Haven’t looked at that but it’s not clear how one can “debunk” a vague saying to begin with.

It’s used as a common far-right/neo-fascist dog whistle, and to justify their ideology and actions. It’s vaguely based on the idea of cyclical history (which is of course not true), as presented by Oswald Spengler and others during the 20th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West

I seriously think declaring something "far-right dog whistle" is a leftist dog whistle, signaling good progressives should oppose that something. After saying this, usually no serious arguments are given. Because they are not needed after declaring an idea the enemy.

Cycles in history is of course not "of course not true". in any complex system, there are oscillations. Most famous is economical boom and boost cycle.

Meme is not without merit. The reason we are able to discuss things like gender/race equity in marine corps promotions is precisely because these are good times. And this lack of focus may lead to bad times eventually.

Cyclical history as theorized by Spengler and other is a fringe type of historical analysis rejected by historians. And it is actively used as a neo-fascist dog-whistle. That’s not a way to show my moral superiority, it’s what they do.

Is Spengler the only person describing cyclical history? Probably not since someone above your post mentioned

> Ibn Khaldun, 14th century Muslim scholar from Tunisia

No, he’s not the only one. But he is a reason the meme is used as a dog whistle by the far-right, which is what I was talking about.

Cyclical history isn't false. Population boom/bust cycles exist in humans just like they do in every other animal. Humans reach the carrying capacity of their environment and then reach out via war for more resources.

Ascribing any fixed time scale to the cycle is going to be fallacious as it depends on environmental factors.

Russia was hardly ever saturated and is now aging and depopulating. However false or not false it may be it clearly doesn't apply here.

"Cyclical history" as theorized by Spengler and others during the 20th century is a whole set of bullshit. That's what my comments are explicitly about, I don't understand how people can miss this.

> rejected by historians

which historians? And why should we pay any attention to their consensus?

I agree that it's sort of a fashy dog whistle, but the concept of cyclic history did not originate with Spengler. This was probably the dominant view of the nature of time and history up until at least the last thousand years, maybe later.

I don't think you should be downvoted for saying what you said, but I feel that you missed the point my comment was trying to make.

My point is: the dog whistle/modern meme is basically a reference to Spengler and others, because their ideologies align relatively well with the patchwork of neo-fascist ideas. That's what they hint to and promote. That's why I explicitly mentioned Spengler and the 20th century. Lot of other people developed some form of a cyclical history but that's not really relevant here.

Its easy to think about. Human evolved from hunter gathers to colonizing mars. Good to have good times.

I actually read most of this, but i think it only debunks a strawman.

From my reading of history, the typical pattern is:

- Some set of tribes exist on the fringe of civilization (if one already existed). They have access to the bare minimum resources for survival. These are not strong men, yet, but relatively weak savages, probably not even worth conquering by the civilization closeby. What they do have, is an every-day reminder to stay efficient in what they do, so they don't starve to death. - After a while, one or a few of these tribes grow in competency and competitively useful cultural values. (Often, but not necessarily military.) They start trading with the nearby civilization, and learn from them, but maintain their focus on what is essential for survivial. Also, during this phase, this population is still facing survival pressures, often military ones. Gradually, these people become "strong", meaning they have competencies and a culture that makes it increasingly effortless to survive and prosper. Much of this comes from becoming cultured in ways that increase productivity or martial prowess. - Only at this stage, when survival is no longer a concern (and especially if all competetion has been eliminated), does the weakening stage start. Gradually cultural values seep in that reduce productivity/efficiency of the population. Meanwhile, essential survival skills fade to the background and are forgotten. Still, during most of this phase, this more civilized population has economic advantages and perhaps access to specialists that allow them to fend off nearby populations, often for centuries. - Eventually, though, some event (or series of events) occur that bring a shock to the sturcture of this civilization. Maybe a few bad harvests, maybe some barbarian invation, maybe a plague. At this point, the civilization has become brittle, and shatters easily.

I'm pretty sure I see this pattern repeat itself for the Greek, Roman, Muslim Caliphate, Ottoman and many Chinese civilizations. Then there are some cases that doesn't really go through all the stages. For instance, Mongols, Huns, Goths and some others spread themselves too thin to really build their own civilization, so they inherited whatever civilizations (including their corruption) they conquerd. Similarly, Europe form about 1000AD to the end of WW2 was always in a state of countries competing against each other, so they were constantly facing survival pressures that kept most of them from becoming _too_ corrupt.

“Naturally, because this is me, the case study will be (trumpets blaring) Rome, which fought a lot of poorer, less settled peoples and is frequently used as the example of wealthy, ‘civilized’ and ‘decadent’ military failure. I’ve opted to pick these two sets of examples to start out because these periods – classical antiquity and pre-history – ought to be the periods where our Fremen perform the best, as the technological and industrial gap between them and their richer ‘civilized’ opponents is the smallest – in some cases, practically non-existent.”

Comparing Rome to its enemies in this way as if “the toughness of the people” is THE variable that determined success, compared to say, coordinated mobility-based warfare tactics, is a stretch at best.