People keep saying that Spengler was prescient, in particular his works 'Decline of the West' and 'Man and Technics'...

I posted it on libgen, it's called the Meaning of History: Reflections on Spengler, Toynbee, and Kant

yes, it has less to do with translator

Yeah.. I tried niche libraries in Paris and couldn't find anything. I'll have to resort to reading it in ..anglospeak... gross...

Meant to say, yes, I don't think the translation is significant to that question though. Standard translation is Charles Francis Atkinson. You just need to avoid the Oxford edition and find yourself a 2 volume set. There's no way the 2 volume set will be abridged.

Off the top of my head, I remember he predicted cities with 15mil+, negro dances/music, depopulation of whites, general homo agenda trends. A very significant and overlooked part of Decline is his refutation of Darwinism (it's in Ch1 of Vol2 iirc) which was 60 years ahead of paleontologists and biologists. The exact criticism Spengler makes of evolution was the same one discussed in the 70's. If you wanna look more into it, Spengler BTFOd phyletic gradualists, and pretty much BTFOd evolution (punctuated equilibrium cope notwithstanding).

biologist here, what criticism did Spengler offer?

>turbobrainlet AND science-denying creationist
yikes, glad I gave him a miss

Here is a quick summary:

Western inspired Soviet Union fell, and "Old Russia" came back on top with Putin.

Late phase plastic arts become artificial,colorless,repetitive and monotonous, see post--modern art and web design.

colored People would form their own international alliance, see post-colonialism, third world socialism and Islamic fundamentalism.

Caesarism would rise in the West, see Trump, communist China, and rise of populist far-right in Europe.

Islam would be called in by the great powers, see pro-Zionist Saudi Arabia, and pro-Russia Shia Iran.

Western man would be enslaved by his technics, see post-humanism and post-industrial civilization and automation.

In late phase civilizations superstition takes hold, see New-Age religions and conspiracy theories.

>If you're against darwinism then you're a creationist
Atheists have criticized darwinism for a long time, as have non-creationist theists.

Yeah, the Second Religiosity is something Spengler mentioned and it's quite astonishing to see how accurate that was. I think Spengler isn't that empirical and sometimes he's just blatantly ridiculous, but he did make some really striking predictions.

>>If you're against darwinism then you're a creationist
yes agreed

Except you literally are not. People have opposed creationism while also rejecting darwinism.

name one

Spengler was no fool and he was a very careful observer of society. During his time in Germany there was this whole grass-roots folk movement in Germany that was very much a proto-hippie movement in the 1930's, that professed a return to peasant lifestyle away from the big city as well as some trends espousing neo-paganism. Ironically even some Jews like Hannah Arendt were part of it and this is how she met Heidegger who was also a major figure in that youth movement. What Spengler is alluding to is that megalopolitan man eventually gets sick of the rationality and cleverness of the big city folk and wants an easier life and easier solutions to life's problems. Examples from history which he brings are the Akhenaten cult of Egypt, and the Isis-Christianity-Sol Invictus cults of the Roman Empire.

Many Christian mystics as well as Buddhist thinkers have disputed creationism because it reduced the allegorical core of Genesis, or because it was a question that was not worth asking (does the universe need a beginning).

>I remember he predicted cities with 15mil
Anyone could predict this by looking at rate of growth
>negro dances/music
Were already popular by the time he was writing
>depopulation of whites
again, advent of birth control, obvious
>homo
was already visible around him

>mystics and monks
lol i meant educated people but ok

>lol i meant educated people
Nabokov

>monks
>not educated
And even people like Aquinas and Hegel were mystics.

Oh my god, yes!

lmfao

assez de lit pour ce soir j'en peux plus des déchèts d'anglos

arrete jamais de combattre les anglos mon pôte

I want to read this but I've been procrastinaitng dropping $20 on it.

Is it really worth reading? How accurate is he really? Is he really correct in the destined doom of the west?

>j'en peux plus des déchèts d'anglos
And following that logic makes you what, a dumpster diver?
Dumb frog.

>i FUCKING love science
whole family is in geology, biology, botany, paleontology, etc. I often discuss Spengler's argument with my dad and his brother

There is no more conclusive refutation of Darwinism than that furnished by
pala::ontology. Simple probability indicates that fossil hoards can only be
test samples. Each sample, then, should represent a different stage of evolu-
tion, and there ought to be merely .. transitional" types, no definition and no
species. Instead of this we find perfectly stable and unaltered forms persever-
ing through long ages, forms that have not developed themselves on the fitness
principle, but appear suddenly and at once in their definitive shape; that do not
thereafter evolve towards better adaptation, but become rarer and finally
disappear, while quite different forms crop up again. What unfolds itself, in
ever-increasing richness of form, is the great classes and kinds of living beings
which exist aboriginally and exist still, without "ansition types, in the grouping
of to-day. We see how, amongst fish, the Selachians, with their simple form,
appear first in the foreground of history and then slowly fade out again, while
the Teleostians slowly bring a more perfected fish-type to predominance. The
same applies to the plant-world of the ferns and horsetails, of which only the
last species now linger in the fully developed kingdom of the flowering plants.
But the assumption of utility-causes or other visible causes for these phe-
nomena has no support of actuality.1 It is a Destiny that evoked into the world
life as life, the ever-sharper opposition between plant and animal, each single
type, each genus, and each species. And along with this existence there is
given also a definite energy of the form - by virtue of which in the course of
its self-fulfilment it keeps itself pure or, on the contrary, becomes dull and.
unclear or evasively splits into numerous varieties - and finally a life-duration
of this form, which (unless, again, incident intervenes to shorten it) leads natu-
rally to a senility of the species and finally to its disappearance.

they didn't have the pill in 1915 right? or am i stupid

Never forget that it were your forebears who created this hellscape lad

not even a frog

next time if you're too lazy to copy paste in word just paste and copy again from the url bar it will set the text straight

>all that nonsense
so literally creationism except with Destiny instead of God

So far Marx has been more prophetic.

Sure bud. The revolution is coming any day now.

>in the hands of very tall men
kek

>the revenge of the colored races in the colonial independence movements
That hardly required great fortune-telling powers in 1931. Plenty of anti-imperialism was already well under way.

we're literally heading straight for neo-feudalism thanks to the marxists who fought harder against all non-marxist leftisms than they did against capital

> but muh Lenin...muh Stalin wasn't an anti-semitic Russian fascist!

It seems what he's saying amount to "species appear, then thrive or fade, but most ultimately disappear, and there seems to be not smooth transitions but brutal changes as well as frequent disappearances and appearances".

It may be a good objection against Darwinism but not against evolution as we understand it now.

And it seems to be simply a way to circle around the observation that species periodically appear and disappear with various life cycle, plus the introduction of a dubious Destiny that would warrant much more justification (but I suppose he deal with that in the rest of the book).

Is that really all there is to his argument ?

look up «Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism»

Not really. Marx' materialism made him blind for a lot of developments, and he also didn't admit that man has a spiritual need that goes beyond just a projection of his own weaknesses.