Any society rises and falls like an wheel; hence bankruptcy.

It refers how the modern West deviates a lot from others. Sudden rise of industrialization, colonialism, enlightenment philosophies, and change of values. These were a unusually hasten development. This big historical remark brought many differences how the West views non-West differently, or vice versa.

But what he worried about is that the West's cycle revolves and changes too fast, compare to other societies.

In a nutshell, it's a belief that there is always the Thesis vs. Anti-thesis conflict and later being compromised by Syn-thesis.

A very foundational ideology of modern Western thoughts. And we see this in today's economy, politics, and culture.

Well, it is true.

I had my friends husband (she is Thai, he is from Denmark) come visit my home. I fetched the man a chair to sit on immediatly, and used the other for myself. The Thais, although some were older than us, and command more respect, were content to sit on the floor; they always do. So, if we wanted to look at them, it was impossible not to look down. What, with them on the floor and all...

Even if we had enough chairs, I know they'd prefer the floor. We were also short of spoons (they eat with spoons, as forks are too technical), and we only had two to go around several Thais. But that was okay as they were all content to share the same spoons.

But what goes around comes around, and the Thais think they're a perfect people with a Nazi zealousy.

Oh right.. yeah I'm familiar with the thesis+antithesis=synthesis concept. That Hegelian thoughts contribute to the rapid progression experienced by Western (modern) societies is something that makes sense I suppose.

As for his views on civilisation... they still seem very vague and alien to me. What does he essentially believe? That civilisations inevitably rise and fall? That the fall of civilisations is due to this bankruptcy? I mean I don't necessarily disagree with it... but I'm certainly unfamiliar with this idea.

It is because René Guénon is so-called an Orientalist. He was one of fewest Westerners who got the grasp of Asian philosophy and beliefs (Islamic, Indian, Chinese, etc) and saw the West beyond the Western scope.

Despite being very mystic about his own idea, he foresaw many social flaws of the Western society through very different inconvenient ways of spiritualism. Thus he was a vocal opponent of modernism in terms of criticizing some portion of aspects of the Western civilization (not all). He was not anti-Western, he wanted to improve the West by adapting non-Western thoughts uniquely.

But his importance is simple: he is one of the early people who presented the fact that the West views the world as a whole is very limited and need to be fixed.

Well being an orientalist is generally not considered to be a good thing (except in literature and art perhaps).

Furthermore, what sort of social flaws did he foresee? I mean I can't imagine what Eastern spiritualism could add that human rationalism couldn't.

And what do you mean the West views the world as a whole? Are you saying that is a flaw to make the assumption that we are all human beings and have the same essential needs? Because the scientific community would have a bone to pick with you if you disagreed for a start. (not that this is an inherently Western assumption. I hate the fact that ideas are often given nationalities or identities. Ideas in my opinion succeed or fail based on merit not origin.)

Sudden change of social values from industrialization, growth of "counter-culturalism" in religious values.

Though you missed my point. That was how some people criticize the West around 100 years ago from the start. The idea changed slowly up to today through better insights.

Overall, it's all checks and balances.

In respect to the OP, what I can say is that communication issues still exists between Asia and Europe; two very different entities under the hood. And as we know, perception is another form of communication.

The whole world needs patience is what I would say.

Sudden change of social values is less of a flaw and more of a consequence. It may have negative repurcussions from time to time but for the most part is a necessary process in the modern age (and can have positive repurcussions too).

In my opinion, what can be considered a flaw in any society is not so much change itself. But, whether such change can be justified rationally and how society at large deals with such change.

I do agree that overall it's about checks and balances... but again.. that comes from human rationalism rather than Eastern spirituality.

But anyway... You're right... I did miss your point. I get it now.

I would still like to know whether you think it's wrong to consider every human being as fundamentally the same with the same needs though.

It doesn't necessarily mean that way, if you think about it. Human rationalism would be shunned outside of the West related to this case of checks and balances.

What Rene Guenon would prefer was a mixed system.

For that matter, it's how people prefer one style of values to another while trying to make a best of it functionally and make everyone happy.

That, I can't answer because I have some internal disputes with this. I grew up in more than one cultural environment and I have more than one opinion on this in a nutshell.

But it wouldn't really be a mixed system... as ideally, only the rational aspects of spirituality would be adopted.

Well in my opinion all humans are the same and have the same fundamental needs... but there are many ways in which these needs can be met.