Storm of Steel, my fellow Yea Forumsizens. Why was it so good? Got memed in this book, but damn, i loved it

Amazon migga

Attached: 1572275619287.jpg (713x269, 58K)

Wtf autocorrect?

I wonder if we'll ever be able to have a Jünger thread without having to accommodate angl*id languagelets.

Did krautchan died?

I'm not a kraut, though. I don't feel like having to lurk there just to have a decent thread.

You could start one. But most likely the twitterfags will still swarm it.

What's the connection between twitter and Jünger? I'm a bit out of the loop in that regard.

The nihilists connected to frogtwitter are the ones spamming this translation shit.

It's good because you expect an edgy version of All quiet on the western front but get an autobiographic sauerkraut flavoured Heart of Darkness instead.

It is most likely that Junger's edits were due to his military thinking. He both cared for his men and did not want to to see any of his own ideas used in a careless interpretation. The situation fundamentally changed after 1945, and even the Right would never be able to come to terms with its failure. All of the potential of the 1920s was wasted in the destructive mobilisations of the Second World War, and for his own men to be associated with that failure would be a disservice - much as the monuments that act as a desecration of the war dead. His editing of the text was in part a peaceful laying to rest of that Germany while also keeping its form alive.
So the great irony here is that all those who insist on using the book for propaganda purposes, and have no real understanding of the situation of the 1920s, are disrespecting Junger, his men, and the memory of Germany.

The writer of that Amazon review is a retard who has misled hundreds of people into thinking the Hoffman translation is censored. The fact of the matter is that the memoir was revised by Junger several times. The 1929 version is completely different from the 1960 (final) revision done by Junger which is Hoffman's translation.

It seems they are well aware that it is not actually censored, yet they keep suggesting that either Junger self-censored or Hofmann pozzed the work. It's very strange.

How are the Paris diaries anyway?

Unironically this

This is the edition that I read. It would probably annoy the Twitter Nazis because he’s very disgusted by Hitler and Goering. (Though he is good friends with Carl Schmitt) And he realizes very early that Germany is headed for a very bad reckoning.

A lot of it is about his reading. Very enthusiastic about Dostoevsky and Leon Bloy. There were a couple books he mentioned that I am interested in but I can’t find an English translation (something about Opium smokers in French Indochina, Boisette or something like that was the author). It’s a much more subdued and reflective book than Storm of Steel. (Though he does witness some American bombing raids both in France and Germany)

He also implies that he tried to talk some of the conspirators out of attempting to assassinate Hitler (but he was too friendly with several of them to be allowed to stay in the army after the attempt failed)

Attached: 513E674A-D2FD-4EA3-989E-0F9F44B5E415.jpg (350x525, 32K)

I know what you mean, but to me, it feels a bit weird to not have the original available at a normal price (90 euros or a pre-WW2 copy, hard to get a hold of, in short ), when you have both versions of Das abenteuerliche Herz available, for example. Though I guess that didn't involve his comrades, so it wasn't as personal a thing for Jünger as the edits of SoS were.

I posted one of his quotes about women in that last 'books women will never understand thread' and they called him an idiot for thinking women can love.

Has anyone here read his Siebzig verweht diaries? How are they compared to his WW2/WW1 diaries?

Attached: siebzigverweht5.jpg (180x301, 27K)

What was the quote, user?

The Adventurous Heart was edited as well? Anything specific?

>We may demand of people no more than what is commensurate with their essence; from women love, not justice.

"Zwei Drittel des Urtextes sind gestrichen und erneuert, besonders auf offene politische und autobiographische Bezüge verzichtete Jünger."

Two thirds of the text were changed between the first edition ("Erste Fassung", or "Aufzeichnungen bei Tag und Nacht" ) and the second ( "Figuren und Capriccios", I believe this is the version that was translated into English recently). The political and autobiographical parts were mostly purged, notably.

Attached: dasabenteuerlicheherz.jpg (287x475, 23K)

I think a lot of people who are interested in Junger are genuine. We certainly dont live in the 1920s but it seems just as naive to say we live in the 1950s. Theres certainly a new sort of transformation beginning on the far right and it seems logical that the people following that transformation have a renewed interest in the abandoned projects of the Conservative Revolution.

He also calls the hardcore SS and Gestapo Nazis lemures - ghouls from Roman mythology

Attached: CD65D863-58BD-4BFC-A45D-09A0EC5EB133.jpg (610x500, 30K)

Damn, I'll have to find that version.

Some new right publisher sells it in German if it helps.

I think they are genuine as well, but this is something very different from being correct, or even on the right path. If anything we are headed for a rebirth of hollow fascism with liberal characteristics. Anything I have seen from the right has all of the worst elements of 1930s Germany and 2000s America.
I didn't say anything about it being the 1950s, only that the situation has fundamentally changed since then. I suppose we have gone through a period similar to the German defeat, but there is nothing of the character of the 1920s. There may be a vague desire but this cannot be accounted for with the shell of traditional imagery. Nor has there been any real attempt to consider our own situation with a considerate eye. This is lost to the type of man who is now the norm, and a thorough levelling has occurred for the right.
If I am wrong I would appreciate being shown where this transformation occurring.

When the Creighton translation was hard to find a bunch of people on Yea Forums praised it as a lost treasure and shat on the Hoffman version. Now that it's readily available again contrarians are trying to differentiate themselves by saying that that's its inferior to the Hoffman version, even though pretty much everyone with no knowledge of the backstory to the book would prefer the Creighton one.

Hoffman is a fine technical translator but literal translations don't really work for German. People whine that Creighton changed up phrasing but he captured the author's original intent while still making the book easy to read.

I understand criticism that Junger no longer believed many of the ideas expressed in the 1929 translation by the time of his death, but desu authors are allowed to change their minds and it doesn't make their earlier works any less valuable. It's also not uncommon for author's to overrevise their work and make it lose much of what made the original good.

You translation fags had to shit up the last Junger thread, and now you're doing it again with this one.

Attached: 1562030708136.png (531x575, 243K)

I mean if you look at any of the big far right authors right now like BAP or Curtis Yarvin or any of the sort of thought-leader/pundit types like Kantbot, Nic Salo, Nick Fuentes, the guys from Myth of the 20th Century, etc none of them are full on 1488 race war fascist types, they all either explicitly disavow fascism or acknowledge its failures. I'm curious to know what you think the "right path" is that nobody notable in these circles is going down?

I'm just finishing it up myself user, on a spree of first world war literature. Truly a potent text, I keep thinking about it during the daytime while I'm reading in the evenings.

Attached: 1571715876905.jpg (1536x1010, 347K)

Weird... I just got out of the library with a copy of heart of darkness and storm of steel..

I am confused here. On Wikipedia it says that Jünger first published in 1920, revised in 1924 (which is what the Creighton version is based on), then revised again in 1934 where the 'depictions of violence were muted', then revised again and a 1961 version is what the Hoffman translation is based on. So, did Jünger go back and revise the original text each time or does each consecutive version develop directly from the last? Because having read the Hoffman version the violence is depicted graphically and it doesn't seem like it's being held back. Basically, is Jünger's 1961 version still self-censored like 1934 or does he revisit the prose from 1920/24? Help is appreciated!

Certainly none of those.

There's no self-censorship. It's just a few passages for polfags to drool over because they misinterpret it as fascist and nationalistic.

>can't explain his own views
>can't explain why other people's views are wrong
Well you just sound like an idiot

>Nick Fuentes
>talking shit

If you only read one, read the Creighton. If you can, read both and decide for yourself. The later one is weird and most people think it's inferior.

There have been gay slapfights on Yea Forums over this issue, mainly because there's one guy who is obsessed with Junger being a liberal or some shit, but here is the German critical edition's take on the matter:

>The alterations from the fifth (1935) to the sixth (1961) ... are more extensive and significant. These were made under the influence of the Second World War, and in conflict with [his wife and editor] Liselotte Lohrer, and served chiefly to "humanise" the war-depiction [Kriegsdarstellung]. Vocabulary emphasising brutality, which may have stemmed from the [in the '20s] well-known "Wörterbuch des Unmenschen," were replaced with more neutral [lit. sachlich: fact-like, prosaic, aloof] less offensive [lit. anstößig: unpleasant, jarring, nasty] vocabulary. Individual descriptions of war-scenes and men dying were softened [mildern]. "Knightly" and "dandyish"* representations were even more suppressed. Meanwhile [Junger] inserted justificatory reflections and wishes for reconciliation, incitations to pity and mourning.
* "dandyish" doesn't mean effeminate or anything, it more has connotations of "adventurous rogue brimming with sprezzatura" or so, a bit of decadent influence as well, like a roguish Des Esseintes. The Wandervogel/Freikorps movements both had elements of it.

>These changes provoked a violent confrontration with the publisher, Armin Mohler, the historian and chief figure of the "Conservative Revolution," who had been Junger's secretary from 1949 to 1953 and who now reproached his "master" publically for de-historicizing and de-heroicizing his writings about the First World War for the sake of accommodation with the [new] zeitgeist, thereby killing [umbringen] their authenticity.

>Junger protected himself with a letter circulated to his most important correspondents, in which he insisted on his right to to revisions and explained his modifications as "necessary":
" ... A book like In Stahlgewittern has been revised more than a dozen times. I have always been unsatisfied with the results and I will never be satisfied. They remain approximations. ..."

>[The late editions are certainly superior in 'literary' style to the 1920s/1930s ones.] ... The consequences [of the late editions' edits] for historical authenticity are hard to estimate. The [stylistic] perfection of expression may [be said to] lead to precision in facts, but also to a new, [at first? for the first time?] ["colourlessness."] [Not sure of translation here.]

>To judge [on this matter], [the] authentic experience is necessary, of which not even the author himself was ever certain. ... We agree with Kunicki when he says about the fourth edition of 1934, in which the nationalist alignments were withdrawn and the ethical reflections had not yet been intensified, that "in its [very] unselfconsciousness of [the issue of] authenticity, this edition is probably the best of all of them." If one values above all things the sophisticated precision of depiction, the historical insights of the later Junger, and his syntactically rythmical-musical ["balanced prose?" lit. Äquilibristik], then one will prefer the "edition of the last hand" [i.e., the 1960/1978].

>there's one guy who is obsessed with Junger being a liberal
I've only seen polfags claim he turned liberal.
And why is the German edition commenting on the translation? Hint: it's not.
And it says the late editions are superior in style, so you refuted your own argument.

Found the opium book
Fumeurs d’Opium by Jules Boissiere

No luck finding an English translation though

Attached: 35493DBA-4F26-4844-BC2D-A2F229F5A75A.jpg (1000x1500, 241K)

..It's commenting on the versions the translations are drawn from.

I didn't make an argument. I gave my opinion and said ideally read both and form your own opinion. Don't be such a bitter douche.

That's brilliant thanks a lot for the detailed reply user

>The later one is weird and most people think it's inferior.
>I didn't make an argument
Ok lemur

It's just pasta.

But just to clarify, there are multiple versions in German out there (I imagine of varying availability), and two English translations (based on the 1924 and the 1961 revisions), and that's that? Might have to brush up on my German. Is the original 1920 text still somewhere in circulation?

Don't care, still grateful

Enjoy, Junger is great. Thankfully more and more of his things are being translated lately, some of them very recently. Check out Ernst von Salomon too.

It's an excerpt from the critical edition of the book.. Even if it were copypasted a lot (it isn't afaik), how would it be "just" pasta? It's a citation from a fucking book about the thread's topic. Also, why "lemur?"

Yeah all the German versions are available though maybe not all in print, so apparently the '34 would be a good choice if you're looking for a balance. The 1920s versions are definitely colored by the politics of the day, the Creighton one is from around when Junger came as close as he ever came to Freikorps/nationalist politics, so the volkisch rhetoric is all there. If your German is decent, the critical edition lets you see all the edits/additions overlaid as one meta-book. It's pretty impressive but not very fun to read.

I find the post-1940s editions very strange, and for most people, almost pointless. Most people reading Junger are looking for the Freikorps war memoir, not a late-life hyper-stylized reimagining of it.

The 1920 would be available in German, I think the 1929 version is just the English release of the German 1924. All of the changes are available in the German critical edition, which I think includes both the first and last and then the edits for each. Not sure exactly how they did it.
There are only two in English and the Hofmann version is objectively better. It's edited by Junger himself and the translation is superior. Creighton barely understood German.
Those who push the Creighton version only do so for political reasons.

Well you're being lied to.

Junger was clearly a nationalist at the time and you downplaying it as only a “few passages” is just you trying to water down the fact he caved in to the anti war sentiment of the period of his later life and did indeed censor himself. To get the true sentiment of the novel it’s either 1920s version or nothing

>Junger was clearly a nationalist
Post passages
>anti war
Definitely need proof of that one
>and did indeed censor himself
And this one too

Elaborate then please.

I've only read Hoffman and it didn't seem over stylised, I was taken by the grittiness of it, but perhaps reading the other version(s) will change my opinion on that.

The dude you're replying to is one of Yea Forums's resident schizos who are obsessed with a weirdly specific thing. This guy's thing is that he likes Junger, but he doesn't like right wingers, so he assumes that all people who prefer the Creighton translation are the same guy who follows him around Yea Forums for years having the same Junger translations argument with him. He also likes to spam Junger threads with massive walls of text with his pet theories about politics.

I was one of those people defending the Creighton translation (as I'm doing here) so I am one of the many avatars of his archenemy. Maybe I'm being mean or uncharitable, but I think you can tell even ITT just from how rapid and cunty his replies are that he's at least a dick, if not unhinged.

In any case, rather than just saying "he's wrong" I'll recommend ignoring him and looking into the issue yourself. The scholarship on Junger is fucking unanimous that he was an active supporter of volkisch nationalist politics in the 1920s. Denying this is not even like denying Gottfried Benn was right-wing, at least you could sorta make a case for that. Denying Junger was right wing in the '20s is like denying that Heidegger was philo-Nazi. Hell, Carl Schmitt was less volkisch in the 1920s than Junger was, at least he nominally kept his distance from it until the Nazis' ascent. Junger and his brother were very active.

That's the best approach imo, just read both. Hofmann is okay don't get me wrong, I just think it makes more sense to read the one closer to the war itself.

Already did. They only promote Junger for their political purposes. It's only a couple people, mainly one guy obsessed with Storm of Steel and he often samefags while accusing others of being samefags.
You're confusing posters again.

If I'm mistaking you for the crazy dude then my bad.

Either way, since so much bullshit goes down in these threads, people should probably take everything they read on Yea Forums with a grain of salt, no matter who says it. If anyone's interested, three decent books on Junger:
>A Dubious Past, Neaman
>Into the Abyss, Nevin
>The Conservative Revolution in the Weimar Republic, Woods (just the first parts are on Junger)

Also remember that these are the people who hate Junger's later thought and call him a traitor. They even say he was a bad writer. They are incapable of being objective.

>They even say he was a bad writer

I've read him in German and even though I wouldn't say he's a bad writer, he's a bit too gnomic and opaque for his own good at times, both due to how esoteric his thoughts can be, and because his prose is so mannered and purple half the time. Seriously, Aladins Problem makes my head spin even to this day.

No doubt there's something to that, but that's not bad writing. And it's strange for people who claim one of his books as a favorite to also say he is bad.

Yeah I am more interested in his ideas than his style personally, I find some of his writing to be self-indulgent.

Literally no one who likes the Creighton translation calls him a traitor or bad writer lmao. Artists revise their work for the worse all the time. It's ok to prefer an earlier version of something while still respecting the author.

My copy just delivered today, I'm on something of a stoicism/military/primalism kick lately and that is in my most recent crop of purchases. Anyone got anything to keep in mind for me before I go into it?

Anyone can look at the archive user. Or even this thread.

Exactly, get the 1929 based and red pilled version.

Other books that are the best first hand accounts ever written alongside this book are:

1. Casanova's Memoir's
2. Benvenuto Cellini's Autobiography
3. Diary of a Napoleonic Foot Soldier
4. Joseph Plumb Martin's Autobiography of a American Revolutionary Soldier.

Alongside Storm of Steele... NOTHING else comes close to these books. All of them are first hand accounts.

These books are required reading.

Just some recommendations to read:

>Remarque (1929) All Quiet on the Western Front
>Manning (1929) The Middle Parts of Fortune (first published as 'Her Privates We')
>Barbusse (1916) Under Fire
>Graves (1929) Goodbye to All That

And at some point watch pic related!

Attached: 220px-They_Shall_Not_Grow_Old.jpg (220x325, 30K)

So looks like I've been having a conversation with multiple people in this thread without realising it, it's all a bit of a mess. I'm just going to read the other of the two English translations of Junger and make up my own mind based on the merits that I perceive. So what about his changing political leanings? Surely it's more based to have several versions of a great text? It's not like the earlier ones were burned ffs. Get the feeling this is being taken too seriously by some!

Attached: Schwaben_Redoubt_aerial_photograph_10-05-1916_IWM_HU_91107.jpg (625x800, 107K)

Also

>For My Legionaries by Corneliu Codreanu
>Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell

The biggest reason is people fear that Jews have purposely put the Germans in a bad light in the later translations, and made the later translations shitty on purpose.

>>For My Legionaries by Corneliu Codreanu

Seconding

Attached: codreanu3.jpg (1147x621, 553K)

A legitimate fear to be honest. Look what the fucking jews did to Burton's The Jew, The Gypsy, and El Islam, purely out of spite.

Nick Fuentes is a grifter faggot but you're flat out wrong if you think he doesn't have several thousand devoted followers

?

What do you mean "?"?

What do you mean "What do you mean "?"?"?

Where did Junger write about his brothel stories? Was that ever translated in english?

What do you mean "What do you mean "What do you mean "?"?"?"?

>several thousand devoted followers

Attached: 1581968484977.png (596x1008, 92K)

I'm not saying that as a good thing you stupid nigger, Fuentes is a crypto-faggot who has shitty ideas. He's like richard spencer but somehow even worse and all of these retards are following him

Those are all fantastic books. Especially Cellini's.

I'm pretty sure I've seen you post this list on /pol., That's how I heard about the Jakob Walter biography.

>put the Germans in a bad light in the later translations, and made the later translations shitty on purpose

But... the prose is crisp, clear and concise. I'm just finishing it (Hoffman) right now. And the German effort is portrayed sympathetically. My impression has been that Junger and his comrades were very brave indeed, I had no idea about the political controversies until I saw this thread. He does at points praise the actions of individual British soldiers but you can be nationalistic yet still recognise heroism on the other side (clearly).

So who's selling the based and redpilled ideas?

There's no way for a translation like that to get jewed. Poltards are just being dumbasses as usual.

I think BAP and Yarvin have much better ideas. I don't agree with either them on nearly everything but they're on the right track.

Sure there is, just look at Mohler's response to Junger's editing of the book, or look at Cioran's later editing of The Transfiguration of Romania to make it into a fucking cucked bourgeois book instead of a fascist manifesto

So post the jew parts.

I just bought the 1929 version. I read the Hoffmann translation two years ago and really liked it.

Your welcome user, I try to spread the knowledge of these books far and wide. I found those books through years of reading and mostly by chance. It would be a shame if they were completely forgotten.

Thanks for the reading list, man. I also want to go through Jim Mattis' reading list and take in some of the literature that has influenced him in terms of leadership and philosophy, but I'll keep those ones in mind.
>Orwell
I honestly loved Orwell when I first read his stuff back in high school. Only two books by him I read were 1984 and Animal Farm though. On the same purchase binge I did, I picked up Brave New World (seriously, don't know why I haven't picked that up until just now) so I think I'll probably get through this list before hopping back into a dystopian writer.

Judging by the German amazon reviews, his brothel experiences and worry over whether he caught syphilis or not are in his WW1 diaries.

This was the last novel I read from late last year along with moby-dick, butchers crossing, blood meridian, suttree, lonesome dove, a tale of two cities and a lot of others I forget
I basically got nothing out of them other than sort of calming myself for long periods of time

What are you supposed to get from these novels if you're a neet with gradually decreasing mental capability?

It's not a novel. It's a first hand account, and a record of history.

It's usefulness is knowing what happened during WW1 on the German side.

Moby-dick, butchers-crossing, blood meridian, and all that other fiction none sense is better off in the garbage... unless you just like the entertainment of course.

my mistake, the only thing that stood out was his line of thinking I hadn't seen in movies or in other accounts of war

I think I found it. He mentions one story (that I've found so far) in the Paris diaries.

>Then went to Monte Cristo, an establishment where patrons luxuriate on low cushions. Silver chalices, fruit bowls, and bottles glinted in the twilight as in an Orthodox chapel. Companionship provided by young girls, almost all of them born in France to Russian emigrés. They chattered away in several languages. I sat beside a small, melancholy twenty-year-old and, through the champagne haze, carried on conversations about Pushkin, Aksakov, and Andreyev, whose son [Daniel] had been a friend of hers.

My criticisms would be pretty similar to Schmitt and Junger, their position on this is quite good. The left and right are essentially a division in the political body, a catastrophe of political decision-making itself. As such, any attempt to maintain one side of the body is to also maintain the division. There can be no solution here that does not rely upon liberal foundations.
Schmitt's comments on duration and the right's own subversion of itself are also incredibly important. There remains a unity in belief that goes much deeper than politics, meaning that the divide of the left and right can only ever exist at a surface level - this explains both the increasing hostilities and the sense of the inescapable that affects both sides.

You may have also misunderstood my comment on the current dominant groups. The worst part of Germany may have also been its conservative elements, contrasted with our situation this becomes clear in the indecisiveness, the pure reaction to the left. The deep hatred of the left is interesting considering how influenced the New Right is by marxist thought, materialism, leftist methods of organising, and having to develop critiques that were already central to leftist thought 40-50 years ago.
There is a sense of being lost to time here, when the right's power is almost fully dependent upon seizing the political means of the spirit of the age (to use an all too marxist phrasing). The right is either thoroughly levelled or exiled, sometimes both, and this results in an inconsistency of positions, or even a lunacy as bad as the left.
Someone like Moldbug is one of the worst offenders. It is plebeian rationalism, kantianism with shitty data. He has no sense of what modernity really entails and his solution is just an aesthetic reversion to the political form which gave rise to this failure to begin with - all within the technical apparatus which is essentially leftist and can only move to the left. Technocratic occasionalism for the last men.

Attached: Death_of_Archimedes.png (1200x1084, 2.02M)

>The deep hatred of the left is interesting considering how influenced the New Right is by marxist thought, materialism, leftist methods of organising, and having to develop critiques that were already central to leftist thought 40-50 years ago.

Not him, but could you elaborate on this? I've seen this tactic used time and again, where left-leaning people appropriate anything that they might agree with on the opposite end as theirs to begin with, understandably to avoid cognitive dissonance about their beliefs.

His description of being under artillery fire is magnificent.

is that the hammer being swung within milimetres of your face while you're tied to a pole? or was that some description of social anxiety

I'll be honest that I haven't read any Schmit yet, although he is on my list, though I'm faily acquainted with Junger. I understand what you're saying about the left-right dichotomy being an inherent part of the liberal system. Fascism attempted to overcome this via the totalitarian one party state, everyone who is within the party is the nation and is no longer stuck within the dichotomy of left v right and everyone who is not within the party is not part of the nation and is therefor tribalisticly an enemy. Of course that comes with all of the baggage that is fascism.

I don't know if you've read any of Yarvin's recent articles on "The Clear Pill" on the Clairemont Institute website but he's attempting a five part series of essays where he sets the table for post-liberalism by deconstructing the current political blocs we have such as progressivism, conservatism, Twitter neofascism, etc. I'm not Yarvin fanboy by any means and I wouldn't even call myself NRx but I think he's closer to taking up the mantle of transcending liberalism more than any other writers I can think of right now. BAP as well I think is an interesting writer. Idk if you've read his book but it's worth a read. He's sort of a Nietzschean Greek-aboo yearning to revive historical Great Men. I think that whole line of thinking really drills down to the problem though: to avoid the Liberal End of History we need Great Men who drive history. If we take Napoleon as the archetypical Great Man, then we can see how a Great Man is able to rise above left and right to take control of a nation and use it to turn the cogs of history.

As far as the New Right taking up the left's strategies and tactics, I think it's a matter of necessity. The Left simply outmaneuvered everyone else with a superior modus operandi so why would the right not copy them and attempt to do it better? The "ends justify the means" way of thinking is fairly prevalent at all political extremes.

That was a description of what artillery was like while he was caught in a shallow dugout in a trench with his hands over his face waiting it out

I'm the schizo.
I'll also note that you seem to have a hard time parsing who is who in these discussions, even though I pointed out to you before that you agreed with me in one of the arguments over translation.
I am aware that my writing and ideas aren't appealing to many people, however I will note how opposed our own thinking is and your bias. I will also mention the complete lack of any discussion in these Junger threads, so any effortpost is better than these arguments over nothing. I am hated by people like yourself, yet I have been able to reach a minority and was even mentioned in the 'best posts on lit' thread. That means much more to me than any imagined popularity through shitposting or baiting through flinging shit.

I won't address most of your comments because it would be a waste of time. I will simply say a few things that may be relevant to the overall discussion. I am in no way opposed to the right, more than anything I am simply disappointed and confused by its incredible failures. I am sympathetic to both the right and left, same as Junger, although that is clarified in my other post.

It should be kept in mind that Junger was widely misunderstood in his own time, so to think that any scholars today have a good handle on his thought is ridiculous. Perhaps some anons will remember your posts of some of these great scholars, one of which was the worst interpretation of Junger I have ever seen. (pic related)

The relation to nationalism, as one example, is easily misunderstood. It is certainly not the sense of nationalism pushed by the current right, nor even that of the nationalism of the 1920s with its humanistic overtones, a means of completing the levelling process. He saw great opportunity in the 1920s, participated in movements, but this does not mean that he identified completely with the currents. He was rather a part of the stream, and his 'nationalism' was a means, a force necessary for a Nietzschean understanding of the state. It was neither the form nor dominion of state power, merely one of its expression.

This was most clear in his statements early on, even in the 1920s, that he would have no part in leading fools and would rather write one good poem. A section of Copse 125 clarifies this further, as does his equal participation in the left-wing movements and his comment that only one of their ranks was able to keep his respect. Such intricacies and contradictions will never be considered by your lot.

Attached: worst.jpg (490x107, 36K)

Give me a bit and I will try to.
Do you mean that you see the left as recuperating the techniques of opposed organisations, or just that you have noticed it on the left?

Second part didn't post for some reason:

BAP figures likely appear better at first glance, but are possibly even more dangerous. They offer an image of the warrior after his death, the Bronze-Souled ruling over Plato's Cave. But this neglects that our situation is much worse than this. We are not Bronze-souled beings, we something far less. Just think of the almost theological torture Schmitt had to go through after 1945, that is confronting the reality of our situation. We are confronting not only such injustice and the collapse of our own ideological world but also the death of whites, men, and even the species. Hollywood aesthetics and self-help psychology are like a prepackaged solution ordered from amazon. It is a denial of pain and the theological torture that would be necessary to confront what we really face.
There is a strange element of new age thinking here, think of the mindfulness programs for alt-right warriors. I don't mean to say this to make light of it, our situation is very difficult. But such simple solutions can only lead to disaster. If we adapt Junger's thinking then we are no longer dealing with the worker-soldier but the influencer-reenactor. Such a degradation is reflected in the language, culture, and techniques of these political organisations. Nothing positive will ever come from them.

To be fair, critique is something of an automated response given our situation of being thoroughly levelled and trapped by a seemingly inescapable situation. None of this is meant to ridicule the people involved as even attempting to find solutions is extremely difficult. I cannot really give much of a 'right path' as that would require a book, but will say that the beginning would be something like a Schmitt-Odysseus figure. We would have to first confront the failures of liberalism, even our own that we may not be willing to admit. The Iliad path is impossible for those who can no longer understand gods or heroism.

>Do you mean that you see the left as recuperating the techniques of opposed organisations, or just that you have noticed it on the left?

I suppose everyone does it to varying degrees, but during my time on Yea Forums, I've especially noticed it with marxists. For the record, I'm not a /pol/tard, but I do live in an ex-communist country, and even back then the government had a tendency to appropriate various historical figures in the history of our country as proto-revolutionaries and such - this always struck me as both dishonest and as a desperate attempt at establishing a historical justification/framework for the ideology itself. Swap historical figures with various ideological concepts and such - you get to both uphold the "leftists are smart, right-wingers are dumb" meme dichotomy, along with placing the entire argument in your framework - there's no reason why you wouldn't do it. You also, like I mentioned, get to avoid any sort of cognitive dissonance.

This is a symptom of a greater tendency within the left wing itself - that of slithering all over the place, being indirect and horribly self-righteous at the same time. The neoreactionary/neofascist elements, as naive and dumb as they often are, have a blunt honesty the majority of the time that I can appreciate on some level even if I disagree with them on many topics.

I'll attempt a full response in a bit, but wanted to mention that the second part of my post was just added. Also how liberalism may not be our true enemy, but a specific type of political organisation necessitated by the modern form. The clearest example here is that the political types begin to disappear where technology rules, their differences recede into the skeletal formation. The liberal adoption of Nazi scientists - soldiers who would never kill an Archimedes.
The metaphysics or political theology is the greater form, and if we follow Schmitt then it is the cartesian or kantian position which determines the political type. Any rationalist form will thus remain trapped by modernity, even if it is critical of liberalism - political loyalists who will share technicians. Otherwise, one might say that the political formations exist as a Holy Trinity of the society without a state, each a means of dissolution into greater forms of power.

Our position is that of a completion of the opposed continental forces, or its complete failure. In this sense, any sort of monarchistic capitalism is simply a utopian means of rationalism at the end of the humanist era. Anything like a monarch is no longer possible, unless an incredible catastrophe necessitated a return to mythic and religious thinking.
We are already witnessing the collision of continents into a single autochtonous form, an entirely new era is upon us and what will be required theoretically (philosophically, theologically?) is a completion equal in force. It is likely too early as yet, but we will see a shift in ideas similar in strength to that of the Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment.
Any sort of tinkering or modernist recapitulation occurs as a misunderstanding of the spirit of the age. We have already gone through a period of transition, a continuation of modernity after it was impossible. As Junger said, the new Europe already appeared in 1916. Ever since we have been in a state of denial, shell shock. But as the reality of this new formation of continents becomes impossible to deny a reorganisation will be necessary.

Europe has already surrendered, meaning that the equal and opposing force to the founding of the New World is complete. Now the Right is forced to confront its defeat of 100 years, or more likely 500 (and the Left its false victory). We exist as a distorted mirror image of Germany, and any sort of cult of death is impossible when there are no Antigone figures - those who understand the entire gravity of the situation. Attempting to confront this in rationalist terms will only extend the defeat, or the period of denial, like compounding debt to keep up the appearance of economic wealth and livelihood.

Attached: Blank+_8135102c0f4ac02b5e0a6657b80b6327.jpg (1920x1080, 543K)

The retreat from the world imagined by Moldbug in "RIP Globalism" isn't possible, and the irony is that he still imagines all of the 'benefits' of globalism, a mercantilism which is a formality rather than real. The effects of globalism will still be felt in an immaterial and theological sense even if we are able, or forced to, retreat into a type of regionalism. The figure of man is now global, a force of the earth rather than religion or secularism, and the new political laws will be a relation of the earth and this new man.
If we simplify this to contrasting eras we are even likely to experience the proto-modern rather than its early laws established by the Renaissance, etc. - and this from the negative. Da Vinci's art as an overwhelming catastrophe, but now we realise that we are headless and empty figures; the skillless and unwilled beings who nonetheless hold onto life when it is impossible. Rousseau confronts himself as a misanthrope. Machiavelli as an exile and revolutionary figure or criminal. Romantics and satiricists incapable of revolution or reform. Lollards and Millenarians with neither heresy nor apocalypse.

Our era is antithetical to Great Men. The Nietzscheans and romantic conservatives did not realise their ephemeral qualities, that material duration is nothing in the face of eternity - it is even less than the ephemeral. Their spirit was entirely modern, thus their sense of authority created the installations for even greater men, those with no necessity of being. They were a final appearance, an exhaustion of all its last reserves. The current ideas of the right are little more than an aesthetic philistinism catching up with the sense of the species that the left understood much better and conformed to long ago. There can never again be that spirit of conservatism, reaction - the memory of the old regime recedes rather than giving way to progress.
We live in a subatomic age, and our myth of metals must follow its laws. The fall from the Bronze Age necessitates a greater appearance of soldiers, yet they may never replace their loss of essence. No mirror of form is necessary for an age which denies its being.

From another perspective the hollow man of the right-wing, his complete levelling, suggests that he approaches being expended - that he may become one with the unknown soldiers. All of his empty imagery of that which will never return is a herald of his acceptance of the modern form of being. At that point the spiritual war may commence. All that which could not be destroyed by the World Wars and the succession of treaties will be destroyed spiritually, as an unknown force of gravity from within.
The fasces gives way to rolled steel, plastic, recycled alloys, and finally depleted atoms.

>If we take Napoleon as the archetypical Great Man, then we can see how a Great Man is able to rise above left and right to take control of a nation and use it to turn the cogs of history.
This is an important point, and something I agree with generally. The sovereign must be able to bring together even the opponents in a society and give them purpose. However, we might say that this is done differently in liberalism, there is no longer a sovereign human. This tends to be understood as a loss of power and authority, but otherwise we may imagine it as an extension of power: the left and right only appear opposed through increased necessity of the power of the Leviathan. Rather than a loss of monarchs their power is extended even to the slave, at least formally.

The lack of a clear sovereign obviously creates a problem. My own thinking on the current situation of the rights dispute, the culture wars, is that a Solomon character would be necessary. One would have to threaten a division of rights, giving each party its half, or even distribute single rights by lottery. The only possible good outcome of such a judgement would be for a party to relinquish all its rights, a complete sacrifice of liberalism so that it may survive. Then this party would receive all of the rights, while the other loses theirs.

Of course, taking this literally would be naive, the sense of power attached to rights only increases the ego and the impossibility of such sacrifices. Thus the impossibility of liberal figures to confront their own devastating failure. Liberalism cannot even have great men in the negative sense. Individuals like Junger and Schmitt forced to face the defeat of their ideas in Germany, Platonov and Grossman having to judge themselves before the failings of communism - liberalism has no place for such types. Jordan Peterson's collapse to drugs rather than any sort of "Only a god may save us" statement tells the tale.

We must instead await this relinquishment of rights, begin to take it up on our own, free of the judgement of a sovereign. This is antithetical to the right-wing senses, and is potentially what lies behind its seeming impossibility - why no one will initiate the collapse/revolution/coup. Justice and the forming of identity is only possible through great risk, and rather than seeing our situation as punishment or a curse we should attempt to understand its potential. There is not necessarily weakness in this, although we must avoid fetishizing our punishment as can easily happen in Christianity.

We cannot think in the sense of defense, as incursions necessitate rebuilding, strengthening of the defensive structures through replacement. Such a position is more destructive to tradition than progress or even abandonment. Morality is first overcome in architecture.

Sacrifice necessitates further sacrifice, and the only end to the cycle is one which is fruitful. In the absence of sovereign judgement it becomes necessary to incur debt. We become sovereign in the negative, and force others to sacrifice through our own. This means stripping ourselves of our rights, dragging the deserving along with us while giving everything over to the undeserving.

At the same time this is potentially the only solution to the stasis of secularism and Christianity, that which divides the Katechon from the Eschaton and yet maintains their laws. The necessity of the evil which the heavens have refused to us.

Attached: IMG_2401.jpg (2600x1734, 575K)

The New Right, originally in France, was influenced by Gramsci and even certain writings from the Frankfurt School. Libido Dominandi would be a later example with only indirect and coincidental connections to the marxists - the endemic nature suggesting a greater connection.
Other writings within the right often speak of a materialist and structural formation of history. Although this goes much deeper than the left/right division, as Schmitt discusses with the connection between Christian conservative forms of thought and early rationalism. In law and technology the division between left and right almost completely disappears. Theology and metaphysics complete the indistinction - a paradox of their necessity and deepening. Before the Protestant ethic of capitalism there had already been the Calvinist logic of time.

Adoption of the leftist means of organising is fairly simple: conservatism as the new punk, chaotic means of organisation action, the adoption of revolutionary positions.
In terms of critique, the most clear example would be the far-left critique of feminism back in the 1960s or 1970s. All of the positions now memed were already discussed back then, which suggests a capitulation of the left to the center and liberalism rather than a triumph of the left. And the divide suggests how the right must come up with all new perspectives on its own, often less relevant than what was stated by the left. (The Poverty of Feminism is the essay I'm referring to, particularly its analysis of rape and abortion, the dogmatic Christian refusal of abortion appears stale and weak in comparison, necessitating defeat.)

I don't know that the left is necessarily worse than the right in terms of recuperation. I might even go so far as to say that the right relies entirely upon recuperation and has no identity of its own. Then again, how the left have reacted to someone like Schmitt and their corruption of all laws through anti-germanism is one of the worst acts of injustice in history. (Of course, it must be put in perspective that they are following the course of the West in their anti-germanism and are not solely responsible.)

I hope that makes sense. Getting late here.

What you're driving towards essentially seems no different from the NRx "great refusal", unless I'm misunderstanding you. Refusing to take part in the body politic of our time always seemed to me to be almost anti-strategic. I suppose those who tread in Sodom are corrupted by it, but at this point I don't see how there's anything to lose by gambling on the idea that we could find a holy enough man to tread in Sodom and find 50 good men to satiate God.

As far as hollow men on the right are concerned, I think it would be easiest to explain this in terms of Spengler's Second Religiousness. You can see the beginnings of this in people like Jordan Peterson, who cling to the trappings of Christianity by attempting to rationalize them in the current zeitgeist in metaphorical terms via Jungian archetypes. But obviously Peterson's cargo cult Jungian Christianity is a pale comparison to the True Believer Christianity of times past. It's a similar phenomenon with neopaganism, none of them obviously believe that a humanoid Thor is actually up there in the storm clouds, for them it's all just mythlogized metaphors.

Politics in the same way is sort of hollow. It's all about trying to recreate the previously successful forms of the West without having the actual material to do so. Nobody actually believes in this shit the same way that the ideological progenitors of the West did 1000 years ago, but they'll push and defend it more zealously than their models could ever hope to.

Anyway, my point is that I don't see how a "negative sovereignty" amounts to anything. How can "giving everything over to the undeserving" lead to anything but the undeserving using what they have to subjugate everyone else?

>"great refusal"
Not at all. It is rather a metaphor, or even a description of mythic forces which remain in our time. Neither a renunciation of power nor action, and without any left/right distinction. A way of thinking through power when great men are impossible. In relation, Moldbug's position would be something of an abstract negation that capitulates to liberalism.

I'm not in agreement with Spengler. There are perhaps deeper beliefs in our time, and we follow myths without even knowing them. Our belief and sense of meaning is so strong that there is no need of religion.

I don't think Jordan Peterson is a good example of this. He isn't right-wing and, as strange as it may seem, I think he is genuine. He is not a hollow man but almost the perfect figure of a liberal living after the death of the political form.

"Negative sovereignty" would function precisely because it is one with the immaterial power, the form of power itself which can have no human representation. Perhaps you are thinking of this in materialist terms, as if it is the material that creates forms rather than itself being a reaction. Again, it is not a dogmatic approach or a program, but a metaphor intended to increase the senses and the ability to act. Not the thing-in-itself but an attempt to reveal it.
Power itself is not who wields its material, occupies its territory. The appearance of power is not real power, this occurs instead when the sovereign effectively acts as a medium, or means of transition of the forces of power. He may even disappear in the process. True power exists when the sovereign is able to retreat, where the distinction between awaiting and anticipation disappears. Dominion remains in his absence, may even necessitate it. The sleeping king lives on in all who hear the myth; there are greater things than order.

Attached: Autochthon.jpg (1998x1398, 1.02M)

Contrary to Plato's theory one might say that democracy arises once there are too many with golden souls; and the Great man only appears as the mirror of the form to the extent that our understanding of the metals has diminished. Great men are formed of necessity by the metal and structure of the age, and the modern era is one in which the Shield of Achilles distorts all of the figures through its luster. The mirror of the form is impossible with too much light.
Every Great Man in our time was less than the commoner and sacrificed to his development. Heroism struggles with heroism - once its enemy becomes the antihero it has already been defeated. This suggests an entirely different distinction between left and right in our era, and one that must shift according to the laws of time rather than any material appearance or duration.
Time necessitates political formations, they may never rule over it and condemn it to death. Modern technology develops as a means to overcome time, to prove the political formation once everything flows through it. The opposition of left and right thus grows as the perfection of the technical eliminates its material completion; each appears as the armament on two fronts of time.
The Great Man is distinguished from the Hero by his inability to find peace in death, he exists outside of time and can have no sovereignty over it. He is one with the development of technology, yet he is extracted by it. From his birth the Great Man already sees himself as Achilles in the underworld - the King of the Dead, but not death.

When does it get good. First chapter was boring as fuck

His best work is Aladdin's problem. On Pain and Across the Line are real Nietzschean works.

Curtis Yarvin is a pilpulling, long winded KIKE. The faggot should go become a rabbi instead.

It’s real life. Go back to your works of fiction.

It gets good when the scenes behind the frontlines become an unrealistic reality and the combat scenes are elevated into fever dreams of a man drugged with adrenaline. This lights the future path of Jünger as a surrealist writer of dream landscapes as well as the way he tried to recreate a similar notion in his 1970 book Annäherungen.

Two of my favourite passages from In Stahlgewittern must be the one where just before a charge against their lines happens, Jünger sees a flare illuminate the battlefield - the sudden lighting of the plains that are about to become the sight of a bloody battle reminds him of a theatre stage briefly being lit in silence before the final act takes place. Another one has his regiment entering a village in the hinterlands where an officer jokingly naming himself "King of Queànt" rules like a small feudal lord who celebrates lavish drinking festivities every night, travels the small villages by means of a dogcart and indulges in "offerings to Bacchus" every day. Jünger's prose is at its earliest here but you can see that he's going to conjure up the wildest images out of otherwise mostly mundane objects and stories in his later writing, and I think that's a great base to start.

>Why was it so good?
Gives the tantalizing sense of imminent victory that never came, that lead to ruin and it's reprise in '39. The war was won in the first instance by the British Foreign Office's war party not-conveying demobilization conditions between primarily Germany and France, but also Russia -- and thereafter by radical suppression of casualty counts
>(Junger describes the reorganization of the Western Front under Ludendorff, increasing sub-divisional firepower, largely in mortar support ratios which the Entente misjudged completely; French artillery composition in particular is discussed in op pic, -- lots of it, but shallow firing.)
>the situation of the 1920s
The German Revolution, xyz Communist revolts by the usual foreign agent suspects, and Trotsky at the head of the Red Army with British pounds from Swiss bank accounts conducting raids whenever the Poles themselves weren't. If armistice and Lusitania were inevitable, the final strategic offensive should have been withheld to completely annihilate the Johnny Come Lately Doughboys. The Anglo-Finance drive to subjugate the Continent since Napoleon's time has always been a vain project (unless racking stacks of bodies and capital was the end in-itself).

Attached: Mosier.jpg (139x212, 8K)

This man gets it

Any recommendations on books that delve into that , ' Anglo-finance', drive to dominate on the continent?
It's pretty niche and I'd like to read more about it.
Realizing that all of Britain's wars in the last two hundred years were to enrich the elites and their kosher allies is a milestone.

>Two: restore your intellectual independence. A regime is not independent unless it can think for itself. Your bright, shiny New State needs a new history and a new economics for certain; even the hard sciences could use a good bit of auditing; and actual theological work is by no means out of the question. At present, you import all these commodities from America—specifically, Harvard. Some are good, others not so good. It is not worth your time to tell the difference. We must deal with Harvard, and we will; you can keep your smart young people at home and pay them to think and write. They will. Your nation’s success depends on the extent to which they arrive at actual truth, rather than the old democratic nonsense or some new pile of wack.)
>jewishisrael.org/
Is this dripping with irony or is it supposed to read like Barney cyberpunk?

counter-currents.com/2012/03/economic-development/
>If only statesmen had been compelled to study the laws of Compound Interest, the fate of the whole human race might have been very different. ... [T]wo serious conditions began to develop. The first was the decline not merely of the aristocracy but, little by little, of all values that could not be correlated with pounds, shillings, and pence. The age of mechanized man was approaching. The new plutocracy and those of the old Whigs who were naturally perverse began their final and terrible offensive against the old country gentlemen. ... They were subjected to numerous mercantile blood transfusions until they had to undergo the final humiliation of accepting Jewish sons-in-law to save the ground to which they pathetically clung.
William Joyce

Werner Sombart and Othmar Spann frequently talk about it
counter-currents.com/2013/03/othmar-spann-a-catholic-radical-traditionalist/

Pound
counter-currents.com/2014/08/ezra-pound-3/

Gottfried Feder
>By Mammonism is to be understood: on the one hand, the overwhelming international money-powers, the supragovernmental financial power enthroned above any right of self-determination of peoples, international big capital, the purely Gold International; on the other hand, a mindset that has taken hold of the broadest circle of peoples; the insatiable lust for gain, the purely worldly-oriented conception of life that has already led to a frightening decline of all moral concepts and can only lead to more.

>This [mammonist] mindset is embodied and reaches its acme in international plutocracy. The chief source of power for Mammonism is the effortless and endless income that is produced through interest.

>The idea of interest on loans is the diabolical invention of big loan-capital; it alone makes possible the lazy drone's life of a minority of tycoons at the expense of the productive peoples and their work-potential.

>The only cure, the radical means to heal suffering humanity is the abolition of enslavement to interest on money. The abolition of enslavement to interest on money signifies the only possible and conclusive liberation of productive labor from the hidden coercive money-powers.

>Our anti-Mammonistic battle, which is ranged above the other two battle-fronts, is directed against the world-encompassing financial power, that is, against the permanent financial and economic bleeding and exploitation of our people through large loan capital. This battle however is, on the other hand, also a powerful intellectual struggle against the soul-destroying materialistic spirit of egoism and avarice with all its concomitant corrupting manifestations in all fields of our public, economic and cultural life.
counter-currents.com/2012/11/two-volumes-by-gottfried-feder/

Social credit
counter-currents.com/tag/breaking-the-bondage-of-interest/

Attached: strasser.jpg (1200x800, 125K)

"The enemy is Das Leihkapital. Your Enemy is Das Leihkapital, international,
wandering Loan Capital. Your enemy is not Germany, your enemy is money on
loan. And it would be better for you to be infected with typhus, and dysentery,
and Bright's disease, than to be infected with this blindness which prevents you
from understanding HOW you are undermined, how you are ruined.

The big Jew is so bound up with this Leihkapital that no one is able to unscramble
that omelet. It would be better for you to retire to Darbyshire and defy New
Jerusalem, better for you to retire to Gloucester and find one spot that is England
than to go on fighting for Jewry and ignoring the process.

You let in the Jew and the Jew rotted your empire, and you yourselves out-jewed
the Jew. Your allies in your victimized holdings are the bunyah, you stand for
NOTHING but usury. And above metal usury; you have built up bank usury,
60% against 30 and 40%, and by that you WILL NOT be saved.

Corrupting the whole earth, you have lost yourselves to yourselves.

And the big Jew has rotted EVERY nation he has wormed into. A mill stone. Well, an exceptionally good swimmer MIGHT conceivably be cast into the sea with a stone tied round his neck. He might perhaps untie it. If he were a Scotchman, he would remember his jackknife, before being thrown overboard.

That defines the USURY system, the ONLY system Anglo Saxons have known or used in our time.

You are NOT even in the mercantile system, you are in a fake mercantile system, not even mercantile. It was for a time called mercantile or the mercantilist system and defined as considering the happiness of a nation to consist in the amount of MONEY it owned, and its process to consist in STEALING, welching, pouching the greatest possible amount of same (i.e., of money) from other nations.

And it will not save you. NOR will Judaized Russia. Nor will the Kahal, the Jew’s central committee of bleeders. WHAT is their system? Unvarying, cheap goods, sweated out of cheap labor, dung dust hurled on the world, the WORLD conceived as sweat shop, to hell with the 8-hour day, down with abundance. DUMPING sweated goods, dumped against any and every nation that pays a just price for labor."
- Ezra Pound

Attached: 1578241546071.jpg (570x398, 93K)

>There are no Elders of Zion, and nobody dances on Halliburton’s strings. But there is a Left, though it is a movement rather than a conspiracy. And the Left, in power, must pretend to contend against some great, imagined enemy, which it naturally models on itself.
Glownig

Thank you.

What is this from?

No response, Creightonfag? Nice to see you've learned something.

Which Creightonfag? I'm the guy who posted the critical edition. Are you the one who posted the wall of text essay nobody read, after denying being "the guy who who posts wall of text essays nobody reads in Junger threads?"

Are you asking why I didn't read your wall of text essay? Because it was really long and retarded.

>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.
The Disturbed Theory of Value

You don't even know how to view posts?
If it's retarded then it should be very easy to prove wrong.

>The war was won in the first instance by the British Foreign Office's war party not-conveying demobilization conditions between primarily Germany and France, but also Russia -- and thereafter by radical suppression of casualty counts
Want to expand on this?
>Americans won the war
lmao

If you're the guy I've spoken to once or twice before, I was at the library scanning pages of scholarly books on Junger and you were just replying "lmao that book sucks." There are different issues here. There's the issue of (1) whether I want to have a conversation with you, and (2) which one of us some imagined chorus of onlookers should believe is right in his assessment of Junger.

(1) I don't, because you seem like an irritable retard who argues in bad faith, and who isn't interested in a discussion so much as forcing his preconceived opinion on others. To the point that you will slither out of addressing even citations from major books on the subject being discussed (which you also did ITT).

(2) As I said above, let people decide for themselves. Scholarly sources have been linked, so people can pursue the topic if they want. I was never trying to have an argument with an insane retard with his homegrown theories about Junger, I was trying to link people the bare minimum information they need to make their own informed decisions about what translation to get.

As I said, you think everyone you've ever talked to is the same person. The very first time we talked, you started accusing me of being some guy from /pol/ you had an argument with a year prior. This is the third time I've ever addressed you directly in a thread. Hopefully it's the last.

Also I should note, even though I've only had an exchange with you three times (including this one), I've seen you doing this same JUNGER DEFENSE SQUAD routine in every Storm of Steel thread for the past year.

I'm sure you're a decent guy and you have interesting opinions, but I don't want to have a conversation with you when I've seen you be manipulative and rude a bunch of times.

Junger's thinking was that the lack of ruthlessness on the part of German command and its inability to secure total mobilisation were the reasons for the loss. There are peripheral reasons for this as well, the necessity to complete the end of the old regime and the unification of Europe under its new laws. From this perspective it was impossible for Germany to win.
But I'd like to see what you mean by your comment on the War Office and casualty counts, and if you can relate this to Junger's position.
An interesting post, I found the Bacchus part interesting as well.

No clue what you're even trying to say in the first part. Nothing against you posting quotes, it's the only thing positive you've ever done. My point is that you claim some authority in discussing Junger's ideas, but you posted some biographers with ridiculous comments essentially bashing him.
You could easily point out the bad faith arguments in my post. Where is the bad faith in asking you to explain how Junger was a nationalist when he essentially denounced them and was even closer with left-wing elements? What is bad faith in suggesting that the apparent nationalism was only a minor aspect of his Nietzschean views?
There is no bad faith in that, you're just coping.

>insane retard
Please don't hurt my feelings. But explain.
>you think everyone you've ever talked to is the same person
Lmao. STABLE GENIUS!
You literally admitted to samefagging before, and I've never accused people of being the same person. You're easy as fuck to spot cause you're paranoid and have nothing useful to say.

If you're so easily triggered by schizos maybe you shouldn't spend all your time on a board where we rule.
But go ahead, post your last effortpost on Junger. Quotes don't actually count either, I want you to prove you understand him better than I do. Show me that American grit.

And yeah, I'm a dickhead. But retards need to learn their place.

>As an American...

Attached: download-3.jpg (327x137, 4K)

I'd bet a thousand that's Creightonfag.

RIP Kantianism 2020: Dead of Kantianism

Attached: stop.jpg (585x673, 120K)

What the fuck is wrong with Germans?
youtu.be/c8UDOmUcxCk

They hate themselves but think they're better than everyone else.

Read Copse125 you dumb fucks and his article The Time of Fate

Why do you say this?

What makes you think anything is wrong with them?

If Junger was in favor of leftist then he was in favor of dick sucking Communist Jews.

No excuse for that, and I simply don’t believe it. Leftism is Judaism.

Jews.

How does it feel knowing that he called your type Jewish?

>The Time of Fate
Where to find?

Stop reading him.

Cuz it's nietzschean as fuck. And he talks about race too in copse.

Interwar Articles . In on archive.org

Explain. What is my type?

You seem retarded and sand niggerishly Jewish.

And I highly recommend On Pain and Across the Line. Both must read essays. You will see the post-war nietzsche scholars for the frauds they are. Birth of Tragedy and Will to Power are most important to him

Didn't even know about this. Is there anywhere to get a physical copy?

...

>170 posts and no links for a pdf of the 1929 version

Don't know man . It's old

There was no decimation if Jews.

“Of”, Junger must not have been aware... at all. Completely demoralized and brainwashed by Jewish none sense.

Any asshole that says Will to Power should be ignored is a fucking fraud .

Attached: 1550520789696.jpg (1200x1200, 245K)

Read Aladdin's Problem --- Ernst Junger was in a gnostic cult?

However I think you are lying and taking quotes out of context because you are Jewish.

Will to power is just a common sense observation. How can it be denied?

Most likely by lef

A lot scholars say will to power is some crap nietzsche's raycis sister made up to cozy up with the natzis.

How can that be taken out of context? lmao

I don’t even know what the context of that quote is. I assume it’s some retarded whining about muh holocaust that never happened.

He also called you scavengers, parasites, and lemurs. Even obsolescent tools produced from animal sperm.

Who’s we? White people in general?

Yeah I’m gonna have to say, yep you are a lying kike.

Nice cope. But you remain Sarcophagidae species, spawning from within the death and decay of the race. Far worse than the Last Man because you can only live in search of the Ubermensch's organs, which you must turn to dust. The eternal return of the most elementary biological processes, their immediate annihilation.
>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.

Lol, sand nigger Jew. Taking things out of context with your big nosed, floppy lip, trace amount of negro DNA ways.

What's out of context?

What’s the context? I have no idea what that quote is even talking about you dumb twat.

Hey creightonfag, how does it feel knowing that you can never write the American version of Storm of Steel since it would just be a testament to DA JOOS?

Attached: prepared.png (592x678, 406K)

How retarded are you? It says that conservative forces were to blame for everything going wrong and that the Nazis were basically biological waste.

Who’s creighton? And only Jews say Da Joos.

Yes indeed, Jews are sand niggers.

Exactly, biological waste because just like WW1 they’d be sent to the slaughter of the front lines.

Attached: Kadinlarda-40-yas-sendromu-nedenleri.jpg (1200x800, 159K)

Attached: USNS_Harvey_Milk_T-AO-206.jpg (1280x924, 407K)

Wow, this thread went to shit quickly.

Did anyone of you read one of his works beyond Auf den Marmorklippen? Or are you just interested in a single period of an author who knew how to genre hop like little others?

Attached: 51014[1].jpg (800x1135, 163K)

Judging by the comments I doubt many would ever read that.

Yeah, it's not like the anglophone audience is too big anyway. Most of the German prose is lost in translation as well, I'd figure.

Attached: junger[1].jpg (924x881, 329K)

Attached: 2-126-990x1250.jpg (990x1250, 236K)