To your point, I think that not only are his predictions about the future falsifiable, but the structure itself has issues. I don't disagree with the whole notion of the cycle of seasons applied to civilizations. I think that is actually a very useful frame that connects humankind to nature and the circle of life that we could do more of. But if he wishes to use the vehicle of the cycle, then he must accept all of its implications, not just the ones which are convenient to him. From "winter" comes "spring." But according to the article "this ‘feeling’ is a remembrance rather than an anticipation. " Why should we accept this frame?
> The time of birth and rejuvenation is forever finished, metaphorically speaking. In this present phase, Spengler’s prophesising limns an authoritative ruler or ‘new emperor’ who emerges in response to the disintegration of culture. He called this the Caesarian age.
It is true that many empires of old were hereditary monarchies of strongmen rulers. Perhaps even today we see authoritarian governments with long running proto-monarchs. But will their tenure survive their lifespans? Have they built a resilient enough structure to do so? The truth is that if his own analogy holds, nature eventually "conquers" man, and winter always gives way to spring. Every empire crumbles back into nature under a relatively long timespan. If this is the case, isn't his idea of a Caesarian age somewhat optimistic and naive? Perhaps even ironically so for someone so commonly known as a pessimist.