Why does this man upset leftists so much?

>fight in the mindless slaughter that was ww1
>conclude that war is a great spiritual experience and everyone should try it once

Was Jünger a sociopath?

Junger never joined the Nazi Party, left a veterans organisation when its Jewish members were evicted, refused to write for Nazi papers, refused to sign his name on any artist declarations of loyalty for Hitler, wrote allegorical novels critiquing the regime, was raided several times by the Gestapo, was discharged for a peripheral connection to the July Plot and whose son died in a penal unit for engaging in "subversive discussions".

no, merely based and warriorpilled

the only leftists I know that was pissed off was sartre, who I'm honestly guessing likely just read something from his conservative revolution period and that's it.
no he wasn't, the only nazi he was close friends with was Carl Schmitt. He didn't exactly like Goebbels, just called him intelligent.
I'm honestly so close to making some shitty video essay on him, I'm tired of these constant shitty threads about him.

He doesn't. A lot of leftists are fans of Jünger. You're probably thinking of libruhls.

Pretty much all leftists have been ideologically assimilated by liberalism these days. Shame really.

yes it's shitty, just like conservatives being shoved into capitalist boomer conservatism.

I'm not saying he wasn't against the Nazi party. But saying "as anti-Fascist as they come" is a fucking laugh. Read his books "The Worker" and "On Pain".

And on top of that, he wasn't opposed to Hitler's regime as much as he was opposed to Hitler's expansionism. He expresses in this interview that he felt Hitler acted "too soon". Definitely not the words of someone completely opposed to Fascism. He has also stated on multiple occasions that he is strongly against democracy and favors authoritarian militaristic government.

fpbp

There's practically no insight into his worldview in Storm of Steel apart from "Man, I really like fighting." He's not anti-French, not anti-British, none of that. He just views them as worthy foes and wants to treat them as such by lobbing grenades at them, infiltrating their trenches to slaughter them, and exchange a few potshots over no man's land.

>Jünger - a German - knew Nazis in NAZI GERMANY, so he himself must have been a Nazi!

>One of the last wars faught for something other than [enter Kurtz's speech from Apocalypse Now]

I get what you're saying, but I never got the impression that Jünger romanticized war to make it seem better than it actually was. Bitching and moaning won't help you with the situation you're in, but staring death in the face might bring out something in you that you never knew was there. Bravery isn't sociopathy.

>I'm a communist

Attached: 958393048c21577d269aea4d33e4ea6f4335a72a4c89cf933844e899286472b3.png (400x655, 270K)

Yea Forums is a Liberation Theology board, newfag.

Attached: libtheo.gif (253x309, 37K)

As expected of a product of hollow society.

Read The Metaphysics of War.

Follow your own advice bud, Evola advocates for the kind of war different from the modern warfare, under which WWI falls

He wrote a book about battle as a means to enlightenment

>under which WWI falls
It doesn't though and Evola explicitly states this
He and many others (Junger included) thought WWI to be the last of "heroic" war.

>Jünger - a German - knew Nazis in NAZI GERMANY, so he himself must have been a Nazi!
I didnt say he was a nazi you strawmanning retard
I'm just pointing out how retarded it is to call him "Anti-Fascist"

What an idiot

>He has also stated on multiple occasions that he is strongly against democracy and favors authoritarian militaristic government.
crying? spiritual aristocrat will never be a nazoid. notice how /pol/tards venerate writers who opposed nazism? spengler, junger, the list goes on.

Why are you calling me a /pol/tard? Why resort to shitty personal attacks because I proved you wrong? In case you didn't read the post you quoted, I said I never asserted that he wasn't against the Nazis. But it was for reasons you clearly dont understand. He is not opposed to the idea of Fascism, quite the contrary. He was opposed to the execution. The same for Spengler and Evola.

Right back at ya champ

The real cosmic struggle of the archetypes: Viennese/Berliner Jews, bourgeoisie bohemian and quintessentially european vs Prussian Junkers, who ironically, often seem altogether oriental in character.

They will always hate real men

>product of hollow society
Yeah, cause duying over other people's interests is so deep, bro.

It's tricky semantics. Junger certainly swam in similar currents, being a dandyish rightist, but did he ever align himself with an explicitly "fascist" cause or party? He was a freethinking right-winger who critiqued democracy and fascism from the same (but evolving) standpoint. His anti-Nazi activities are enough to warrant the label "anti-fascist", without the leftist connotations it bestows.

It really isn't, WWI is pretty much a definition of a war that occurs exclusively due to the bourgeoisie's interests and therefore is completely materialistic in its nature, so, in my opinion, the only reason why Evola and Jünger advocate for the WWI for not being such is because it's the only war they themselves participated in

>He was friends with Goebbels
>Someone else points out that wasn't true

>Y-you're retarded

Nationalism doesn't always equate to fascism.

Junger was not a pr*testant.

No.

Cringe.

It is though

Leftists don't think of him at all.

He was friends with Goebbels retard he said so

>On January 29 1926 he sent Hitler his book "Fire and Blood" with the dedication "To the national Leader Adolf Hitler", for which Hitler personally thanked him.

>on 17th october 1930 he disrupted an anti-nazi lecture by Thomas Mann, together with his brother Friedrich and about 30 SA members.

like the other user said, he was hanging out with goebbels but kept his distance after they took government. he also was visited by gestapo around the time röhm-putsch when the nazis also purged some of their potential conservative opponents. jünger mentioned in his diary that they staged a fake execution, to make him talk about possible conspiracies, but he realized they werent serious and made a joke in front of the execution squad and literally drank a beer with the afterwards like the Übermensch he was.

Walter Benjamin?

Who ?

>drops into the sapline and lobs dummy grenades into your crimson mud-soaked aesthetic

Attached: ben.jpg (673x1000, 75K)

>leftist cope itt
laughable as always

rec me some books that upset lefties

Hillbilly Elegy is a good new one

>rejects your Goethe article because its cringe and contains too much marxist jargon even for soviet audience.

Attached: (((Radek))).jpg (420x532, 33K)

Okay, let's have a gentlemen's war and clear up this argument over fascism.
I'll start with a few quotes:

>'I would rather write a single good poem than lead sixty thousand fools.'

>At the German Cultural Institute. Among others, Celine, tall, bony, rather heavy, but alert in discussion - rather, in monologue. He's astonished that we, soldiers, do not shoot, hang, exterminate Jews. "If Bolsheviks were in Paris you would see..." I learned something from his monologue. He made clear the monstrous power of Nihilism. When such people speak of biology it's just a means to kill others.

>Since insane people are sterilized and killed the newly-borns with mental disturbances have multiplied. Even with the repression of mendicity poorness has become general. The decimation of Jews has diffused Jewish features in everybody. Killing does not wipe out types, it rather frees them.
>Feast for lemurs with the massacre of men, women, and children. The hideous booty is buried. Then other lemurs come to unbury it. They film those chipped, half-rotten trunks with repulsive satisfaction. Then they show each other their films. Curious forms of life fester on carrion.

>If everything went wrong, conservative forces are to blame. German youth had no instinct. Hitler addressed boys "hard as iron", "resilient as leather", "quick as hounds"... They were his chosen supporters, a breed of men to be eventually mass-produced in foundries and tanneries using animal sperm.

Attached: dropdead.png (741x556, 568K)

This alone should suffice, but I never want to see this argument again, so I will continue.
The first matter is that of Junger's relation to the NSDAP and figures like Goebbels and Hitler. One should keep in mind who we are dealing with: a man of thirty living amidst the rise of German fascism; a military professional with sympathies for both the peasantry and nobility; a proponent of the old regime, but perhaps far less than the ancients; a war hero caught up within the nationalist sorrow of an occupied state; and, perhaps most importantly, a philosophical and theological German who is also worldly in his sentiments.

This man certainly did write for fascist publications in the 1920s, there's no denying this. But he also maintained ties with leftist circles, and particularly the National Bolsheviks - who, much like Junger, are difficult to characterise and situate within a simple left/right political compass. One can isolate the problem quite easily: sympathy for fascist elements does not equate to support for fascism, just as sympathy for women and Jews does not make one a marxist. Junger, quite early on, distanced himself from the NSDAP and people like Goebbels. Their relationship was strictly professional, they were colleagues, and not even close ones. Characterising them as 'friends' is an obvious political injection, Junger himself said he regretted the relationship even as minor as it was, and did not even want any contact with Goebbels or Hitler. He came to see them as demonic figures, dead creatures which would potentially destroy Germany.

Here we should keep in mind another aspect of Junger's character, he views the world and life in terms of forms, even theological laws rising from forces within the earth. As an individual and a human, the rough, idealistic, militarised, and revolutionary young man of the 1920s was one particular type within the realisation of the form of his life, his eternal character. He maintained sympathy for this being until the very end, and one must realise that from Junger's viewpoint the political manoeuvres of his early life are moreso an element of fate than of politics. To misrepresent his philosophy as primarily political is to oppose it.

One of the other common arguments is that Junger did not participate in the assassination attempt on Hitler, as if this proves some hidden loyalty to Hitler and the Reich. But this is yet another political injection, either through wilful ignorance or attempts to mischaracterise perhaps the greatest opponent of fascism. Even worse, he is the greatest symbol of German heroism of the modern age, or at least the World Wars - a sore point for adherents to the old humanists who lost both wars and have no heroes to symbolise their ideology.

The other problem with this is that it betrays an embarrassing lack of understanding of Junger's philosophy and his description of the subtlety of political laws; a subtlety inherent in any follower of the ancients, and a form which follows power much as the owl is guided by Minerva. Within a philosophy of assassination one cannot ignore the Dionysian element, as power within the figurehead is forced to submit to sparagmos. The possibility rising from this situation is that each divided part must come together again if the formal power is to survive, and the enemy is revealed as a mortal opponent already creeping within the shadows of the castle. This intensifies the forces at play, each man is forced into survival and a biological sense of defending their territory. And what Junger saw in the assassination plot was the possibility of another knife-in-the-back conspiracy, which would only increase the violence against Jews and other groups. As well, a second Night of the Long Knives was possible, in which those few remaining who were capable of saving Germany's old spirit would be killed. (I do not know that he discusses this second part, but it seems obvious to me that he would have considered it.)

Finally, let's consider the form of fascism and what Junger's position may have been in relation to it. If the Wars were both an end to nationalism and the triumph of the state-without-dominion then we must say that both fascism and liberalism disappear as each representative man drops into the trench - a raid within which the fascist man is overwhelmed in his defensive position, caught out within that muddy corner where the bayonet surpasses the lengths of the sight-line. This is the realisation of the typus of the modern form, each political position exists as a mere character and in battle the individual characteristics are washed away like blood in the rain, a trickling alluvial fan devoured by the mud. The figure of the modern state is that of the Leviathan, the monstrous being to which all men are mobilised, consumed as they become machinations of its trudging movement. We may say that the Wars were a moment of enlightenment for all European people: God is with us, yet the Leviathan is winning. This would explain why the victor nations took their eventual loss even harder than the Germans.

As a type, the fascist monster of humanism elects to mobilise the dead - the figures to which humanist law has turned into sacred men. This is why liberalism is so hostile to the fascist ideal, it betrays the very law in form while also unveiling the aesthetic of death which humanism follows as a subterranean magnetism; an eventual descent it must end in, as if Orpheus were now following Persephone who must not look back at him. The liberal is a narcissist who hates nothing more than to see his own image; the humanist lives the deeper meaning of old myths while reducing them to bare symbols. Most strikingly we see this in the relation of liberal scholarship to Carl Schmitt, and even more in the relation to technology, of which no modern political type dares question its position as monarch. Technology is the great wall which determines the territorial boundaries of the state-without-dominion.

Where the fascist conjures up the Wild Hunt so that the dead may be mobilised as slaves of humanist law, the liberal desires nothing more than to be cursed as the law of the dead so that their spectral territory will be forever denied to them. In other words, we moderns are opposed to all sacred rites of burial, of giving death its due. And even more than this, we desecrate all sites of the past, most especially the noble monuments. The liberal is Antigone turned to ordered desecration of all places of finality and silence; the fascist is a mere graverobber and necrophile who imagines himself as a mystic of the imperial death cult. He plunders their mausoleums only to turn their bones into an apotropaic symbol against their martial forces.

Where the Roman foundation myth is of boys raised by a great wolf, Germany is that of men formed out of the corpse of Cerberus. All of our myths remain unwritten, so that they maintain a secrecy, a real vitality - or perhaps only to leave the Christian with a final eye which he must pluck out himself.

The liberal plunders the catacombs, donning masks of the dead which once belonged only to the greatest figures; and here the machinations of the gem-encrusted armour demand that we never question the laws of death which are mobilised against the farthest shores. One should imagine what the foundation myth is for these beings.

What Junger asks of us is something quite difficult and subtle, and his formalism often hides the theological within material forces. I risk an all too mythic reading here, but this may also be revealing: how do we moderns perform these old sacred rites, especially for those who may be unworthy of burial? And also, how is this to be done within a territory where all monuments betray the dead and their rites? There are no easy answers here, and any communion with the dead is prone to giving way to weakness and defeat - the Wild Hunt may even force us to betray our own fate after we desecrate their places of peace. Yet, it is always necessary to live up to our form, and give unto dominion that which is demanded of its ultimate fate - only through this do we open the path where we may realise its eternal character.

In other words, we must respond to the figure of the modern state, not its specific types; of which fascism represents a biological fixation, the monstrous giving itself an autopsy. To order our position as if the formal is subordinate to the real is to fight on the territory of humanism. While this may be a necessary response, to ignore the subtleties of the political machine - and even the hidden laws which form its pressurised gases and exhaust - is to not only fight on the opposing shore but to adopt its laws. Such a position, strangely enough, also ensures a second or even third front rising from these hidden forces as they descend upon our territory. Fascism could not respond to the repressed dead, to the Wild Hunt, with the same power as that of liberalism. This is why it lost.

Or even worse than this, all positions came into an alliance at the last moment and were defeated. We are now only waking to the realisation that we are a mass of limbs and blood-pools scattered amongst corpses on the battlefield. This is the only possible finality of a path which started out with the Thirty Years War and the Peace of Westphalia. Fascism isn't even a question, it was an insignificant tinkering within a much greater machinic force.

Imbecile. Goebbels wanted to send him into a polish death camp for writing On The Marble Cliffs.

tldr

The short conclusion to all of this is that Junger represents something far more dangerous than fascism. And this is a realisation that all political elements will have to face up to in the end. We are of a single form and we will be forced to stand before its judgement, either in dignity or death.

Anything by Evola

>t. poltard
Go back to your Trump threads, you don't belong here.

>fascism
>dangerous
It was just implemented badly and they didnt follow their own doctrine
Fascism in theory is the closest thing we have to Plato's ideal
It just needs proper leadership

The tldr is that Junger thought the Nazis were scum, a distorted reflection of the very biology they opposed.
And he would have thought even less of trash like you.

Resentment*
Learn to spell you fucking pleb

>real fascism hasn't been tried!

It is nothing like Plato's ideal.
You don't understand Plato, you haven't read Junger, and you didn't read what I wrote. Stop posturing. If you want to demonstrate the masculine force of the West then act like it. These cheap tricks are the territory of modern women.

This, but unironically.

Well, it didnt really get a chance to prove its self because everybody decided on an expansionist policy, despite the fact that the doctrine literally says "Imperial without conquering a single square mile of land" and "Indirectly the leader of nations"

How is it nothing like Callipolis? Please explain yourself. Mussolini was heavily inspired by it.
I have read Junger I have The Worker, On Pain, Storm of Steel, and his WW2 diaries.
>cheap tricks
Lmao what the fuck?

this must be bait

If you had read any of those works you would know.
But instead of OMGWTF perhaps you could respond to this:
>If everything went wrong, conservative forces are to blame. German youth had no instinct. Hitler addressed boys "hard as iron", "resilient as leather", "quick as hounds"... They were his chosen supporters, a breed of men to be eventually mass-produced in foundries and tanneries using animal sperm.
How does a beautiful city rise from such rudimentary biological machines? And how does the total mobilisation of techne create anything resembling a Greek city state when techne is opposed to it in law?
Or, more simply, just name one philosopher king of fascism.

I would know what? I have read them you schizo.
I literally never at any point said Junger supported Hitler.

>How does a beautiful city rise from such rudimentary biological machines?
Plato's ideal city is based on a lie because it literally needs the perfect set of situations to make it possible, which is why I said "closest to Plato's ideal" not "it is Plato's ideal".
>And how does the total mobilisation of techne create anything resembling a Greek city state when techne is opposed to it in law?
>Or, more simply, just name one philosopher king of fascism.
Read above. You're making a lot of assumptions about what I believe user.

>calls me schizo
>doesn't have basic reading comprehension
>can't answer a single question
Why the fuck are you reading Junger?
Just name ONE fascist philosopher king. It shouldn't be that hard if fascism is the closest political system to Plato's ideal.

You're autistic as hell my dude

These are the kind of posts Yea Forums needs. Thank you based user.

Attached: Delaunay_ChampDeMars.jpg (1000x1256, 328K)

>he thinks anybody on Yea Forums reads enough to know who walter benjamin is

Zizek name drops him pretty much every talk he gives

he's certainly important but he's not a meme so why would anybody here have read him.

Walter "Divine Violence" Benjamin wrote a screed against Jünger, everyone! I repeat, do not read Jünger!

>replying to yourself

does the penguin edition of this censor out passages like ive seen online?

I read somewhere that the godfather of German literary criticism Marcel Reich-Ranicki pushed the rather mediocre Heinrich Böll into the spotlight just to sideline the powerful work of Jünger, whom I consider one of the greatest writers in history. Ranicki was a leftist jew who worked for the stasi and he didn't appreciate Jünger's politics or philosophy.

Does it? I thought leftists liked Jünger. The people who I've known that liked him a lot were either very far right or post-lefty anarchist types.

A Troublesome Inheritance

It's Junger's own revisions iirc. There's probably other editions of the different versions.

I've read Storm of Steel. Should I read On the Marble Cliffs or The Worker next?

why do you make these garbage threads? If you want to talk about Junger, make a Junger thread. If you want to epic pwn on the libs make a thread on /pol/ or /trash/.
I doubt you have read a single word the man has written.

If you read German there's a critical edition which includes all versions.

Attached: CriticalEdition.jpg (1500x1440, 269K)

I hate lit these days.. every thread is like this

Interesting but still confusing for me. Is there a book that clatifies this ?

The singular focus on Jünger’s early work is misleading. Granted, these are his most controversial, political, and ultimately influential works. I can echo what has already been stated - though he was no fascist, his interwar ideas were foundational for fascist thought.

By the 1930s, his rapid nationalism began to wear off. The Adventurous Heart is a good example of this shift. He soon became introspective, almost mystical in his thought. Surely this was at least partially influence by his exposure to Nigromantus (i.e. Gurdjieff). He also reflects on his time amongst the “Mauritanians”, who represent an amalgamation of his precious contacts with the freikorps, proto-fascists, and eventually the Nazi’s themselves. Like his fictional characters, he too turned away from their company.

That being said, he never rejected the thesis found in the Worker. This figure was, and arguably remains, larger than any particular political ideology. In fact, I would argue that the conservative revolutionaries failed to harness the potential of the worker, for it had the potential to take on many casts. Liberalism triumphed; the march toward dominion took on a different garb, but the worker remained. Take this passage for example:

>Concerning my text “The Worker.” The description is precise, yet it resembles a finely etched medal lacking a reverse side. A second section would have to describe the subordination of those dynamic principles I described as a static sequence of greater status. When the house has been furnished, the mechanics and the electricians leave. But who will be the head of the house?

Attached: A9BBC69C-450D-45C6-8A33-E882D8BA6C38.jpg (307x230, 12K)

>the victor nations took their eventual loss even harder than the Germans.
Can you explain what you mean by this?

And another question:
>how do we moderns perform these old sacred rites, especially for those who may be unworthy of burial?
Is there anyone "unworthy of burial" for we moderns? Burial is irrelevant, because death is irrelevant. I think you're hinting that we don't understand Jünger because we don't see world in the same biological-theological terms that he did. Modern prayer is sterilized of death. And if life is sterile of death, then all death is equally deserving of celebration: not at all.

It would behoove any student of Jünger to dive into his post-war work. I find It was a necessary progression. He was no zealot. His thought, though consistent, matured, keeping pace with the Zeitgeist. “Glass Bees” and his essay “Across the Line” are fine examples. Unfortunately, much of this work remains untranslated, at least for English speakers.

I do not doubt user’s intimate knowledge of Jünger’s work, especially the early material. I respect your attention to detail and attunement to his more mythical images. Yet I cannot help but feel that your interpretation is arcane. Jünger was Eurocentric no doubt, but he did not despise the “other”. I suspect he may have sympathized with contemporary Western man, at least those who feel marginalized, and see that it is their duty to preserve the West. However, like the men of Vendee, their cause is hopeless. Other approaches are required.

He often refers to the World-State. This, I believe, was on of his most significant threads of thought. I fact, he often alludes to it even as early as the Worker. The original idea was for the Worker to harness, then eventually subdue the destructive power of technology. This could only be accomplished once the World-State came into being.

>Attempts to constrain [the development of technology] are already doomed to fail because they are not backed up by total and incontestable dominion...only total technological space will make total dominion possible; only such a dominion really possesses the power of control over technology.

>Junger was anti-fascist
while his last works make it look like it, he wasn't anti-fascist in the proper sense, he was just butthurt about nazis not being elitist enough.

>you will never lead a bayonet charge with Ernst
feels really bad bros

Note that the world-state was not the terminal point of Jünger’s thought. It is only the necessary result of our present trajectory. Hence the significance of Eumeswil, that truly post-historical land, denuded of meaning.

Here are several significant passages that may be of interest.

>The loss of perfection can be felt only if perfection exists. This if the goal of the indication, of the trembling of the quill in hand. The compass needle quivers because a poll exists. In its atoms, the needle is kin to the pole.

>Pain is like a major illness; once we recover, we are immune. We are vaccinated against the serpent’s venom. Scar tissue does not feel the bite. A numbness has remained. At the same time, fear was reduced in me. I grasped my surroundings more sharply, the more my involvement waned. I could gauge their dangers and their merits.

>I am not awaiting a return of the past, like Chateaubriand, or a reoccurrence like Boutefeu; I leave those matters politically to the conservatives and cosmically to the stargazers. No, I hope for something equal, nay stronger, and not just in the human domain. Naglfar, the ship of the apocalypse shifts into calculable position.

>The first world state would have been inconceivable without the leveling impact of technology, especially electronics - one might say (according to Bruno) it was their byproduct.

Attached: 2C3B1AF0-A5C5-4995-91A9-1BE1AC44AFF9.jpg (480x360, 18K)

Anyone who claims he was "anti-fascist" hasn't read his books

No he didn't you absolute fucking liar

hello retard

Why do you faggots never have a proper response?
>Written and published in 1934, a year after Hitler's rise to power in Germany, Ernst Juenger's On Pain is an astonishing essay that announces the rise of a new metaphysics of pain in a totalitarian age. One of the most controversial authors of twentieth-century Germany, Juenger rejects the liberal values of liberty, security, ease, and comfort, and seeks instead the measure of man in the capacity to withstand pain and sacrifice. Juenger heralds the rise of a breed of men who--equipped with an unmatched ability to treat themselves and others in a cold and detached way--become one with new, terrorizing machines of death and destruction in human-guided torpedoes and manned airborne missiles, and whose "peculiarly cruel way of seeing," resembling the insensitive lens of a camera, anticipates the horrors of World War II.

I wish my German was better so I could read faster and take more from his writings. I feel like I hit a plateau. Needles to say he writes beautifully and he is one of the writers who solidified my love of the German language. I have only read some of his novels but want to try his essays too. Nobody mentioned his stuff about drugs yet: Annäherungen. Drogen und Rausch. Can an user tell about it? How is it compared to stuff like Huxley?

/pol/tard thinks everyone that isn't a liberal democrat is a fascist. Have you read the thread?

Yes I have and nobody claimed he was a fascist, just that he wasn't antifa.

>just that he wasn't antifa.
So all you're claiming is that he wasn't a communist street thug?
Good work retard.

He was very much an anti-fascist which is abundantly clear if you read e.g. on the marble cliffs or any of his later works.
However that does not mean he was against absolute rulers, he hated mob rule and thus discarded democracy, i understand his line of thinking but don't agree with his conclusion.

>He was very much an anti-fascist which is abundantly clear if you read e.g. on the marble cliffs or any of his later works.
He was anti-Hitler not anti-Nazi or anti-fascist you dumb cunt
Stop spewing buzzwords you dont understand
He wrote a book called The Worker which is an extremely fascistic book

Junger advocated for a Soviet-style economy in 1927 and was a national bolshevik. He actually tried to get Schmitt to join the group but it didn't work out. He also said later in his life that Niekisch was the only hope for Germany.

>He was anti-Hitler not anti-Nazi

Attached: 1541814693802.jpg (580x549, 56K)

I don't think so, just my own interpretations and attempting to figure out where a thread would continue on from Junger. Is there anything specific you want clarified? I might be able to suggest something or give my own thoughts.

Thanks, user. Glad a few people got something out of it.

What part of later works do you not understand?

Try reading Eumesvil and tell me what part of it is fascist.

My teacher disliked the book cause he thought it glorified WWI and told us to read All Quiet on the Western Front instead.

A doubled meaning, both as a spiritual loss and material loss - as we see the inability to deal with the European state and post-war justice now coming back to haunt all aspects of society. This is most clear in the failure of the European Union and the migrant crisis, another liberal passivity resulting in a disaster which is the exact opposite of the inability to respond to fascism.
Perhaps liberalism is paralysed from two sides now, not just the fear of the violent enemy but the very knowledge that a response can result in devastating wars. A major contradiction in liberal law and spirit which has resulted in the lunacy. or clown world, we see today.
Note the inability of the Western nations, especially Anglo, to deal with the First World War. This cannot be written off as a refusal to acknowledge their war of aggression or even a sense of shame on the part of the bourgeoisie for all the lives destroyed. There is a deeper reason, and as I say in the previous line, humanism is divided by its relation to God and legal framework in the form of the Leviathan - a figure which is seen perhaps in its mythic formation. Perhaps this age will be seen much in the same way that Hobbes was responding to the English Civil War, only it has been a collective experience, a spiritual longing for peace even as war permeates every aspect of life.
There are other reasons, including the philosophy of English naturalism, their psychology of 'slave morality', the law of humanism which seeks to distance itself from war, and the universalising effects of total war. Most interesting for me is that the whole of society sees itself as victims, and the citizens come to a position of anti-war without ever understanding what it was like on the front - as if they were the ones who saw the true horrors. Obviously one should not dismiss this fear of the war machine which can rise up like a well-spring, but there is an interesting element in that people have a feeling that something much greater has been lost, they may sense the militarisation of the landscape.

In short, it was a Pyrrhic victory both materially and spiritually, but given the demands of total mobilisation the war economy must march on, so there is no rest against defeat.
I hope that answers your question.

I'm speaking of tradition here and hinting at the question of the cult of death. How we deal with tradition is much like that of the corpses on a battlefield, there may be no time to give the dead their sacred rites, or it may simply be too dangerous.
However, I don't think that death is at all irrelevant. Our burial rites have simply changed and we come to recognise the mass collective project to which our lives have been sacrificed. While very little space is taken individually there are vast fields dedicated to our collective death.
And recently we have seen in France that even in the middle of rioting the procession to the Tomb of the Unknown soldier continues on. The rites we witness are appropriate for the society in which we live: collective death, simplicity of experience, and remembrance of achievements. We may not like it, but this does not mean death is irrelevant.
I would say the exact opposite, modern prayer is about nothing else than death. Note the significance of medicine as the greatest industry next to military production, the processions of cancer survivors. Incredible sacrifices are given to the gods of death.
One has to consider the particular relation of liberalism/humanism to death.

Didn't sign denazification papers, didn't gave many fucks about their sentiments. Junger in general seems to be part of this obscure "circle" which was called various names - revolutionary conservatives, modernist conservatives, romanticist modernists or whatever.

Yes, I have too much of a mythic mind for this modern age, but there is the possibility that this could be useful.
I'm not sure of the question though, I wasn't implying that Junger despised the other.
As for old thinking and methods, I don't think religious or mythical ideas demand that we become hardened traditionalists. Quite the opposite, as I think it is the only way to really understand the depth of what is occurring, and one of the revelations of our time is that materialist conceptions cannot keep pace with material change. One might even say that the phenomenon surrounding Jordan Peterson is an attempt to head off this return of old ideas and myths, enframe them with specific liberal qualities so that they are not in opposition to its ideals. This will ultimately fail, however.
Our time suggests the end of the world state, it failed completely and the time has passed for humanity to live up to its question. We will have another world war and/or a continuation of the legal/economic parasites which lived off of the possibility of a world state. Either that or an even greater catastrophe.

Prussian anarchist is my favorite desu

Yes, quite interesting that nationalism can only continue on from a viewpoint of anti-war, as if the soldiers must be exiled to keep the borders intact.
You may also be interested in this old thread where I attempt to explain the cultural preference for antiwar novels.
warosu.org/lit/thread/12581900#p12584890

>read propaganda rather than an accurate take on the war

The teacher said that while Storm of Steel was a well written book it was essentially a "boys adventure story" and that All Quiet in the Western Front was the more realistic depiction of war. Said teacher has also never served in active duty.

I suspect that the world-state will emerge only later, after the existing contradictions are resolved. War is the only crucible for such things. Perhaps the “warring-states” period has not yet come it its conclusion. Wouldn’t Jünger himself argue that the worker’s purpose has it yet finished? The house is almost complete, who will be the master? All these are eschatological questions of paramount importance.

However, like Minerva’s owl, we can only see such things after they have occurred. The last boxcar will give us an idea of the immediate terrain, but fails to properly indicate future encounters. This is why we must remain resolute, sovereign individuals, unshackled by political movements. These will only fulfill our “anarchic” tendencies - the spirit of the world will accomplish its task with our without our support.

>The doer imagined he could determine the future; but he was sucked in by the future, he fell prey to it. At the crucial moment, what was necessary happened. It is subsequently mirrored in its own irrevocability. Now things become sinister. The nameless force, to which even gods must bow, dims the vision.

>I am not a nonbeliever, but a man who demands something worth believing in. On this point; I am like a bride in her chamber; she listens for the softest step.

Attached: 6663C0AC-F03B-4A1B-AFB6-E4A9219D70CB.jpg (627x116, 12K)

Sorry, I haven't read the entire thread. But I hear most translations of this omit some of the more explicit pro-war/protofascist/nationalist passages. How can I be sure I have a good English translation? I've been looking for the full German text because I can get by (I still prefer English) but it seems impossible to find in full in German as well (makes sense. Americans are probably more pro-free speech though)

Junger is a warrior, he does not go on and on about how horrible the war is, etc... But it really is a realistic depiction of the war. Your teacher probably wanted to know how the soldiers felt and how he/she should feel about war. Read Storm of Steel, it is a very good book.

The book I have shows the different versions. And honestly it doesn't change the book much. Most of the revision correct some passages that actually weren't very mature (at least that's my opinion). I didn't see anything protofascist. And you can clearly see that Junger is not against war and loves his country, without him expressing it explicitly.

He actually meets a couple of pajeets on the battlefield

>The book I have shows the different versions
Which one exactly?

La Pléiade, French translation.

I haven't read Huxley so I can't compare them, but it's basically a mix of personal experiences and more abstract reflections that draw heavily on other authors (including Huxley), history and religion. I'd recommend it if you like e.g. Heliopolis and have any interest in drugs, academic or personal.

i'm a leftist and i like it

Junger gets a lot of attention in leftist circles precisely because he's worth taking seriously. Lukacs, Benjamin, Barthes, etc all read him intensely

Eumeswil is fantastic. Currently reading it myself.

Junger fought in combat for several years of the war, as both an enlisted man and an officer. Storm of Steel is an autobiographical recounting of his experience based on his meticulous diary from the time. Remarque was on the front for perhaps two weeks at most. All Quiet on the Western Front is a fictional novel about a German soldier, at best loosely inspired by Remarque's encounter with combat. You tell me which author has a better claim to an accurate depiction of the experience of war.

I don't know. While this is certainly possible, the current trajectory is in opposition to a global state. The legal body has undermined its own laws and has opened up a wave of migration which will only further divide people. If we follow Carl Schmitt then this is a closing of the entire framework of law which makes the West possible.
And if we insist on a Christian reading of the law of war, why is revelation the judicial outcome rather than a veiling? The Tower of Babel is just as likely an outcome, as what was revealed may have simply been a test set within a trick. Theological readings which are certain betray the very spirit of religion, and the Owl of Minerva may fly us directly into the path of the future where we must make a decision.
Balkanisation is the likely result, and a world war would be so devastating that the possibility of a global state would be set back through material conditions alone. The globalsts have betrayed all sense of dignity, so there is no power to their claims, only a trajectory which is out of control. A great veil will divide the earth.

Also, this law of veiling would explain the greater sense of loss on the part of the victors. The First Book of the War is incomprehensible to them while the revelations of the Second have been completely betrayed. Any sense of what was revealed certainly was not apprehended, implying that the theological laws now reside elsewhere.
In other words, they are like fools who return immediately to the ruins of the Tower and begin rebuilding - somewhat anxiously, but insistent nonetheless. How does God respond to the most foolish form of hubris? To continue with the same ineffectual judgements would only reveal his weakness.

Still Jünger does not exactly sugar coat it, most of storm of steel is rather tedious trench life while the other 20% is amazingly beautiful explanations of hellscapes.

>there was nothing in his voice except a great apathy; the fire had burned away everything else. With such men you can fight.

Still Jünger himself broke, there's the part near the end where he just collapses crying in a crater instead of advancing.
It's written rather drily but beneath the surface there is a great terror in storm of steel, even if its not apparent with just separate quotes.

Has anyone read his book about trippin balls and is it worthwhile? Im thinking about buying that and "a forrest walk" for my next investment.

His books are boring

militarism isn't cool

It is not about people. It is not about individuals, it is about truth. And Being.