Caesarism

>It is the reassertion of blood (instinct) over money/ideals (plutocracy/democracy/etc).
Not necessarily. Spengler actually says that ethnic nationalism eventually vanishes during caesarism and the civilization becomes a shithole ruled by warlords where only raw power matters.

But aren't the post-ceasaeist civilizations in Asia and the Middle East kind off ethnocentric?

>Can somebody please explain me the concept of Caesar/Caesarism in Spengler?

Enlightened dictatorship. Basically monarchy minus the blue blood divine right to rule mandate of haven crap.
Think Stlain.

A lot would depend on his personal willingness to take the fatal step. America is well known for clinging to its "democracy". He would definitely need the backing of a large part of the armed forces. I've heard he's pretty popular with them. Ultimately, again, it would be whether he's willing to do what is to be done. The Classical culture had a long period of confusion (Sulla, Marius, Pompey, Catiline). Julius Caesar was more conscious of what he was doing.

Latin America largely has Western civilisational forms (specifically Portuguese/Spanish derived), albeit not so "white" (it varies of course). So quite likely. Although, the US looks set to continue its dominance in the West.

Muhammed was more like Oliver Cromwell or Pythagoras: a puritanical leader. Islam definitely came to be the dominant religion-nation of the Middle-East, but it was imbued with more creativity in its earlier days. The Seljuqs (Turks) largely reduced the caliphate, set up by Muhammed, to mere symbolic importance. Although, the process had already began under the "decadent" Abbasids, who had replaced the high point of the Umayyads.

As a rule of thumb, subtract 1000 years from a given point in Western history and you have the comparable point in Magian (ME) history.
ME = 500BC-1000AD (Seljuqs)
West = 500AD-2000AD (Murica)

Not necessarily "enlightened". The age of worshipping reason is over. The rulers aren't always great, either (Caligula, Nero...). It's more or less highly urbanised chaos held together by dictatorship. It's sort of like a return to primitive tribalism, but of gigantic proportions. The mandate of heaven was more of an explanation in China for why the divine right of kings no longer made sense. The mandate could be taken away, whereas the divine right supposedly couldn't be. I guess you could say the West will probably look somewhat like Russians have under the likes of Stalin, or Putin. Although, that's an entirely separate culture. One that has undergone strange attempts at Westernisation and is still quite inwardly primitive.

>under the likes of Stalin, or Putin.
That's pretty broad

>Middle East
>ethnocentric
Only Israel.

They are pretty close, if you ignore the economic structure of the state.
They seem to have the same values and ambitions, and similar methods of achieving them.

>mfw this thread

This, pretty much. The later tsars, communists, and "mafia state" rulers are much the same thing forced into outwardly Western expressions. Peter the Great was imitating enlightened monarchy of W. Europe. Communists had "socialism in one country", modified from Marx's theory (Jewish philosopher, but entirely critical of Victorian England). Putin has "liberal democracy", but nobody really believes that.

Projection (based on Spengler's writings & usual time lengths):
1500-2000 - Spring (Ivan III - present)
2000-2500 - Summer (soon? outwardly Western forms have not been entirely shaken off yet): Russian Orthodox intensity
2500-2800 - Autumn : mature phase
2800-3400 - Winter (Caesarism = 3000-3200)

I haven't seen Putin sending people to gulags and forcibly relocate ethnic groups

Then why are blacks in arab countries treated like second hand citizens?

You should read more then. Putin funded his early rule by arresting millionaires and asking them to transfer ownership of their companies in exchange for being released from jail.

I don't think Latin America is truly a Western culture. It seems to me that it's in a Western "pseudomorphosis", similar to Africa's but much more pronounced.
If the pseuodomorphosis persists, we'll likely see some Latin American strongmen, but that's hardly a new phenomenon. None of them will be true Caesars in the Spenglerian sense, however.

As a side note, while googling around to see if Spengler has written anything on Latin America, I found that apparently Spengler wrote a book on Mexican culture by the name of "Montezuma. Ein Trauerspiel" (Montezuma. A Tragedy), which he never published. It has since been published, and if you want to read it (in its native german) it will cost you more than $100.

Because nobody likes niggers. Nothing to do with ethnocentrism.

Argentina, Uruguay and part of Brazil are Western imo. As a italian who visited those places, I felt more at home there than in USA

No idea the rest of the continent

I wouldn't say Latin America is anything in itself, therefore it would have to be an extension of Western civilisation (no pseudomorphosis). The Mesoamerican culture, which was quite sophisticated, was extinguished (many sources being wiped out). The Inca, while having a fairly large territory, never moved beyond a large-scale chiefdom.

I know Mexico has the day of the dead, which seems to be a pre-Columbian relic.

I would put the multitude of Latin American issues down to degenerated Spanish/Portuguese forms (S. Europe has long lost significance) and torn ethnic identities. Spengler mentions certain things in his works which point to an anti-white attitude prevailing amongst mixed populations, despite partial Euro ancestry and stuff about liking light skin. These include being hostile to having Cortez/Pizarro statues. He did refer to certain revolutionary figures as being Napoleonic. Others may be comparable to Franco or Salazar.

Subsaharan Africa is just a hellhole. Blame genetics, colonialism, heat, or whatever you want.

The book sounds interesting. I've heard of it before. It's apparently a very early work, though.

Along with Chile, those are the only LatAm countries with a white majority, so it would make sense for them to be more european. Still, I would say they're at best on the very fringes of Western Civ.
>I wouldn't say Latin America is anything in itself, therefore it would have to be an extension of Western civilisation (no pseudomorphosis).
Not necessarily. There are also "barbarian" groups, which aren't part of any Culture. I would argue most LatAm countries are made up of a Western aristocracy ruling over the barbarian "mestizo" masses. Though, really, the only way we'll ever be sure of who's right is to wait and see what happens.

meant to reply to

It's Italy that isn't western.

> Along with Chile, those are the only LatAm countries with a white majority

White != western

Dumb americuck

just going off what I read on wikipedia. The data could be wrong but I'm not interested in going too in-depth on it
That's true, but most whites in those countries are descendants of western europeans and are culturally much closer to western civ than non-white latin americans.

Western european != white