Talk:Oswald Spengler

	This Fascism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Issue

Why are there so many redlinks? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 16:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems like our editor has an ambition of us covering a lot of philosophers who don't show up in pop-philosophy discussions. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Bad habit learned from Wikipedia and/or I don't know how articles link here to other topics... as in Eurocentric does not (yet) redirect to Eurocentrism and Culture wars do not (yet) redirect to Culture war. If you know what connects what, you can help me, and or remove them, if they lead to nothing, I can pick up the slack. DangerousTomaccoUser (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

That can be fixed easily by creating a redirect. You start a new page, and enter the following syntax: #REDIRECT [[Insert page here]]. Carthage (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good then. I'll chip in to see what redirects make sense to make so we can start patching up some of these holes. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 17:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Count me in too! The MoR (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright, though as much stuff I've unloaded here, I'm starting to run out of things to say about the Nazi-enabling pseud blobfish. I'm starting to be bit ready to get this out of draft form, even though sections on Spengler's ideas BS and effects he has had on the modern right still lack some meat to it. -DangerousTomaccoUser (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It could do with some grammatical fixes. Carthage (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Having gone through it a bit to add images and links, this draft actually looks really good. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 17:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It's gonna need a working over to make it fit stylistically. The grammar is awful. Carthage (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Grammatical fixes? Well on that front I'm not particularly useful. Although "being a bilingual living in an non-English speaking country" is no excuse, "trying harder" is not really going to produce that much better results either. -- DangerousTomaccoUser (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I Will be addressing this entire thread once I have the time to reset the password for my account; and will bring up the concerns here. Ignoring the poor grammar, the article is chalked full of verifiable misinformation. The most obvious of this being the inference that Decline of the West is an ideological tract, like some of his later works, which anyone who’s ever read it can tell you it isn’t. While I understand humor and snark are a part of this wiki’s ethos, this entire article, while seeking to make claims that are incorrect with regards to the book, and how he defined civilization (demonstrative of the author’s media illiteracy, being ill-equipped to write such an article, and handle this topic. This suspicion is that the author heard about him, probably in the same sentence as Evola, and/or learned about him simply by people mentioning it on righty wing twitter, and then he proceeded to not engage with the book itself, but simply look up the criticism, and base the article upon said criticisms, his own inaccurate claims, and a sort of bizarre visceral hate for an intellectual who is no more controversial than T.S. Elliot. I’d expect a RW to criticize those aspects of Spengler worth criticizing, most of which are his political works; Decline of the West is actually a pretty solid metaphysical analysis of human societies and a persuasive critique of eurocentrism. However, making jokes about or poking fun at a person and their ideas is one thing. But making an article outright misinterpreting, and going on an angry tirade against someone who was never really, in life, and even really today considered an extremist (though he’d qualify as a reactionary by the modern political paradigm). And the people who think he is some sort of major right wing thought leader has spent too much time on right wing zoomer twitter. I will hopefully follow up tomorrow or the next day to formally address the article. Once I have access, I will be doing a massive edit, both to fix the sloppy grammar and correct, since whoever wrote and subsequently serves as caretaker or this.

2600:1003:B12A:68AE:8892:9929:574D:8B52 (talk)|

This article is so bad that it almost made me laugh

Hello, I am an old psysop from RationalWiki, Darth Ravigious (currently trying to find my old account information). I'll keep it brief, but once I regain my account I am going to do a major overhaul of this article. It is clear that whoever wrote it has either never read Spengler, is an intellectual eurocentrist, or a right wing troll. This is not my opinion. How am I certain of this? Well, it just so happens that this Rational Wiki psysop is, quite literally, not only an academic expert on the works of Oswald Spengler - he was the subject of my thesis - but am actually one of the leading figures responsible for helping repopularize him back around 2019. I have read "The Decline of the West" seven times, so I know it like the back of my hand. So, once again, once I regain access to my account, expect a major edit. 2605:AD80:21:1F7:F486:3278:9A18:DC8 (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

You should try and reach an editorial consensus first before making major changes to the page. "This page is bullshit because trust me bro" is not a convincing argument. Carthage (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Couldn’t you say the same thing about the current article? Given its poor sourcing and very obvious, high school-tier rants? I mean, wouldn’t you say it’s obvious that whoever wrote that article has never read the book (otherwise, for example, they wouldn’t have said that Rome and Napoleon are analogous, because a simple google search even will tell you that it was Alexander the Great who was, according to Spengler). Also, at this point, I’m concerned that the other guy - the main editor of this page - won’t really be open to hearing what I have to say as all - they’re first reaction was to call me “a bad faith alt right troll”, as if this were 2017. Which is profoundly frustrating simply because I was trying to clear up disinformation, which he is very obviously wrong about. Spengler is pretty mainstream in the historical community, so the some of the disinformation in this article shouldn’t require a consensus, when someone can just go ahead and cite the book or writing a about it directly. I’m also just concerned that the editor hasn’t bothered to even read the book at all and wouldn’t even if he got the chance. I’ve tried reaching out to him already on his page, but the kid’d been ignoring it. While I understand where you are coming from, given that I have no way of demonstrating my credentials without doxxing myself and making myself vulnerable to bad faith actors, shouldn’t the fact that I have read it (which is definitely believable, otherwise I wouldn’t know any of this) at least be enough for some edits to be corrected? Because it seems to me like the main editor of this page was just salty that an “article” he thinks he worked so hard on is being altered - which, as an editor on various wikis I totally get - but I think it’s nonetheless pretty obviously incorrect and the author has an agenda that surpasses even our own biases on RW. I will get my old login information back at some point in the next couple days, and I’ll try to talk some sense into the author; but if he doesn’t bother responding to me or doesn’t bother budging despite what I say, well, I’m straight up going to call for the entire article’s deletion, which would be rather unfortunate, given that it has the potential to be an informative article that is also ripe for some good humor, rather than the current incoherent rambling that blights this article 2600:1003:B11E:3B85:2989:11D9:4A6F:CD4C (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Poorly sourced? This entry has 88 citations -- the English Wikipedia on Spengler has 53, with both sharing lot of the same citations. And unless you are analyzing how philosophical shills get recruited to talk in favor of authoritarian causes (or you are in Orban-era Hungarian University or the Oswald Spengler Society) then Spengler is certainly f*cking not mainstream (or respected as any sort of analyst) in "historical community". And no, Spengler was not "apolitical nobody", if he was actively being invited to talk with the Nazi leaders Rosenberg, Goebbles or Hitler circa 1934... even though he himself preferred the German Conservative Revolution (pre-Nazi fascism/imperialist revival) ideals and is recognized as Conservative Revolution ideologue by the academics. Not to mention how many modern rightoid loons swear by him. And yes, I read that POS Decline of West, but excuse the sh*t out of me if I only remember its content in broad-strokes than in minutae. But I have works of H. Stuart Hughes, György Lukács, David Engels and Ben Lewis (+ Karl Popper) to back up what I remember. And you are not helping your case to tell "just look the entry", when the entry itself lays out everything I just wrote down. Not to mention, this entry was drafted first and has been checked over by RW seniors, particularly User:DuceMoosolini and User:Bongolian. And I really tire of your constant attempts at character assassination. I have written other entries here than Spengler, y'know? --DangerousTomaccoUser (talk) 08:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I never said he was apolitical - he wasn’t - and I think it is perfectly acceptable to criticize his politics. What I am saying is that “Decline of the West” is not a political work. Yes, volume 2 discusses politics, but rather it discusses the trajectory of politics as culture evolve, as well as class and governmental structure. All of these culminates in his very prescient discussion on the nature of caesarism, which this article incorrectly asserts he was calling for. For example, he predicted that around the year 2000 we would see extracongressional executive power in democracies undermine legislatures, leading to centralized executive authority, often in an attempt to justify imperialism and military intervention, using morality as a pretense for economic gain; this was a controversial statement among many other German historians at the time, who perceived this as anti-imperialist propaganda and viewed his anti-eurocentrism with scorn. Your article bizarrely states that Spengler called for a Caesar to save civilization, and that this ideological belief is responsible for fueling modern day authoritarian populism. There are various reasons why this assertion makes no sense. The first is that he never takes a moral or ideological stance on the matter; he’s just saying it’s GOING to happen, and using trends from previous civilizations to support his theory that civilizations undergo similar phenomena insofar as their respective evolutions are concerned. He says that in the future people will become widely dissolutioned with democracy and the corruption & ineffectiveness of the legislative process, and will instead look towards bizarre strongmen to restore order. Ironically, many of these people will view this as a means to create a pure democracy based on popular Will. This, ironically, ends up being democracy’s own undoing, as Caesars - dictators who are paradoxically legitimized by democracy - end up bringing about its end. Caesarism is more or less defined by three things: centralization of executive power, populism/mass democracy, and the merger of state & corporate power, which empower authoritarian laws, economic corruption, endless wars, anti-intellectualism, and political polarization (pff, what a ridiculously dumb prediction, right; would suck if this baseless, unrealistic scenario ever happened in western politics, now wouldn’t it?) Never once in TDotW does Spengler say this is a good thing and will save civilization. Yes it will stall the collapse, but it’s just an allusion of renewal, because this system is actually rotten deep down. Caesarism to Spengler is a symptom OF decline. Also, it is this very concept that is responsible for bringing Spengler into more mainstream acceptance, and even critics of Spengler have recently concluded that this is something he was unequivocally right about. Yet the article makes a weird claim that asserts Spengler is responsible for empowering people to be pro-caesarism, which is hilarious because you are simultaneously saying this idea is dangerous & Spengler was wrong, while at the same time admitting that Spengler was right about Caesarism. Ultimately, you are confusing prescription with description, and it is yet another clear sign that you have never engaged with his work, and are thus unqualified to write about him. I know you think you’re an expert and all, but please trust me when I say that, anybody who has ever read Spengler, or engaged with him outside of online intellectual chud circles (who also don’t really understand him either), it does not make you come across as a very serious person at all, which, as a whole, reflects poorly on RationalWiki (the admins of whom have clearly given you the benefit of the doubt and are assuming that you have read him). I have no idea what your motivation was for writing this article, but whatever it was it really damages your credibility as a psysop. Whether you’re being dishonest, and article was written in bad faith & your just dishonest, or just not a very bright person altogether, either way it doesn’t really matter. Unless you want to add a little bit of dramatic irony to the situation and double down, you should feel embarrassed. I’m sorry for coming across like a dick, but to be fair you called me an alt-right troll and said that the two hours I spent editing the article was “in bad faith”. So forgive me for sounding like a bit of a dick. 2600:1003:B108:971A:5839:EA5A:4ACB:99E5 (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't get what you are saying. First of all, The Decline of the West part of the entry states that volume one "attempts to summarize a morphology of universal history", so I don't quite grasp how you see this as political. Though as sidebar, the volume 1 was definitely popular with the German conservative demographic (+ imperialist apologists) following the WW1. Still, volume 1 book is psuedo-historical crap laced with Nietzsche-inspired ramblings, with volume 2 being other sociopolitical rants, with him voicing rather unflattering opinions on women (its no surprise Spengler died alone). And secondly, I doubt even Spengler himself knew wtf he was talking about with Caesarism. Yes, you are right about him saying that it was as "final stand of the culture before its ultimate collapse", but its also still evident that Spengler agrees with aspects of Caesarism or at least with other forms of dictatorial governance that may have overlap with it. According to Barbara Beßlich, Spengler did have intent to try influence/manipulate European dictators of the 1920s and 1930s - even though he was not successful at it. And are you saying that Spengler's work hasn't validated any right-wing loons or authoritarians? Also the "current reception" page only states that Modern Right believes that Spengler's writing is prophetic -- it doesn't say that we agree it. Additionally, I spent weeks on this damn thing, so stop bitching about your two hours. And that fascism navbox thing was assigned by User:DuceMoosolini. Although I personally think pseudo-history navbox would had been a better choice, I trust my senior's decision. And stop trying to paint me black, conduct yourself. --DangerousTomaccoUser (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

My brother in Christ, you are not addressing anything I am saying, nor are you attempting to refute anything I just said. Plus you are simply making inaccurate claims (like Spengler not knowing what caesarism is, which is such a strange thing to say, when I just told you what he said, translating things that are said in the German edition of volume 2 to be as accurate as possible. Additionally, the number of sources you used is irrelevant to the quality of the article, its accuracy, and its strength as an article. Additionally, nearly all of the sources you cite come from critics of Spengler, and not neutral/analytical ones. On top of that, I should also mention the fact that many of these critical sources are either from his own time, and/or totally miss what he was trying to say). This indicates that that your entire article is built on confirmation bias - a “methodology” that very much reflects that of our friends over at Conservapedia. You are also moving the goalpost after I pointed out and explained how you misinterpreted caesarism, which speaks volumes. Same with the other errors I pointed out about the article. Which brings me to my next point: you never once cite Decline of the West, which is ESSENTIAL if you are going to write an article on Spengler, in order to explain his ideas, and solely rely on secondary sources. As for these sources, rarely any of them actually focus on explaining his ideas, and instead are either arguments against them. Yes, they may mention some of his ideas, and some of them do cite him, but very few of them specifically describe his ideas in full, and are thus only relevant to critiquing him, which should only constitute a single section of this article, as, regardless of how valid such critiques might be, are still a matter of opinion. Opinion-based essays and articles, even scholarly ones criticizing him, still at the end of the day are focused on counter-argumentation and not objective analysis. The only time it is ok to use opinion based secondary sources is if the primary source itself serves as a conduit between a wiki article and outside scholarly information that is revelant, or you want to make comparisons and formulate counterfactuals. For example, I recently had a piece published that criticizes rent control, citing evidence to support my argument as to why it is both ineffective and arguably unconstitutional (the latter of which still has a valid counter argument); and even though my opinion regarding why it is bad in terms of its consequences is 100% correct - given how rent control policies are bad economics, from both an empiricist and rationalist approach - that very factual article I wrote is still categorically an opinion work, and not descriptive of what rent control is (only briefly summarizing it as a means of providing context for the reader. My published article is not a paper defining rent control and its history or a research piece showing its consequences. If my article were ever to be cited in a paper, the citation would have to be used within the context of my argument in particular - not data or explanation. Thus, at the end of the day your article is not even an Oswald Spengler article (nor even really a proper opinion piece/argument), but an account of why (you think) he’s wrong. And even then, this article can’t even be considered a true polemic either, but just a compilation of criticisms juxtaposed with vitriolic & hyperbolic comments and your own original commentary rooted in often debunkable assertions you pulled out of your ass. Moving on, your statement that people on the right - whether during his time or contemporary - are fans of Spengler is absolutely irrelevant, and, while it is certainly worthy of a mention, it has absolutely no bearing on either the credibility of hi claims (or the lack thereof). What you are saying is no different than if you were to state, “Racialist anthropologists, and, eventually, far right movements in the 20s and 30s believed in evolution and used it to justify their beliefs, therefore evolution is bullshit.” You are on this website, so I assume you are pro choice. Well, what if I were pro life and said to you, “You support planned parenthood and killing babies; did you know that Margaret Sanger, founder of planned parenthood, was a racist, and wanted to utilize abortion as a form of eugenics to kill black babies?” Would that be a sound argument against abortion? Saying the right wing likes Spengler, therefore his book is less valid is such a nothingburger when it comes to determining the accuracy of the book itself. I don’t even know why I have to tell you this, especially when he has also had a profound influence on a number of left wing thinkers (including the Frankfurt School), postcolonialists, civil rights activists (Malcom X), and particularly postmodernism (Foucault being the most famous example). This is why people like Jordan Peterson and a good number of other boomercons don’t like him. The final point I will make here is that you are justifying the credibility of your article, and implying that my edits are less credible, on the grounds that you spent “weeks” writing it. I’m sorry, but it is this comment that makes me wonder if maybe you are a troll or something (not accusing you like you for me; just a consideration). And I’m not even pointing this out because it is a poor way of deflecting against my two hour comment, which was in reference to me not being a bad faith troll (would a bad faith troll really invest that amount of time into that, while also explaining their edits in the edits notes?). And here’s the most important part: In what world does the amount of time and effort put into something quantify something’s quality? Or in this case, factuality? To quote Robert Heinlein:

“All the work one cares to add will not turn a mud pie into an apple tart; it remains a mud pie, value zero. By corollary, unskillful work can easily subtract value; an untalented cook can turn wholesome dough and fresh green apples, valuable already, into an inedible mess, value zero. Conversely, a great chef can fashion of those same materials a confection of greater value than a commonplace apple tart, with no more effort than an ordinary cook uses to prepare an ordinary sweet.“ Also, and I’m not going to even bother getting into your Nietzsche comment, since it’s more of just a weird hot take more than anything. Anyway, I’m gonna go Christmas shopping. Hope you have a good one. :) 2600:1003:B108:971A:5839:EA5A:4ACB:99E5 (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

you used and your focus on “debunking” him (again, based on opinion). Therefore, in order to make a real Oswald Spengler article - even a biased one - it would have to be severely condensed and relegated to a “Criticism” section. the entirety of this article w ^{— Unsigned, by: 2600:1003:B108:971A:5839:EA5A:4ACB:99E5 / talk / contribs}

You are not seriously expecting me to read that 7000+ word, frenzied, brick wall of text – are you? I'm afraid I'm going to need the mods to give their two cents on this, before I continue this discussion. This f*cking talk page is turning into a warzone. -- DangerousTomaccoUser (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

See, this response demonstrates that you don’t really care enough about the article to engage with me, or you realize you lack an argument and do not want to address my counterpoints. But I agree. Let’s go to some of the higher up editors. I think this exchange has exhausted its usefulness. 174.196.134.219 (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I take no stance on the validity of what this IP is saying, but I see nothing to object to in terms of their conduct so far. Seems like they just want to talk. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 23:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

So far, everything I've written has been proven/can be proven by citing reliable sources (plus the one crap pamphlet from wingnut writer Conrad Riker). Sure the entry is not perfect - there are subjects missing, particularly Spengler's views on women and his Musk-like obsession with country making lots and lots of babies. And yes, I somewhat understand that RW allows original research... However I reserve my right to be tad skeptical of the "alleged Darth Ravigious"' intent, having entered the discussion by proclaiming to be an expert and threatening to nuke the entire entry seemingly without consensus. There is room to be wary here, considering how important Spengler is to the lunatic fringe. While I don't mind additions to the DotW section - granted one can cite them - "alleged Darth Ravigious"'s edits in my eyes have come off as more censorious in nature, attempting to soften the language to be less harsh of his precious daddy Spengler. And his attempts at humor are lame anyway, but thats just me. But I guess I have to temporarily concede to see what our "acquaintance from Virginia" will do - IF he does - when the edit protection lifts. --DangerousTomaccoUser (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)