/lit/ - Literature

>>18194030
Based, fuck Nazis. Did more damage to our white brothers than anyone else ever could, despite what pathetic larpers will say

>>18194030
A little too much mescaline there, Junger.
>>18194083
>t. cynical larper

>>18194030
sir this is a wendys

>Friday, the thirteenth of November. The day brings the first snow of the year. Strolled with Carl Schmitt through the Grunewald Forest in the morning.
I wish I could stroll through the woods with Carl Schmitt and share some excellent conversation.

>>18194030
There's no denying that the good guys lost WWII and we're living in a hell crafted by jewish neurosis.

>>18194366
kys lad

>>18194366
>>18194111
Why Jünger threads always go to shit.

>18194366
Kill yourself.

>>18194381
Krauts can't forgive him that he became a milquetoast liberal and a pacifist after WW2 and didn't drop muh based takes on mass immigration of Muslims

>>18194422
>he became a milquetoast liberal and a pacifist after WW2
He bashed democracy and liberalism until the very end, you retard. Read Eumeswil, The Glass Bees, literally any of his post-WW2 writings.

>>18194422
>he became a milquetoast liberal and a pacifist after WW2
Except he didn't.

>>18194444
Cope.
>>18194446
He did. In fact, that anon is wrong and he became viciously liberal DURING WW2. Read "The Peace". Reads like Allied propaganda.

>another subverted Junger thread

>>18194467
I invite you to critique what part of The Peace you disagree with. Go ahead, quote something and tell us, since you've surely read it and took notes, right? "It's liberal!" isn't going to cut it.

>>18194467
Americans shouldn't have books.

>>18194469
Jünger will never stop making "neo-fascists" seethe and this is a great thing.

>>18194375
This consumeristic, materialistic commoditization of life is not of European blood.

Junger is far too sophisticated for Fascists.

>>18194479
I didn't care to remember any of it since it was trash, but I vaguely recall him thinking that Germany being destroyed for the sake of "world peace" (whatever that means) sounds pretty good. Which is even fucking weirder when you consider that he started writing that book while Germany was winning.
>>18194480
I agree.

>>18194492
But how is larping as a glowie going to change that?

>this thread
Junger what the fuck are you talking about

>>18194483
>"zomg based liberal junger owning the fascies!!! it was so cool when he did a 180 degree turn from literal fascist to based anti-fascist liberal who's high on mescaline all the time! like... speechless bro!"

>>18194506
Unironically, you are a worthless thinker and should focus on whatever minimum wage job you work at. Maybe you'll be manager one day!

>>18194506
>Germany being destroyed for the sake of "world peace"
He definitely didn't say that.

>>18194506
Jünger talks about writing The Peace throughout his diary quoted in OP. He wanted Europeans to stop killing each other and hoped that we would become more united through a renewal of Christianity and love for our brethren.
I guess that's "liberal" to you

>>18194381
All threads on /lit/ is either shitting on people or sucking dick human centipede style.
Both are weird fetish things but what could you expect from a board made of Sheldon coopers

>>18194507
pot and kettle

>>18194114
kill yourself

>>18194513
Seethe more lol.
>>18194516
IDK just remember it was some insane stupid shit, read it right after Storm of Steel and his interwar works where he professes his loyalty to "the Fuhrer". Naturally the turnabout left me genuinely abhorred. I had taken him for a completely different type of man.
>>18194522
That's nice, gentle language and all, but the most cynical and scummiest American liberalism presented itself in those exact terms, rhetorically. Not to mention that this whole attitude goes counter to every ideal he had supported during WW1 and the interwar period.

>>18194790
no you cant heckin hate fascism after it kills your son

>>18194790
I'm not seething, I'm just embarassed for you. You write like a stoned zoomer.

>>18194083
this
i fucking hate germany so much, all through the history nothing but problems
even today they are the ones to blame for the flood of migrants

>>18194806
Maybe he should've told his heckin son not to heckin try to agitate against the totalitarian government? Just a thought. I understand why he disliked the Nazis. I don't blame him for disliking them. However, there is a difference between merely disliking the Nazis and writing something like The Peace.
>>18194811
Okay retard, thanks for chiming in. Have a good one.
>>18194835
>bro you don't understand the Nazis are the ones to blame for neoliberal multiculturalism and mass immigration
The hoops you people jump through in order to stick to this cope, jesus.

>>18194030
>if you kill your enemies, they win
Is it even a quote from Junger? It is a terminally retarded line of thinking. Seen much Tasmanian influence since Anglo removed them to the last man? Are the Chinese under the spell of the "images" of the ghosts of the Dzungar?

>>18194874
The Nazis chimping out ruined Europe and white unity for the rest of history and set the Jews up perfectly. Cope

>>18194965
The Anglo elite were fucking up white unity for 200 years before Hitler who was trying to fix the issues. Hitler made some mistakes though.
German colonialism of Middle East would have worked out better than Anglo.

>>18194790
>That's nice, gentle language and all, but the most cynical and scummiest American liberalism presented itself in those exact terms, rhetorically. Not to mention that this whole attitude goes counter to every ideal he had supported during WW1 and the interwar period.
Wow it's almost like his views evolved as he encountered new experiences and that a 40 year old should have a more nuanced understanding of the world than a 20 year old.

>ITT: one retard thinks Ernst Junger was a liberal because he was too elitist for the nazis

>>18194965
>"Bro you don't get it, because like... the Nazis ACTUALLY fought for nationalism, that made it super taboo, so the guys who weren't nationalist in the first place continued not being nationalist after they won the war too!"
Brilliant line of thinking.
>>18195002
If you consider the war maniac to nazbol gang to liberal democrat pipeline to be an "evolution", then yeah.

>>18195078
>"source: my ass dude trust me"

>>18195090
Who are you talking about, because nothing Ernst Junger wrote was ever liberal.

>Jünger making fatshits seethe again
Always a beautiful sight.

Carl Schmitt, in reference to Bauer, said something similar, and from an anti-Jewish perspective. A good reminder to think about things more carefully.
From a letter to Jünger:

"What you say about the relationship between the Old and New Testaments is obviously correct and is the key to what is happening to us today. At the end of one of Bruno Bauer's anti-Jewish writings from 1853, "Das Judenthum in der Fremde" (Judaism in a Foreign Land) literally says: "But God also created the Jews, and if we kill them all, we will take their place."

>>18195107
He just posted here calling Ernst junger a liberal lmao >>18195107

>>18195112
Read The Peace.

>>18195148
You first.

>>18195137
Because he is, lol. Just because he didn't dye his hair blue and screech about patriarchy you think he wasn't a liberal? Postwar Junger is as liberal as a self-respecting man can be.

>>18195148
Please cite a single passage from The Peace where Junger extols liberal democracy, human rights, universal equality, etc.

>>18195158
See >>18195166

>>18194790
Kek its obvious you know very little about Jünger and what he did during the interwar years.

>>18195166
I already asked him to here >>18194479
He doesn't have a single quotation, he hasn't even read it. Ignore him.

>>18195090
>fought for nationalism, that made it super taboo, so the guys who weren't nationalist
Its funny that you use the same definition of nationalism as a blue haired libshit would.

This thread is a perfect demonstration of /pol/ brainrot. Some 19 year old faggot with delusions of granduer and hero fantasies, who has never even thrown a punch, feels confident enough to criticise Junger for an essay he skimread months ago.

>idk man, he didn't want people to die sounds pretty small chungus to me lol

>Ernst junger was librul!
>How?
>He wrote The Peace!
>What part is liberal?
>...

>>18195240
I don't even mind, let him keep my thread bumped. The more visibility for Jünger, the better. The true payoff of these threads is the people that end up reading him that wouldn't otherwise.

>>18195207
It's just a really strange thing to claim. He was a prolific writer and literally nowhere did he ever support liberalism. His post-war attitude could more easily be described as a jaded disappointment over the fact that the Nazis had squandered the pivotal moment of modern Western Civilization.

>>18195133
It is an old way of thinking related to Cadmean victory. Essentially that at the end of a destructive war the nation, or fief, will have to confront mythological and elemental forces. This is autochthonous law, the idea that the blood is formed of the earth, whether from the creation of the gods or of their own blood from which we are born.

One may think of something like Anabasis, but in this case a whole nation in a salient position and surrounded by forces of the dead.

The Jewish state may even be the first turn against this law. Rather than springing up from the earth after a defeat they destroy a foreign land.

It is possible that a nation ends in wealth and fate, much as the Greeks saw the wealth of life only coming to fruition in death. The Zoroastrians have this tied to a theological law, its religious inition tied to a hereditary line. This perhaps risks an untimely death of its people, but may also ensure that the religion is not weakened by population explosion. Its strength is tied to the people alone, the autochthonous as a theological law.

Something similar is in the Greek view of the world. If the underworld is to the West this not only warns of greater risks in war but also the impossibility of settling such a region.

>>18195155
You firster.
>>18195166
Pic related is literally the first passage in the pamphlet lol. Can you take a guess, anon, what this "hatred" being conquered by love is? What could that stand for, I wonder? If you can't - don't worry - on the next page, literally the second paragraph of the book rather plainly explains that the coming task of the Allies (here the grand representatives of "humanity") consists in creating "new structures that tower above and unite" Germany. In case you think that this is referring solely to foreign political domination, the paragraph afterwards immediately clarifies that it also refers to a successful spiritual assimilation of Germany. This is described as a "salvation". In the last paragraph of the second page we see some more of the old and tired platitudes about "mankind's common fund of good" and other such gobbledygook. I won't bother to give any further examples since the first two pages already amply demonstrate my point. The fact that the introduction is a Spinoza quote is also very funny for those familiar with Spinoza's thought.
>>18195173
During the 20s he was ultra-right and specifically referred to Hitler as "the Fuhrer". After the Nazis came to power, I believe he gradually disengaged from politics. My point still stands.
>>18195207
Cope. But here you go. Attaching pic related with a short explanation for that other guy.
>>18195230
Yes of course, my bad, nationalism is when you are a liberal democrat, undermine your nation with consumerism, free trade and immigration, then sing the anthem and wave the star spangled banner.
>>18195240
IDK bro maybe you just suck his dick for no reason, considered that? In Storm of Steel he describes a scene where he almost committed a war crime by murdering a surrendering Frenchman, but for reasons that he himself doesn't understand, chose not to. It's just pretty embarrassing to see someone like that suddenly discover his humanitarian side, you know? If he was a humanitarian from the start it would have been a different deal, but that's not at all the persona he was putting on for the 1910s and 1920s.
>>18195245
Here, I am throwing you a bone. IDK if you guys are brazen enough to try and bluff your way out of this or something, but if you're that determined, I can post some pretty funny quotes.
>>18195251
IDK why you think this is an own of some kind. I also recommend Junger's works to people all the time. It's just a fact that he turns his back on all of his previous beliefs and becomes a liberal democrat in the late 30s.

Jünger talking about Hitler (he uses a nickname for him, and for Carl Schmitt) in this book.
>Then we talked about Kniébolo. Many people, even his opponents, concede a certain diabolical greatness to him. This could only be elemental, infernal, without any personal stature or dignity, such as one observes in a Byron or Napoleon. Carlo Schmid said on this topic that Germans lack an instinct for physiognomy. Anyone who looks like that, so that neither painter nor photographer can create a face for him—anyone who treats his mother tongue with such indifference—anyone who collects such a swarm of losers around him… but still, the enigmas here are unfathomable.

Is storm of steel like "Mine were of trouble" where he mostly describes how he went from one place to another?

>>18195329
I don't want to read your teenage interpretation of this Spinoza quote, I want to read Jungers interpretation. Post me a single passage where he thinks that the Allied imposition of liberal democracy is an ideal outcome, or that Weimar liberal democracy should have triumphed in the first place. Nobody cares about your podunk interpretations, post primary textual sources supporting your claim or fuck off.
>I can post some pretty funny quotes.
Then do it. Don't sit here saying "I HAVE THE QUOTES I SWEAR!" Post any citations you have where Junger is voicing support for liberal democracy

>>18195301
More simply, one may look to the precarious balance between war and peace in the Greek states. A strong martial order heightens peace as well as war. And it is this tentative balance between friend and enemy which is necessary to uphold if the invisible borders are to endure in their reign. Rather than opposite pillars equalising forces this should be seen as the great space between the monument of state building. They strengthen one another where they point to higher dominion and movement. And much like the monument smaller in size, but no less significant to the laws, the smaller state can retain its power - an essential part of greater order.

To destroy even the smaller state threatens the opposite of Cadmean victory, that a monstrous state will grow in its place. One may see the entirety of modern warfare from this perspective, but also the peace conditions. We exist at the boundaries, outside of the nomos of the state and within the No Man's Land which once existed as a strengthening territory between nations. This permanent mobilisation and neutralisation weakens the homeland, which exists of a dead nomos.

>18195329
>a Spinoza quote echoing the words of Jesus Christ
That's all you've got? Embarrassing. And you typed a wall of text without a single quotation in it. Didn't read.
Here's Jünger's mentions of liberalism by name in Eumeswil (1977).
>Typical liberals...An outstanding personality makes them squirm. (11)
>Liberalism is to freedom as anarchism is to anarchy. (124)

>>18194083
>Based, fuck Nazis. Did more damage to our white brothers than anyone else ever could, despite what pathetic larpers will say

>>18195445
The main character does humbly call himself a 'liberal airhead' in the Glass Bees, to be fair

Anyone with questions about "The Peace" should also read Goethe's Kriegsglück, "Fortunes of War".

Commentary on "The Peace" and accusations of liberalism here
>>/lit/thread/S17294026#p17297136

>>18194030
Cuckservative loser. If he were around today he'd be writing for National Review.

So far the whole thread has ignored the fact that he is completely, factually correct. There is more Jewishness than ever before, more mental illness, and more poverty. You might not like it, but this is beyond dispute. How ironic.

>>18195487
>>18195428
I also forgot to mention that Jünger also mentions this strengthened peace early on, I think in Copse 125. And Tocqueville discusses this greater peace and short-term warfare due to the strength of aristocracies.

It is not peace that we should be against, but a specific type of peace. Schmitt's great quote on the struggle against death is also good to remember here, as liberalism is not necessarily wrong in its search for peace but how it goes about this search.

Also interesting is that the liberals were originally the ones who spoke of war as an individual pursuit, of strengthening mind and character. The fascists here would do well to remember this, and that Jünger's more subtle approach speaks to higher laws rather than being a simple liberal reactionary, or exile.

One may also think of this in terms of character, the aesthetics of character are less significant than the actual. 'It is the quiet ones you have to look out for.' This proves true in warfare as well. Is America not the state equivalent of an aesthetics of warfare, but with no metaphysical understanding of its purpose or means to achieve victory?

To boast of war is no sign of strength. As most of us probably realise, the displays of confidence often rise from a lack.

>>18195520
The National Review was founded in the 50s and Junger lived into the 90s anon

>>18195422
>I don't want to read your teenage interpretation of this Spinoza quote, I want to read Jungers interpretation.
You're in luck! Here it is, anon! I already gave you plenty to work with in my previous post other than the Spinoza quote, but here you go. After this secret love of conqueror and conquered, he goes on to extol the virtues of the various combatants and in reference to these virtues he says that a "Under a just peace, then we must unite what has flowed from separate but pure sources." So we have united humanity conquering hatred through love, the secret love that will develop by the politically/spiritually assimilated conquered and their conqueror, as well as the need for a just peace to "unite" the conqueror and the conquered. I am not sure how much more obvious I can make this for you. This refers to the new liberal democratic world order and specifically reminds one of the EU and the current Germany. I can't see why or how you guys are in such serious denial. Go read the book yourself. You have read it before, right? You questioned my view of it so you must have read it. Go and read it again. See if I am wrong.
>Then do it. Don't sit here saying "I HAVE THE QUOTES I SWEAR!" Post any citations you have where Junger is voicing support for liberal democracy
I have already given you a handful, you people are just annoying to deal with because you always gang up together and try to gaslight others about what Junger's views actually are (without ever clarifying what he really believed in the postwar period). I have tried in good nature to explain this multiple times before in some of the previous Junger threads whenever you guys misrepresent him or his time, but every time it's just hair splitting and denial and asking for quotes. They're easy to get. It's just unrewarding and exhausting to do so every time you lie.
>>18195445
Spinoza was the farthest thing from a Christian. I have quoted The Peace in my post, so I am glad to know that you "didn't read" it. It's why I don't want to bother with you obnoxious faggots in the first place. "Junger this, junger that!" You don't even know the real Junger, you just jack off this weird antifascist but still somehow based, nonexistent version of Junger in your heads. I like Junger. I can also see his liberal turn. It's not that hard if you're not delusional. Have fun coping, I guess?
>>18195487
Hey look that's me. Now I feel kind of bad, I should've tried to be nicer in this current thread, since the previous one looks a lot more fun. It is really grating to continually see all the denial about his liberalism, though.

>>18195090
Do you consider the German aristos who tried to assassinate Hitler because he was fucking everything up to be "liberal democrats"? Because Jünger supported them. Hitler was retarded and started wars he had no chance of winning, a more moderate nationalist could've ended Weimar democracy and made Germany strong again without fighting the whole world.

>18195594
>another wall of text without any passages from Jünger
Didn't read
>pic of a single quote without any mention of liberalism or democracy starting mid-sentence without any context
Lmfao dude I honestly feel bad for you. So much effort and you clearly are passionate, but so very embarrassing for you

>>18195594
>cites a sentence fragment then proceeds to write 2 paragraph interpretation
No, I don't want your juvenile interpretations of out of context half-sentences. Cite a passage where he is clearly praising the characteristics of liberal democracy and expressing his desire for it. You have not done this and until you do the only engagement you're going to get are rightful request for supporting citations. I cannot reiterate enough how much I do not care about your personal explanation of what The Peace meant, it has 0 bearing on your claim.

>>18195621
>Do you consider the German aristos who tried to assassinate Hitler because he was fucking everything up to be "liberal democrats"?
What did they plan to replace Hitler with? The German Empire? Just call back Kaiser Willy home and have him crowned again at the end of the war? No? Then what were they planning to replace Hitler with? Is it a liberal democratic republic?
>Hitler was retarded and started wars he had no chance of winning, a more moderate nationalist could've ended Weimar democracy and made Germany strong again without fighting the whole world.
We could debate this, but this type of conversation belongs on /his/. Suffice it say that Hitler had no intention of ever fighting the Western allies.
>>18195641
>Didn't read
Based retard, you obviously don't realise this since you didn't read my post, but thanks for making my point.
>>pic of a single quote without any mention of liberalism or democracy starting mid-sentence without any context
Yeah, well, if you read the post maybe you'd see the context. That's okay though. You're doiing something more important, namely discrediting those who argue against my position.
>>18195653
>No, I don't want your juvenile interpretations of out of context half-sentences.
The context is right there you delusional clown. You have the book, right? You forced me to open my copy. Go do the same with yours. All the context you need.
>Cite a passage where he is clearly praising the characteristics of liberal democracy and expressing his desire for it.
Yeah, maybe go check if he's written any commentaries on John Locke and Adam Smith too, while I am at it? I can give you all the quotes you want, but I can't force you to use your eyes and your brain, which are obviously completely overwhelmed by your fanboyism.
>I cannot reiterate enough how much I do not care about your personal explanation of what The Peace meant, it has 0 bearing on your claim.
It's okay anon. Just say that you ignore the fact that The Peace exists. You don't have to do all these mental contortions - obviously, in order to make a point, I would have to explain it. It's a better look for you to just be delusional, rather than delusional and unfair at the same time, you know?

>>18195803
Anyone who posts this image is a retard.

>>18195803
>>18195831
It embarrasses me on behalf of Junger

>>18195741
>if you read my word soup contextualization of the tiny passage I posted (instead of letting the author contextualize his own work)...
Anon...

>>18195831
>>18195844
Now elaborate fags, I didn't make the image and I certainly don't care if Junger would've agreed with it or not. Its stating something obvious that needs to be disapproved, rather than proven.

>>18195831
>>18195844
>>18195854
Also, this could even be contextualized in the context of Junger, the active intellectual man, something of a Odysseus, not merely a theoretical rat or Gehirnmensch, basically what Sartre was. Which can be seen on them as well. Let's also remember the fact that the ugly Socrates himself conceded to Zopyrus who called him all sorts of vices in front of his fellow Athenians by his face alone, and Socrates agreed with him pointing out that it was only reason keeping all these things in check in him.

>>18195850
GO READ THE BOOK RETARD. THAT'S BEEN MY POINT ALL ALONG.
You guys are the ones who ask for quotes. That's why I give them to you, alongside the context from the text. I would much rather people go read the Peace and see the truth for themselves.
>>18195803
>>18195854
Don't give it much thought, I actually disagree with "physiognomy", but the pic is based imo.

> If you kill your enemies, they win
- Ernst “Justin Trudeau” Jünger

>>18195905
The quotes you post are tiny, not self contained, vague, and do not in any way obviously advance your interpretation. If this is the best you have in regards to junger being a liberal, you might see why my reading your posts only makes me question your position even more.

>>18195487
Great thread.

>>18195923
Whatever man. Here's something self-contained for you.
>Exhibit D: The real martyrs of the war were the German cosmpolitans who heard the call of the future and didn't want to fight for their nation, but were forced to, anyway.
>vague
The fault for that is Junger, not me. Obviously he felt like waxing poetical about the coming universal brotherhood, which seems to offer all the license people like you need to be deliberately obtuse. The message is obvious.

>>18196083
And still that passage has nothing to do with liberalism in any way, shape, or form. It is on its face acutely anti-war, but anti-war is not a synonym for liberal. If Junger believed that the immediate destiny of humanity, or at least Europe, was to be joined together in a single nation state, which is my rough understanding of the work and is even advanced through the passage you posted, what says anything about that state being a liberal one?

>>18196131
>If Junger believed that the immediate destiny of humanity, or at least Europe, was to be joined together in a single nation state, which is my rough understanding of the work and is even advanced through the passage you posted, what says anything about that state being a liberal one?
You are joking, right? Who would be unifying this single European nation state and on what terms? When the Nazis were winning the war, a lot of people thought that they would create a united, fascist Europe. Then they started losing the war. The Allies - the liberal democratic states of the world - started winning the war and any state they defeated would be remade in the image of the victors. We already got a taste of this with the First World War. The Second World War was even more radical and, as expected, concluded in the establishment of liberal democratic regimes all across the West, including Italy where the king collaborated with the Allies but they permitted his removal anyway.

>>18196083
Even your "interpretation" of the pic you posted is completely off. You are a legit schizo or else just very stupid.
Jünger was fed up with war, especially WW2 which he saw, rightly, as a carnival of senseless mechanical killing, murder, and destruction. That's not "liberal." That's literally conservative, no war has ever advanced conservatism, war destroys good things and creates new, bad things.

>>18196083
You already have answers in this thread and the other one.
It is partly related to heroic myth, a reminder that the surviving Europe may have defeated something stronger than itself. Schmitt wrote something similar concerning the history of the victors. What is always strongest is law, and only theology and myth can ever approach this.

There is nothing liberal about recognising destruction. Even Homer discussed the weakness of men in his time and lives that were wasted. The aesthetic heroism of Nietzsche, Maistre, and reactionaries in general is a completely false image of heroism, much closer to liberalism than anything Jünger wrote.

>>18196201
Further, if liberalism is fundamentally profanation of law and spirit then Jünger's attempt is in complete opposition to this. He sees peace and the new law of Europe completely from the standpoint of theology and myth - against the profanation of justice for the sacred.

>>18194366
There are no good guys in 20th century modernism, it's all just trash.

>>18196199
>Even your "interpretation" of the pic you posted is completely off. You are a legit schizo or else just very stupid.
>source: my ass

>Jünger was fed up with war, especially WW2 which he saw, rightly, as a carnival of senseless mechanical killing, murder, and destruction.
Is the fate of the world senseless to you? The matter of who and how governs the globe is "senseless"?
>That's not "liberal."
It wouldn't be if all he wanted was the war to end. Instead, he seems pretty excited about the potential of a blossoming "love between conqueror and conquered". The book is chock full of this type of liberal, humanist, internationalist rhetoric.
>That's literally conservative, no war has ever advanced conservatism
Not only is this besides the point, it is also wrong. For reference, check the wars against Napoleon.
>war destroys good things and creates new, bad things.
Now we get to the crux of the issue! Do you mean to tell me that you see a continuity between Junger the man who wrote Storm of Steel and his interwar texts and Junger the man who wrote The Peace? The younger Junger believed in the transformative and supremely meaningful nature of war. This type of anti-war humanism - even if you contend that it is not liberal, which it is - shares nothing with the spirit of that Ernst Junger who said "what doesn't kill me makes me stronger and what kills me makes me incredibly strong".
>>18196201
Can you rephrase your point in a way that I can make sense of it? I can find clear meaning only in your last sentence, which is so ridiculously outrageous I am not even sure how to address it.

>>18196304
>The younger Junger believed in the transformative and supremely meaningful nature of war.
>source: Wikipedia
Jünger called WW2 a war of technicians, devoid of chivalry and honor, of anything that could have made war a heroic endeavor in the past. You wouldn't know that, of course, since you haven't read him.
>Can you rephrase your point in a way that I can make sense of it?
Not that guy, but what he said is perfectly comprehensible. You're just stupid.

>>18194835
>they are the ones to blame for the flood of migrants
You do realise that the 2015 migrant crisis was a drop in the bucket compared to legal immigration, right dumb dumb? The UK's main problem is Pakis and wogs, both of which came here by the millions legally without having to claim refugee status.

It's the Jews, you fucking idiots, not the Germans.

>>18196304
Again, the aesthetics of war and focus on the character of the strong man comes from liberalism
Neither Schmitt nor Jünger are concerned with this (only as a means). The same with ancient understandings of war: Diomedes said after fighting the gods, "I have no desire to fight with them." Such humility is not possible today, but it is the anonymous or huntsman character found in the greatest warriors. Even the greatest generals fight on both sides of the battlefields.

Achilles is an exception, his wrath is entirely of the law and the fall of an era, his honour in violence is part of the same movement. It is not a thing itself.

In other words, one cannot be a strong warrior within a world situation which has proscribed such figures. This is partly what Jünger is lamented in the quote you posted. People experienced the most brutal deaths with neither history nor law at their side. This is not the honour of the warrior spirit, but this does not mean that there is a spiritual strength of its own in these deaths.
It is something we may not have found but must look towards.

>18196377
>It's the Jews
Go back to /pol/, retard

>>18196387
>Doesn't engage with ideas
>Just responds with some kneejerk catchphrase
The only reason that you read books is so that you can feel like you're "a reader" - really, sinking into a couch and watching TV for 8 hours a day would be more your speed.

From Jünger's diary, 23 December 1944
>The Jew is eternal—this means he has an answer for every century. I am beginning to change my view that the twentieth century has been so unfavorable toward him. I believe the second half will bring surprises in this connection. It is precisely this terrible victimization that suggests this.
Years after writing the quote in OP, he comes back to this point again, and is, again, completely correct.

>>18196201
>The aesthetic heroism of Nietzsche
Beside the argument people are having, but you reminded me of the Nietzsche quote about opponents
>Such a man shakes off with a single shrug many vermin that eat deep into others; here alone genuine 'love of one's enemies' is possible—supposing it to be possible at all on earth. How much reverence has a noble man for his enemies!—and such reverence is a bridge to love
I wonder if it would be called "liberal, humanist, internationalist rhetoric" by that anon

>>18196407
I couldn't care less about engaging with your "ideas." They were already engaged with by the Soviet Union, Britain, and America in the war, and virtually the entire world sees their legacy as a complete failure and utterly evil.
Bothering with making arguments against the Nazis is like digging up a corpse and trying to kill it again.

>>18196360
>Jünger called WW2 a war of technicians, devoid of chivalry and honor, of anything that could have made war a heroic endeavor in the past. You wouldn't know that, of course, since you haven't read him.
I will limit myself simply to remarking that in Storm of Steel, according to Junger, the attritional battles of material in 1916 were the absolute peak of this type of combat - the war of technics and elemental forces. Yet, he found it to be supremely meaningful, because it challenged man to become master of himself and of the elements at once. This war of technics was even more heroic precisely because it was so dirty and deadly. It is also what inspired Junger's later obsession with technology. This view is obviously incompatible with what you are saying, so in either case, we are dealing with two separate men here, not with a single Ernst Junger who retains consistent beliefs throughout the world wars.
>Not that guy, but what he said is perfectly comprehensible. You're just stupid.
I can feel your seething from here lol. I rather reasonably and politely asked him to rephrase. If you want to attack my response to him, at least wait until I can make such a response.
>>18196378
I think I understand your point now, but I have to radically object. Nothing about liberalism is warlike, nor does it have room for strength of character. It is the ideology of equality, liberty and comfort. It is the ideology of the merchant who likes to grow the profits of his business, it is not the ideology of a warlike and ambitious strong man. Liberalism is concerned with matter, productivity and progress/growth. It hates danger, it standardises men and always refers to quantity rather than quality, including quality of character. Junger makes some apt observations along these lines in Storm of Steel, regarding the "spirit of the era" and the battles of materiel.
Furthermore, in every era, men discovered the value of warfare for themselves. The Spanish adventurers that, isolated and anarchic, toppled entire empires. The German settlers during the Ostsiedlung. The Greek hoplites, who, if left along for too long, rioted and demanded their government send them to war. A lot of people knew this side of war. Junger did too. "What doesn't kill me makes me stronger and what kills me makes me incredible strong." It seems he turned his back on his life in the 30s, however. However much you invert the terms, The Peace would be a book agreeable only to the liberal democratic Western powers.

>>18194874
>The hoops you people jump through in order to stick to this cope, jesus.
it's literally true tho
jews are untouchable nowadays because of much holocaust, they can do whatever they want thanks to germans

>>18196413
>I wonder if it would be called "liberal, humanist, internationalist rhetoric" by that anon
The quote continues: "For he desires his enemy for himself, as his mark of distinction; he can endure no other enemy than one in whom there is nothing to despise and very much to honor!"
In other words, the man Nietzsche is talking about values enmity as something worth having in itself and finds enmity pleasant to the extent that his enemy is a great man - in other words, not the last man, whom Nietzsche described as pale, cowardly creature that shies from conflict and passion, taking refuge in humanism, liberalism, democracy and socialism. Coincidentally, those are the ideologies of the Allied powers that Junger is addressing. It is dishonest that you people accuse me of being selective with my quoting when I am not, yet do the same thing yourselves.

>>18196413
Yes, a good quote. It is a completely different type of man who can kill while also seeing the human in his enemy - and still higher one who sees in his mortal opponent a brother. Again, Diomedes and Glaucon is one of the greatest images of the Iliad.
This was the highest warfare but also the greatest state of peace.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=XruYsAmKLyU
The modern brotherhood is quite different, although when hearing stories like this I don't think it should be interpreted as weakness. Platonov has a short story similar to this.

Regarding Nietzsche, he can be a bad example to use since he can be misinterpreted. But his wavering between two sides can also illustrate the problems and the difficulty in realising such ideas. Even the greatest thinkers make mistakes, often bad ones.
Maistre too was right in many areas, but in regards to the great man deciding victories he couldn't have been more wrong. Suggesting the great vision of a liberal like Tocqueville....

Where should I start with Junger

>>18196457
The men who died at Stalingrad and never saw their wives, children, and hometowns again would like a word with you about the "value of warfare" and how wonderful it felt to be "challenged to become masters of themselves."
Jünger witnessed the Eastern Front. Read his diary, the Caucasus part. There's no going back to the attitude he had in Storm of Steel after that.

>>18196531
With Storm of Steel.
You could then continue chronologically and go through his interwar writings. Or, read Eumeswil if you want to see his next most important work, and the statement of his philosophy.

>>18196532
During the first world war, he also saw a whole bunch of his subordinates get blown up by an artillery strike, then had the survivors collect the bits and pieces for identification. The "horror of war" didn't seem to get him so shaken then. But I suppose we've finally arrived somewhere - we've established that the 40s Junger is not the same Junger.

>>18196426
>This fucked up clown world sees the Nazis' legacy as a complete failure after their economic miracle was destroyed by an unnecessary war
Thanks for reinforcing my belief in him, Anon.

>>18196457
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the existing of better men than himself.”

Guess who.

>>18194937
My sentiment exactly. The OP quote carries an abysmally retarded message.

>>18196574
Who? When is also a good question. Liberal conservatism often make statements like this too, while simultaneously supporting policies that undermine and destroy the sense of telos and community within the people they call upon for military service. In the correct environment, this is an agreeable statement. In the wrong environment, it is a bit too "warlike" for me.

>>18196571
They did fail. That's not up for debate. Their ideas are no more relevant than the philosophy of extinct Indian tribes or Neanderthals. It's gone and it's never coming back.

>>18194114
Just because you stopped at Husserl doesn't mean the world did, now get my fries.

>>18196568
People grow up, and the world changes. This may be a phenomenon that you've heard of. I'm not sure what your point is in pointing this out repeatedly.

>>18196457
This is wrong. Just look at how prevalent war is in the modern era. The response to war may be different, and how it is expressed culturally, but this does not lessen the reality that we have been at war almost constantly for 700 years.
The 'religious wars' may be comsidered.in much the same way that WWI was an end to nationalism: the states were partly fighting for a single unite religious order, but hidden beneath this was the forming of an order equal to the revelations of a new continent and providential events that Christianity, or at least its theology, had no way of dealing with.

Jünger says something similar in regards to the Thirty Years War, it was much more destructive than the World Wars.

Tocqueville remains one of the best commentators here since he discusses the dualistic nature of democratic man. It is the image of the farmboy who wants to preserve his innocence, never knowing death and especially not killing - but also one who will go raiding without his gun, and kill seven men with a shovel, all because he didn't get a good supper.
The antiwar character of the modern world is partly a shift, but also a resentment that its means are not destructive enough. Remember that the English homefront wanted to starve the whole of German women and children.
The treaty was quite lenient and pacifist by comparison. Geopolitics is the continuation of war by other means.

why does this anon keep trying to paint Junger as a liberal through misinterpreting one single work of his? what does he gain from it?

>>18196568
>we've established that the 40s Junger is not the same Junger.
You have. We haven't.
And no one who really understands Jünger would think this way.

>>18196677

>>18196608
>>18196574
Mill

>>18196632
Presumably because at the start of this conversation, people refused to acknowledged that he changed by the postwar period.
>>18196673
>This is wrong. Just look at how prevalent war is in the modern era. The response to war may be different, and how it is expressed culturally, but this does not lessen the reality that we have been at war almost constantly for 700 years.
That depends on how you define "modern era". Industrial wars quickly became very costly to fight, so there was a huge and unprecedented period of peace preceding the first world war, then another extremely long period of continuous peace after world war 2. The opportunity that Western people of that period have had to live in a more or less continuous period of peace without any existential warfare is very rare.
>>18196677
Stop coping. It is not misinterpretation. I am following chronology. I like early Junger.
>>18196691
You just did, though?
>"There's no going back to the attitude he had in Storm of Steel after that."
So, yes. He changed.

>>18196677
The guy responds to a single sentence with a wall of text reaching the character limit. He's arguing with himself, he is clearly bothered by Jünger's writings from Marble Cliffs and on, probably because it is incongruous with the ideology he wants to believe in. The fact that he is so obsessed with this point shows that he probably has some humanity left; he is actually bothered by the murder and destruction just as Jünger was, and probably has a Christian background that can relate to the points he makes in The Peace, but he wants to dismiss those feelings as symptoms of "liberalism" and therefore not worth taking seriously

>>18196744
John Stuart Mill? Honestly, I was expecting an Englishman of the liberal tradition to be behind that quote. I had a strong suspicion about it, at least. Liberal "patriots" have to be my least favourite people ever, though.

>>18196753
Anon, I am not pro-war crimes if that's what you are thinking. Russia is one of my favourite countries, so obviously I don't feel particularly happy about the Second World War. However, I am serious about The Peace being a liberal work. It seems very obvious to me and the fact that people repeatedly deny it and continue to assert that there's continuity between the radical Junger and the "conservative" Junger is very grating. I didn't even plan to get into this conversation, but when a couple of other guys denied Junger's liberalism I felt I had to point it out for them.

>18196792
>is very grating
Yes, we can tell you're upset, anon.

>>18196792
How do you explain Glass Bees and Eumeswil?

>>18196792
I suggest you read more Jünger before claiming that his philosophy reaches its definitive conclusion in The Peace, written before his life and writing career was even at its midpoint. Even if you were to continue to believe that The Peace has "liberal" characteristics, there's no way you could read The Forest Passage, The Glass Bees, and Eumeswil (to say nothing of the myriad writings between those that hasn't been translated to English) and believe him to be a liberal. Eumeswil, the book of the "anarch," is even more antithetical to liberalism and herd values than Storm of Steel is.
Jünger ultimately is an individualist. This is the continuity between Storm of Steel, The Forest Passage, and Eumeswil: the individual in war, the individual against the state, the individual against society. Ultimately, the individual as architect of his own values, and a non-participant in all collective identities, movements, and allegiances. This is where his philosophy connects with Nietzsche the most.

>>18194030
>>18194083
The Germans should have worked harder on maintaining their relationship with Britain and taken them up on the offer to help colonize africa instead to allying with Italy and trying to take all of Europe.

>>18196847
Same to you.
>>18196881
What do you want me to comment on? I see the Glass Bees as a decline from Junger's earlier opinion that man should conquer and master technology. It seems to me that by contrast, the Glass Bees revolves more around that same old placid conservative nostalgia. I have not read Eumsewil, but it does seem interesting, given that it was published in 1977. I have read some discussions of the concept of the Anarch before. I can't make detailed commentary on it, however. The attitude that the theme of the story is approached with would be the most decisive factor.
>>18196926
>is even more antithetical to liberalism and herd values than Storm of Steel is.
That is a very interesting point, if I had the background on that book it would be a lot easier to form a judgement of it. I think it boils down to the actual extent to which the Anarch truly lives freely and exercises his freedom or if it's a more pessimistic formulation where the Anarch can neither see nor institute a legitimate authority for himself.
At any case, I think it would be very difficult to argue that the second world war did not dull his radical edge. During the interwar period, he certainly lived like an Anarch. I do not feel that he lived a very Anarch-like life in the postwar period.
>>18196988
Britain was Hitler's first choice, it just didn't work.

>>18197015
It didn't work because Hitler was so focused on ancestral homeland rather than taking territory somewhere else. He could have easily grabbed those areas at a later date afte cementing the alliance with Britain, and even had a Neo-Germany in north. Could have been cool

>>18197051
*North Africa

>>18194381
THING I DON'T LIKE
I DON'T LIKE POOP
MAKE ME DIRTY
MOMMY DON'T LIKE ME WHEN I'M POOPY
THIS THREAD HAVE BAD WORD
ME NOT LIKE

THIS THREAD POOP
POOOOOOPY
POOOPY BAD THREAD
POOOOOOOOOOOOOP

>>18194483
HHAHAHAH CONTROVERSY
A GREAT OPPORTUNITY
I CAN USE MY FAVORITE WORD
THE MAGIC WORD

SEEEETHE

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
MAGIC WORD FROM HILARIOUS INTERNET SUBCULTURE STIRS MY CHEMICALS
SAYING MAGIC WORD MAKE FEEL GOOD
FEEL GOOD ALL THAT MATTER
FEEL GOOD OBJECTIVE VICTORY
I WIN

I SAY MAGIC WORD I WIN

I LOVE FINDING THESE OPPORTUNITIES TO INJECT A LITTLE VICTORY INTO MY LIFE

>>18197339
>>18197349
are you okay?

>>18197440
OH NO SOME ONE IS TRYING TO CRITICIZE BEHAVIOR THAT I FREQUENTLY ENACT

NO NO
NOOOOOO
I'M NOT THE CRAZY ONE HERE
I COPIED MY BEHAVIOR FROM A NORMAL(TM) SOURCE
THIS BEHAVIOR IS GUARANTEED TO ATTRACT POSITIVE SOCIAL FEEDBACK FROM THE VERY MOST COOL PEOPLE

YOU MUST BE FROM OUTSIDE SOCIETY
THERE MUST BE SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU
IF YOU WERE COOL YOU WOULD LOVE ME AND EVERYTHING I SAY AND DO

I NEED TO EXPRESS ALL OF THIS SELF DOUBT BUT PROJECT IT ONTO YOU IN A MASKED WAY
LUCKILY I COPIED A RESPONSE FROM THE SAME SOURCE AS ALL MY OTHER PROGRAMMED BEHAVIOR

ARE YOU OKAY?

HAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>>18194030
He is right the fathers of Zionism said that antisemites are their biggest allies. They reinforced their rhetoric by persecuting them.
In WW2 nazis and Zionists actually collaborated. Nazis wanted jews out of Europe and Zionists also wanted jews out of Europe and into to middle east. It was a win win situation for both groups. But the average jew suffered. And even that average secular jew became more consciously identitarian and moved more towards Zionism due to antisemitism.

What a petty shitshow this whole business was/is.

>>18197505
you are literally fucking retarded
most of the jewish population is not in israel

>>18196926
How is his individualism different from liberal individualism?

>>18197537
so what?
nazis wanted them out of europe, not in israel

>>18197537
WW2 gave Zionists their "home". And majority of Zionists live in middle east. The jews who live in west are secular. But after WW2 they all became skeptical of west. So now west treats them like pure beings because they suffered. They are living freely in secularized Europe because they don't want to live with fanatics back "home". But in their minds they still have the option of "home" if antisemites chimp out. So this unfortunately hints their support for "their home", yes even in the hearts of secular ones and a strong sense of religious identity.

Of course I am generalizing. And there are leftist jews who understand the religious fanaticism and hate the "home". But WW2 was an obvious shitshow.

>>18197505
>What a petty shitshow
Only if you ignore the fact that all that was taking place in the time when almost all of central and eastern europe where either starving or about to be starving and think that was all about mad nazis and zionists playing mad games to change the world map.

>>18197747
>>18197647
>>18197590
how can you be this retarded?
lit is such a cesspool of infant morons
you have absolutely no fucking idea about anything, your brains are schizophrenic collages of media/public school blurbs

the starvation in east and central europe was caused on purpose by jewish communist government

Reading here about Junger's descent into liberalism, it sounds a bit like the case of Wyndham Lewis, who I think wrote the first Angl* book on Hitler and hung out with Oswald Mosley but later (as I understand it) adopting a more liberal cosmopolitan outlook (inspiration for Marshall Mcluhan, the whole "Global Village" shit). Fascism is fundamentally opposed to liberal democracy but there's a lot of crossover between liberalism and fascism so it's not that odd to find examples such as this. Nietzsche was arguably the main influence on a lot of fascist-sympathizers and Nietzschean individualism is, I think, best suited for fascism, but it can easily find its place in the liberal tradition (protecting the individual/minority from the base masses is after all a cornerstone of liberal thought). I think freedom and democracy are fundamentally incompatible (picked that up from reading Thiel) and when push comes to shove I think most self-described liberals will opt for their oh so sacred freedoms over collective empowerment. Now I will leave this thread and never return cya faggots

>>18197339
>>18197349
based, dangerously so

>>18197558
Jünger's individualism recognizes no authority and disregards society (other people). It is, as he literally called it, anarchic. Anarchy and liberalism are incompatible

>>18194083
>>18194835
Cope, mutoid!

Bump

>>18194030
This guy was a traitor who sabotaged the war effort.
This man is no comparison to the likes of Otto Ernst Rehmer.

>>18198982
Fuck off glownigger. You claim to be for Germany but are continuing the role globohomo played in persecuting the last of the Germans.

>>18199004
I'm not following you here. It's no secret that Ernst Jünger sabotaged the war effort. He was a conservative who wanted the aristocrats back in their old roles, he wasn't a national socialist, in fact he hated the fact that some generals of WW2 had been corporals in WW1.
And how am I 'continuing the role globohomo played in persecuting the last of the Germans'?

>>18194114
Do you play Pharaoh (1999)?

>>18198982
>This guy was a traitor who sabotaged the war effort.
Being a traitor to Hitler was only the right thing to do
>This man is no comparison to the likes of Otto Ernst Rehmer.
Of course they're not alike, what the fuck is even your point?
>he wasn't a national socialist,
You're damn right he wasn't, faggot

>>18199064
>Being a traitor to Hitler was only the right thing to do
Shalom.
>what is your point?
That Otto Ernst Rehmer was an officer who stopped the most famous assassination attempt on Hitler while Ernst Jünger most likely contributed to the attempt in some way.
>damn right
Yes. I just wanted to point that out. It was known during the war time that he sabotaged the war effort but on the direct orders of Hitler nothing was done to him because of his service in WW1.

>>18199101
Hitler sabotaged the war effort by being retarded and a degenerate.

>>18199175
Hm weird then that Jünger thought that they could make peace with GB and the US and together fight against the USSR when these nations funded the USSR in the first place. Without their support the war would've been over in 1941.
So either Jünger didn't know about the support, in which case he clearly didn't do enough research and acted based on a gut feeling, or he did know and thought that they would all of the sudden do a 180, which is plain stupid.
Both of these aren't exactly signs of superior intellect either.

>>18199202
US contributed very little to the war. You're insanely stupid.

>>18199224
You're just out of your league here so have to call me 'insanely stupid'.
The US provided aid to the USSR jsut like the UK did. They provided $11.3 billion to the USSR (which today would be much more due to inflation). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
Then of course they got involved in North Africa which resulted in the planes stopping to supply the encircled Stalingrad because they were needed there. They eventually invaded Italy which was a major Axis power and of course lastly they sent their troops to Normandy putting further pressure on Germany from the west.
Let's not even speak about the bombing campaigns which destroyed German industry, roads and claimed the lives of millions of civilians.
So I suggest before embarrassing yourself like this again do a tiny bit of research beforehand.

>>18199264
>wikipedia

Which one of you wrote this?
https://nationalvanguard.org/2020/08/ernst-junger-traitor-and-moral-coward/

>>18199272
Why the fuck would they lie about the lend lease in a way that inflates the numbers when they have a very strong left wing bias and thus would rather deflate the number to make the USSR look better? Using this source actually only gives further credit to the fact that the US provided huge amounts of funds to the USSR.
And did you honestly not know about the lend lease before?

>>18199291
85% came after 1943.
Stalingrad ended in February 1943.

>>18199308
Let's go with that. Doesn't change the fact that my argument for Stalingrad was not the lend lease but the fact that when the planes where needed in NA due to the US (in 1942) they couldn't came to Stalingrad anymore and since the city was encircled it meant no supplies for the soldiers in there which lead to the surrender of the 6th army in the beginning of 1943.
And of course the assassination attempt was in 1944, I think most officers who had similar views to Jünger really started to plot in 1943/1944.

>>18199290
Horseshoe theory really is real.

>>18199340
What do supplies matter when your entire army is held up for a week by forty men in a silo?
Russians understood total mobilisation. Germans did not. The war was lost beforehand in spirit, material forces have nothing to do with it.

https://youtu.be/Il3FJMf4mSE

>>18199396
>russia insight
Not gonna waste my time watching a very likely very biased video.
The war was actually going very well in 1941 but the winter of that year was the coldest of the entire decade which held the German army up. The Summer of 1942 began to look pretty good again but once the winter caused problems too. The US entering the war with Japan didn't help either since that allowed Stalin to transport the troops from the far east of the USSR to the west. And even if you want to play the assistance of the US and UK down, it made a significant difference even as early as 1941:
"Lend-Lease tanks constituted 30 to 40 percent of heavy and medium tank strength before Moscow at the beginning of December 1941"

>>18199432
Not even just the decade but the century. My bad.

Germany lost WWII with the onset of idealism.
Or even pantheism.

>>18194483
I like Junger, but does he even offer a solution for modernity, apart from being a contrarian individualist, scoffing at every other system because it isn't aristocratic?
>>18199545
fuck you materialist

>>18194375
So fragile, smdh

This is a raid.

>>18194030
B-Bros was Junger an actual brainlet??
T-There is a deeper meaning to this, it's not just self-contradicting bullshit, r-r-right?

>>18199545
The war against pantheism is the last stand of implicit whiteness.

>>18199615
The war against pantheism is the last stand of implicit whiteness.

>>18195251
This isn't a good thing. These threads can't help in any way.

>>18194366
well considering the Nazi's all came to the US and built a crypto-fascist hell state allied with Israel, I agree.

Though not in the way you probably think.

>>18199849
No, you're the brainlet who mistakes extremism for profundity.

>>18199954
You either have an IQ < 80 or this is bait, in which case congrats, got me to reply.

>>18199960
Ok good and there I thought that if you took people with mental illnesses out of the gene pool less children would actually be born with them since they are highly heritable.
He should've published that finding in a genetics journal!
There I thought that there was much less poverty in the Third Reich than in the Weimar Republic were people had to bring wheelbarrows full of money to buy a loaf of bread. Good thing that a man like Jünger, who as a supporter of the aristocracy surely knew about the problems of the common man, finally tells the truth!
Ah, and the poor Jews! There I thought the German civilians who were burned alive by the bombs which were dropped on them were worth a mention too but no, Jünger, the patriot, doesn't do that. What a great man.