelihood, interrupt liberal power. What it is, how it will look like and when it will arrive is another question entirely. It also won't happen on its own.

>>17558019
Seethe lol

>>17558048
> Reagan and Thatcher
They’re both pathetic stooges of the elites and a large reason why things are so shit.

Ww1? No but Bismarck did.

> It was engineered by the Anglos after the Napoleonic wars in order to ensure France can never invade Germany again.
No lol. Idk where to even start in this one. Prussia was able to out maneuver Austria and form Germany through luck, and being a gifted superior diplomats and military leadership.

We’re talking about the movement of history from one era to another. All of this is applicable. History is never stagnant particularly when the ruling class is both hated and incompetent.

>>17558087
Nigger balls

>>17558227
>No lol. Idk where to even start in this one. Prussia was able to out maneuver Austria and form Germany through luck, and being a gifted superior diplomats and military leadership.
The Rhine, anon. Prussia was gifted the Rhine.
>We’re talking about the movement of history from one era to another. All of this is applicable. History is never stagnant particularly when the ruling class is both hated and incompetent.
On the contrary, history was quite stagnant in the period 1870-1914 and 1945 to the present day. We will see how things go. Just don't sit by passively and expect change.

>>17558267
Bruh anglos had nil to do with the Prussia’s formation of Germany this is schizo talk.

> On the contrary, history was quite stagnant in the period 1870-1914 and 1945 to the present day. We will see how things go. Just don't sit by passively and expect change
Anon these eras are blinks of the eye.

>>17558267
Also on the contrary the world is nearly completely different then what it was in 1945.

>>17558361
>Bruh anglos had nil to do with the Prussia’s formation of Germany this is schizo talk.
Anon, after the Napoleonic wars, Anglos insisted that Prussia absorb the Rhineland because they wanted it to serve as a shield against France. This laid the scaffolding for the Kaiserreich.
>Anon these eras are blinks of the eye.
Civilisations die in less.
>>17558384
Not in any essential way, no.

>>17558423
In literally every essential way it’s different. Name a single way it’s not.

> Anon, after the Napoleonic wars, Anglos insisted that Prussia absorb the Rhineland because they wanted it to serve as a shield against France. This laid the scaffolding for the Kaiserreich.
That provided Prussia with more industry but is hardly in even the top 20 reasons how it formed Germany. Germany became England’s worst nightmare as soon as it was formed, a continental power even more powerful then France, they literally allied with France and lost their empire in an effort to destroy it.

>civilisations die in less.
No they dont. The modern world has been around for an infinitesimally tiny amount of time.

>>17558442
>In literally every essential way it’s different. Name a single way it’s not.
The political model is the same, the economic model (liberal Keynesian bullshit), society is continuing its slow and permanent leftward drift and western people are more atomised than ever. Only geopolitics seem different, since the USSR has fallen.
>That provided Prussia with more industry but is hardly in even the top 20 reasons how it formed Germany.
You are ignoring geopolitics. The Rhineland incentivised Prussia to conquer Germany or die trying.
>Germany became England’s worst nightmare as soon as it was formed, a continental power even more powerful then France, they literally allied with France and lost their empire in an effort to destroy it.
Yes. It didn't have to be this way though, the Anglos were actually doing really well in outplaying the Germans up until the First World War. They just got a bit too greedy.
>No they dont. The modern world has been around for an infinitesimally tiny amount of time.
And its form of accelerated degeneration has been around for even less, yet look at the results all around you.

>>17557692
>Untergang des Abendlandes
>Ondergang van het avondland
A beautiful, poetic title. "decline of the west" reads like the title to a JBP video. If you want to engage with these thinkers you have to learn their native tongue; there's no other way.

>>17558466
>The political model is the same
No it’s not>>17558442
> the economic model
There is no comparison between the economy of 1945 and now
> society is continuing its slow and permanent leftward drift and western people are more atomised than ever
Anon left back then meant you supported unions. Now it means you support corporations promoting social justice and giving little white boys estrogen.

Anon ffs Europe owned all of Africa in 1945 and China was embroiled in civil war, the ussr is far from the most important Geopolitical development.

> You are ignoring geopolitics. The Rhineland incentivised Prussia to conquer Germany or die trying.
No you fucking historically illiterate baboon. What kind of dipshit believes this lmao.

> Yes. It didn't have to be this way though, the Anglos were actually doing really well in outplaying the Germans up until the First World War. They just got a bit too greedy.
This was always the case. Literally since the nations inceptions it’s main foreign policy goal has always been to keep any one continental power from becoming too powerful.

> And its form of accelerated degeneration has been around for even less, yet look at the results all around you.
These are the buzzwords of the trannies dilate and kys. Theres nothing historically special about our situation. All tyrants die and their works collapse.

>>17558508
Absolutely SEETHING

>>17558512
Can’t even respond coherently. You’ve been called out tranny

>>17558508
>No it’s not
Is the political model not a liberal-democratic one?
>There is no comparison between the economy of 1945 and now
Why not? Was there not the same system of stitched together pseudo-solutions and artificial manipulation of the economy in order to establish the welfare state and choke down dissent?
>Anon left back then meant you supported unions. Now it means you support corporations promoting social justice and giving little white boys estrogen.
These people were present then too. In fact, immediately after 1945 is when the more degenerate types of leftism begin to become predominant.
>Anon ffs Europe owned all of Africa in 1945 and China was embroiled in civil war, the ussr is far from the most important Geopolitical development.
1945 initiated the era of decolonisation and European contraction. What we are looking at now is the conclusion of a process that began back then. It's true that China is in a different state today, but that doesn't impact our lives much, does it?
>No you fucking historically illiterate baboon. What kind of dipshit believes this lmao.
What's illiterate about this? Do tell.
>These are the buzzwords of the trannies dilate and kys. Theres nothing historically special about our situation. All tyrants die and their works collapse.
What do you mean, "nothing special"? Do you think that this situation is in any way normal? I would think it's exceptionally abnormal.
>>17558512
>>17558514
That wasn't me, anon.

>>17558540
>Is the political model not a liberal-democratic one?
In name only but not really when elections are being stolen (or at the very least all the corporations and media are rooting against one political platform), and Europe is managed through a rather fascistic multinational bureaucratic mess.
>why not
One is based on factories, another on the service industry, Silicon Valley, outsourcing, illegal aliens, women in the workforce, it just goes on and on you autistic lolbertardian schmuck.
> These people were present then too. In fact, immediately after 1945 is when the more degenerate types of leftism begin to become predominant.
They hardly show their faces until the 1960s and even then the fags were incredibly rare.

Decolonization has barely begun in 1945,you’re literally conceding A major change here.

>It's true that China is in a different state today, but that doesn't impact our lives much, does it?
Are you living in a bubble? Where the fuck do you think all the factories went?

Prussia was always going to challenge Austria for leadership of Germany. Have you studied it’s formation at all? Bismarck stated he would prefer for Prussia to be independent but since the formation of Germany was inevitable he would rather the Prussians lead it.

> What do you mean, "nothing special"? Do you think that this situation is in any way normal? I would think it's exceptionally abnormal.
Degenerate elite gets full of themselves acts obnoxiously as civilization falls apart. Happens all the time. Not particularly noteworthy at all.

>>17558578
>In name only but not really when elections are being stolen (or at the very least all the corporations and media are rooting against one political platform), and Europe is managed through a rather fascistic multinational bureaucratic mess.
This is how liberalism works anon. What's new? I don't know anything about elections being stolen, but the cliquey nature of democracy has always been evident. You literally have Presidential dynasties in the USA.
As to Europe, the construction of the European bureaucracy began early after 1945 with the Treaty of Rome and the construction of the EEC. Nothing about it is "fascistic" though.
>One is based on factories, another on the service industry, Silicon Valley, outsourcing, illegal aliens, women in the workforce, it just goes on and on you autistic lolbertardian schmuck.
Yes anon, the point is that as industry declined the patchwork solutions grew more and more bizarre and desperate. Some of the issues you pointed out like outsourcing, abuse of immigrant labour and female workforce participation started in the First World War or earlier. I am also the opposite of a libertarian, idk where you got that from.
>They hardly show their faces until the 1960s and even then the fags were incredibly rare.
In the immediate postwar period most of the energy of this group was channelled into increasingly bizarre forms of anti-racism. In fact, some of them were more bizarre than the ones we have today.
>Decolonization has barely begun in 1945,you’re literally conceding A major change here.
The Americans had already started intensely pushing for the transformation of imperial colonies into "international mandates" during the second world war. The decolonisation of India sealed the fate of colonialism. India was the biggest and most important colony in the world and the British abandoned it just like that. They abandoned others soon after. I believe they left the Mandate of Palestine in 1949.
>Are you living in a bubble? Where the fuck do you think all the factories went?
I know, the factories went to China, but that likely would have happened regardless of any Chinese event in the past century. It's a similar case for India, Latin America, etc.
>Prussia was always going to challenge Austria for leadership of Germany. Have you studied it’s formation at all? Bismarck stated he would prefer for Prussia to be independent but since the formation of Germany was inevitable he would rather the Prussians lead it.
Not necessarily true. Likely, but not necessarily true. With that said, it's undeniable that the Rhineland set Prussia on an obvious, undeniable political course towards unification. Anything else would be impractical or bizarre.
>Degenerate elite gets full of themselves acts obnoxiously as civilization falls apart. Happens all the time. Not particularly noteworthy at all.
It's not just the elites this time anon and these elites have much more powerful tools at their disposal than Roman ones.

>>17558632
>This is how liberalism works anon. What's new? I don't know anything about elections being stolen, but the cliquey nature of democracy has always been evident. You literally have Presidential dynasties in the USA.
>As to Europe, the construction of the European bureaucracy began early after 1945 with the Treaty of Rome and the construction of the EEC. Nothing about it is "fascistic" though.
It’s not how it worked in the early 20th century otherwise guys like monopoly busting anglo Saxon supremacists like Teddy Roosevelt wouldn’t have gotten elected. You can hardly say the eec then is comparative to the the modern eu.
> Yes anon, the point is that as industry declined the patchwork solutions grew more and more bizarre and desperate. Some of the issues you pointed out like outsourcing, abuse of immigrant labour and female workforce participation started in the First World War or earlier. I am also the opposite of a libertarian, idk where you got that from.
You’re admitting massive changes but saying “oh but in the most abstract way nothing changed” fuck off.
> In the immediate postwar period most of the energy of this group was channelled into increasingly bizarre forms of anti-racism. In fact, some of them were more bizarre than the ones we have today.
Yeah none them were advocating for males to invert their penis.
The Americans had already started intensely pushing for the transformation of imperial colonies into "international mandates" during the second world war. The decolonisation of India sealed the fate of colonialism. India was the biggest and most important colony in the world and the British abandoned it just like that. They abandoned others soon after. I believe they left the Mandate of Palestine in 1949
“American pressure had begun” yeah but nothing has happened. Such a cope argument.
> I know, the factories went to China, but that likely would have happened regardless of any Chinese event in the past century. It's a similar case for India, Latin America, etc.
What a load of shit.
> Not necessarily true. Likely, but not necessarily true. With that said, it's undeniable that the Rhineland set Prussia on an obvious, undeniable political course towards unification. Anything else would be impractical or bizarre
“Not necessarily true” fucking dilate and kys Prussia and Austria had been rivals for over a fucking century Prussia would’ve never let them unite Germany without a fight.
> It's not just the elites this time anon and these elites have much more powerful tools at their disposal than Roman ones.
That’s what they said in Ancient Rome, I bet some dipshit like you will say their situation is unique 2000 years from now when it happens again.

Hey we're a server where we discuss literature and also religious texts. come say hi! https://discord.gg/gwjcz8Gf

>>17558687
>It’s not how it worked in the early 20th century otherwise guys like monopoly busting anglo Saxon supremacists like Teddy Roosevelt wouldn’t have gotten elected. You can hardly say the eec then is comparative to the the modern eu.
Theodore Roosevelt was a typical progressive Republican back when the Republicans were left liberals. Nothing special about him. Also, yes, you can say that the EEC is like the EU because one directly led to the other.
>You’re admitting massive changes but saying “oh but in the most abstract way nothing changed” fuck off.
Anon, we are talking about economics. Changes in productivity and economic structure are constant and incessant. What we are discussing is the approach to the economy. The Western economic model has remained the same since 1945 - use the state to artificially stimulate demand, increase consumption and therefore keep overproduction from destroying the system. This is how it's worked for decades. This is how it has to work, because if the GDP stops growing, the tsunami of debt, fake productivity and artificial balance books are going to come crashing down.
>“American pressure had begun” yeah but nothing has happened. Such a cope argument.
It did happen, after the war. After 1945.
>What a load of shit.
What about this is "a load of shit"? Capitalists want to limit expenses, so they transfer their industry to places with cheap labour. These are undeveloped places. India, China, Latin America, every poorer area classifies. Geopolitics has little effect on this.
>“Not necessarily true” fucking dilate and kys Prussia and Austria had been rivals for over a fucking century Prussia would’ve never let them unite Germany without a fight.
Maybe not, but you are not getting my point. My point is that when your country has an enormous and extremely profitable exclave on the other end of central Europe, you have no other option but to pursue unification as a course of action.
>That’s what they said in Ancient Rome, I bet some dipshit like you will say their situation is unique 2000 years from now when it happens again.
I think it's blatantly obvious that the conditions today are unprecedented, which is precisely why so many people are very discontent. If you think otherwise, then that's on you.

I think this is one of the most dangerous fragments of Western Philosophy, I can't refute him, I feel that he is right but it pains me greatly.

>>17558842
No idea what that's supposed to mean. Is he saying that we need to become STEM bugmen?

>>17558842
>just become a soulless slave bro!! There's nothing you can do!!!
Wow thanks mr spergler

>>17558888
>spergler
Holy fuck I never knew I needed this.

>>17558888
you're already a soulless slave to history whether you like it or not

>>17558871
If his prediction is true then STEM will be exhausted soon, too. Point is, the only viable creative outlet you have is being a capeshit director.
Or maybe you'll write the West's Aeneid, who knows?

>>17558976
>Or maybe you'll write the West's Aeneid, who knows?
Bro I am doing it rn. It's gonna be litty as fuck bro.

>>17556195
I meant that, due to quite rapid mass migration into western countries, which therefore changes the electorate, the history of the people and their make-up, how do you see Spenglers predictions coming true? It changes the nature of the nation itself.
E.g. you will not get a European Caesar if there a few Europeans in a country, you might get an Islamic Caesar if the country has had large amounts of Muslim migration.

>>17556448
>. In particular, they needed to remain as a distinct ethnicity and telos so that Mao could start a global nuclear war, exterminating all non-Han life, so that the Han could repopulate the world
Where did you read this?

>>17557075
>>17557284
Really? Spengler is obstuse word salad, yet your predictions are anything but sophomoric drek? The fact that you can only conceive of things through the narrow lense of today shows your historical blindness.

>>17559308
This is part of Spengler's predictions. The formless megapolitan mass becomes prone to strongman politics.
People do acculturate. And often times, immigrants are simply disengaged from politics and don't care.

>>17559308
The migrants that seem firm in their convictions and immune to nihilism need only a generation of European life to be tamed the same ways we are today

>>17556562
>>17556581
I agree with these sentiments, there are material, cultural and ethnic circumstances that i think make comparisons to Rome, or to previous civilisations, unrealistic.
I'm not well read enough to justify my thoughts in much detail, but namely the invention and rapid adoption of several different advanced technologies results in our current situation.
Immigration is no longer about warring nations or barbarian hordes, you simply apply and then fly over on a plane. Communities are atomised, families are falling apart. There's never been anything in history like the cultural Revolution (in the west) of the 60s, for example.
Who says that western civilisation doesn't just change, as it's people are now currently changing, into some permanent state of brazil-tier life.

>>17559466
Yep, the migrants are only here for work, the way they were only there for bread back in Rome.

>>17557005
The barbarians from a western european perspective are the people who emigrate en mass from the former colonies.
If you want to keep up the Rome analogies then yes they're the people that we used to rule over, just as Rome ruled the barbarians.

>>17559528
Nah, I see their outlook as a hybrid. They remain aware of their own culture and racial origins, and preserve their in-group biases etc etc, yet they adopt all the 'western hating' philosophies pushed by liberal institutions.
They keep their pride in their origins and also don't become meek like western Europeans

>>17559466
>>17559563
I don't know what countries you two are from, but in the UK at least we have had migration from the former colonies since the 60s, with many here for far more than just work. They gain citizenship and stay.
This is obvious as you have most major cities in Britain approaching minority native British status, so I don't see your analysis as correct.
I just see it as another method by lazy poltical classes to keep GDP growth up, to keep population growth up etc etc. I'm sure if our economy took a permanent downturn then yes, far fewer people would migrate here, as we also wouldn't have the money to shower them in state subsidiaries like housing and child benefit.
Regardless, my point is that I see 'Spengler's' predictions voiced in this thread as confusing, especially if the demographic or ethnic origin of a population is changed so radically. Who says it will not result in balkanisation instead of caesarism, or just a transfer of power from the old white elites to new, Asian and African elites. Or Islamic parties may appear and start wrestling for power and gaining a foothold in areas of high Muslim concentration.