We all know that the biggest loser, Adolf Hitler liked to listen Wagner. What author did he like to read?

There isn't much evidence that he had anything deeper than a cursory understanding of Nietzsche, while it is known that he carried The World as Will and Representation in his belongings during WWI and had probably read the entire thing. It's likely that he read Zarathustra at some point because it was a very popular book during his army years but unlikely that he understood more than the aesthetic and peripheral points.

Nietzsche to him was mostly a way to reject Schoppy's pessimism and advocate for a vigorous, 'dangerous' way of statecraft which would have repulsed Nietzsche who called the state the coldest beast.

It's kind of silly to claim that Nietzsche was the philosopher of Hitler because everyone was reading him around this time. Teddy Roosevelt was noted to have read much of Nietzsche's body of work and had an immense respect for him. Lenin kept a copy of Zarathustra in his office despite banning Nietzsche's works for the rest of the USSR. As an extremely prolific reader (in fact probably the most Veeky Forums leader in history) it's likely that Stalin had also read Nietzsche and Mussolini claimed it was his work that turned him into a fascist.

heres a free (You)

there's a whole book about it user

If this is a way to slander Spengler, nice but bad try.

And Spengler said "Der Führer hat von meinem Buch den ganzen Titel gelesen".

Just implying he had someone tell him about the guy's books.

Rightwingers seem to dig his recurring history nonsense.

Read It Can't Happen Here recently and it's mentioned that the main character is trying to finish reading Spengler

for some reason you really hate spengler and feel the need to denigrate him constantly.
Usually by trying to constantly link him to Nazism.

The fact that you're a tripfag and dislike Spengler, makes me hate you even more than the average tripfaggot

History nonsense?
You mean Spengler's?

>Lenin kept a copy of Zarathustra in his office despite banning Nietzsche's works for the rest of the USSR
This sums up the Soviet Union and the bolsheviks quite well

theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/05/hitlers-forgotten-library/302727/

also an article if you don't want to read a book about what books Hitler liked.

Like the Führer she probably only read the title, or a biased summary.
That's what I see all the time.

Spengler is fantastic to read. His "Decline of the West" isn't this Yockney-tier call to arms against the course of history, but a very Stoic observation.
You can't really determine his politics from this book. He even says socialism is at the heart of our civilization ( which a man like Zizek would agree with ).

How anyone could be triggered by this is beyond me. Unless cyclical history ( which he actually isn't either.. ) gives you flashes of PTSD.

wtf you niggers talking about. Hitler is a boss. have you never been to Hitler fried chicken in China?

People really understate the influence that Nietzsche had in the USSR. Marxism-Leninism is basically the idea that the proles aren't bright enough to see the light of Marx and therefore a vanguard party (aka a class of aristocratic 'value creators') must reconstruct society in a way that shows the common man the path to a better way of life.

HITLER WAS LITERALLY HITLER

Cyclical history is nonsense. Certain patterns seem to appear, but they're hardly indicative to full cycles. They always spin out wildly in unexpected ways.
Trump is not Hitler, Trump is not Napoleon, Trump is not Julius Caesar. The USA isn't like any republic in history etc.

>mfw its true

>"Spotchecks revealed little in the way of marginal notes, autographs, or other similar features of interest," an internal Library of Congress review determined in January of 1952. "Indeed, it seems that most of the books have never been perused by their owner."

an ancestor of that blowhards in the bookshelf threads on here that witter on about cracked spines etc

yep, exactly.
Thats why I found that little tidbit of info so good as an overarching image of bolshevism and leninism

>what is metaphor
>what is analogy for the sake of an idea

like most people, you loose yourself in direct factual comparisons.
Pyshiognomic and systematic analysis of history. Check it out

Plus, Spengler never talks in strict, objective structures of cyclical history.
He is perfectly aware of variation, and the possibility of history to spin out in unexpected ways.
Its like you completely misinterpret his concept of destiny

You're looking at a tiny segment of a grand cycle. History is like a circular chain, we spin through each link and jump to a new one, each link is similar to the last yet not identical. Yet eventually we end up on the same link, you and I will be shitposting on Veeky Forums again. ER is true, repent!

I've posted this a few times before but Trump is Silvio Berlusconi

Trump is Crassus.

1. Anons from pol make me defensive sometimes.
2. I've likely picked up some misrepresentations from past discussions here.

Hitler liked german things, that's why. So maybe he liked german writers.

so you havent actually read him?

Like Stirner, the majority of the stuff I've seen written about Spengler are fantastically wrong.

Just read him. Mind you, there is quite a bit that Spengler probably got wrong or left a bit incomplete, but that was to be expected in such an ambitious project.
But for every thing he got wrong, there's a bunch he got right, and looking back, he was incredibly acurate in his analysis. Its a marvelous piece of historical narrative and theory, that makes a beautiful interpretation of Goethe and Nietzsche in regards to the development of cultures

is fantastically wrong*

Time for you to get schooled. You didn't read any of the book now did you, dear?
You just read what you got online and some summary by a biased secondary source ( because your lot doesn't read "suspicious authors" ). Not gonna work.

For Spengler, when civilizations die, they die. They never come back. There's also not a set "end date" for a civilization as they can be swept aside ( like the Aztec one ) by others.
There are indeed unexpected ways in which they "spin out wildly" and he attests for this with his concept of pseudomorphosis. Because even if they do, they always retain a core identity.
They're not gender fluid like your friends.

And his comparison of historical characters and epochs is not analogous but a homologous one.
Learn the fucking difference and then come back.

Just to let out the steam, but you're honestly a dumbfuck bitch tripfag.
Clear example of the Dunning–Kruger effect. Maybe you should stick to your psychoanalysis woo-woo and other post-structuralist jokes, because actual historiography is nothing for your "literate" lot.

>1. Anons from pol make me defensive sometimes.
Protip- that's what most of them want.

>And his comparison of historical characters and epochs is not analogous but a homologous one.

What does this mean?

Like how the swim bladder is evolutionarily homologous to the lungs. Or the wings of the bat are homologous to the arms of the primate.

On first sight they look very much alike, but have totally different functions.
This is what Spengler does in studying history and drawing comparisons.

his comparisons are based on the perceived results of the same fundamental structures that define the evolution of cultures/civilizations

from thesaurus:
"corresponding in structure and in origin, but not necessarily in function:
The wing of a bird and the foreleg of a horse are homologous"

Thanks guys

Okay, thanks.
Agreed.

Bitch. I'm allowed an opinion on things.
I ask questions around here to learn from people, and they ignore or know shit, but I'm at least not a bitch about it.
Channeling Schopenmemer, I see.

>Bitch. I'm allowed an opinion on things.

Sure you are, dear. You're empowered now. You can play with the big boys now and sit at the table and say big things.
But.. perhaps you could try having INFORMED opinions the next time?

>Hahaha, Schopenhauer hates wimmin rite

The childish inadequacy of today's response to Schopenhauer proves him correct more completely than any further textual argument could.

The level of being rekt here is truly fantastic.

Ok, good, now, hold up the Nintendo controller. Good—no, no, tilt it a bit. Tilt it so we can see what it is. Yeah, down like that is ok. Good, now, move a bit to the right so we can get the posters in. Great, awesome, okay. On three.

Does this then mean that two dictators, while appearing similar in what they do, have entirely different outcomes to their actions? Is that the idea?

Anyone who earnestly identifies as a 'gamer' should be euthanized for their own good. Consumer identity politics are cancer haha

Partly. But also that they can possess divergent roles, which they almost need to fulfill in each respective civilizations.
In short, they are an inner necessity for civilizations to have at a particular stage.

But reading Spengler closely, it doesn't need to be a dictator, or a general, so a person per se. It could also be a movement.

So even if two people or movements behave the same way, in one society they might be benevolent and in the other tyrannical?