Newly translated Letter: Julius Evola to Ernst Junger 17.11.1953

[Anonymous No.13312015]

https://philosophizing-with-a-hammer.com/2019/06/15/letter-julius-evola-to-ernst-junger-17-11-1953/

Thoughts on this?

[Anonymous No.13312040]

>>13312015
It's just struck me the sort of void that separates us from this era of right wing thinker. Evola, Mohler, Junger, Schmitt seem to have left no individuals to take up their mantle in the same way the Left did in the West with post-structuralists and critical theory. Interesting how they were all tangentially acquainted.

[Anonymous No.13312064]

>>13312040
Were it not for the Old Aristotelian esque stranglehold the neoliberal has on the modern college system there would probably be a much more vigorous exploration of these ideas. Instead it is similar to the times of the reformation where the scholastics spurned and turned up their nose at the friars who were the ones relegated to preaching messages of change. All the two-bit e-celebs, self publishers, and other obscure right wing writers now assume that sort of position, while the neoliberals and their enablers enjoy the institution in all its glories.

I don't think we are going to see a grassroots change of this state however.

[Anonymous No.13312094]

>>13312064
As of right now most of those right-wing eceleb types are just what you say: two-bit. They're all grifters that don't actually believe what they're preaching. In time if we do see the rise of the next generation that does actually buy into the hype, are we going to see a 30 Years' War type situation across the West?

[Anonymous No.13312141]

>>13312015
yawn

[Anonymous No.13312152]

>>13312094
Like Martin Luther had the Wise Frederich whoever the premier who leads the charge for the right wing would have to have a connected friend in the elite that protected them from total derision and actually enabled some form of institutional reform in education.

I just don't really see it happening in any way. Only after an unrelated catastrophe breaks apart society maybe.

[Anonymous No.13312167]

>>13312152
Economic catastrophe. Next economic recession will be a doozy. Housing crisis 2.0, student loan debt, credit card debt all while interest rates are as low as they've ever been historically. But now the masses won't go scum around as Occupy Wall Street. They'll become Antifa, BLM, 3%ers, AIM, Patriot Front, etc

[Anonymous No.13312208]

>>13312015
Though Jünger never disavowed his Worker, he moved past the idea that man could intervene and change the course of history according to his will. Evola, from what I understand, never gave up the dream of a radical transformation. While Jünger distanced himself from his revolutionary past, Evola remained defiant.

[Anonymous No.13313640]

>>13312015

This is great.

[Anonymous No.13314249]

Thanks bro, very interesting. What is the book you are translating from? Have you ever been to the Junger archive in Marbach?

Interesting blog too, are you an academic?

[Anonymous No.13314634]

>>13312040
>>13312064
The average Jungerposter is just a poltard, so even if anyone was capable of following up on these ideas they would be mostly fought against or ignored.
>At the core of it, man is propelled by biological drives and functions, all of your wants, needs, and desires are illusions that arose to increase your fitness. We evolved in the context of groups and group conflict, the acquisition of technology only amplified and exacerbated the darwinian characteristics that are perennial for all living thing. As long as we're still under the pressures of natural selection, the principles of competitive exclusion and zero-sum game theory are applicable. Industrialization has only enlarged these conflicts, it didn't create them. At the very barebones minimum, conflict is MATERIALLY driven

The German spirit was thoroughly destroyed, and what the larpers do not realise is that their own efforts are little more than a continuation in a destroyed form - the return of the repressed through a sheet metal roller. The Jungerian position would be first of all contemplation, an attempt to realise what German elements remain, and then an attempt to realise their form within the current world trajectory.

[Anonymous No.13314643]

>>13314634
>jungerschizo is here

Yaaay! Now the whole thread can be about you freaking out at phantom enemies, like all the other ones!

[Anonymous No.13314677]

>>13314634
The main reason that neoliberalism has not seen a concerted effort in the academia against it, Jungian angle or no, is because neoliberalism is a pile of ideas that make no sense put together allying factions of thought that have no business being bed fellows. How can one argue a refutation to a system that lacks any internal logic to begin with?

I struggle to find in a history a time where the elite class had such a fine tooth dissemination of its interests corrupting the thought of scholars of all fields at all levels. No matter what scholar you talk to, they likely embody it in one aspect of their thought even if their main study opposes it wholeheartedly. Neoliberalism simply being an amalgamation of convenient casus belli for whatever institution they find useful.

[Anonymous No.13314712]

>>13314643
>i know you are but what am i?
Nice job. But anyone with even a cursory understanding of Junger will know that your perspective is completely in opposition to his thinking.
Go read your biological determinists.

For those who may be confused about the hostility I will link the original discussions. You can judge for yourselves if my effortposts were bad enough to warrant continuous attacks on my character.
>>/lit/thread/S13175636#p13177806
>>/lit/thread/S13058325#p13063235

[Anonymous No.13314732]

>>13312040
I’ve noticed as well. It’s kind of a good thing because the modern left’s intellect is pathetic and an embarrassment to the thinkers who built it.

I can’t help but feel modern world is just too stupid and comfortable to create an environment that would foster or allow a deep thinker to become popular.

Older works are much tougher to work through than modern popular stuff. And there is no aristocracy to fund it, everything requires middle class appeal in order to succeed.

We need a right wing zeitgeist to escape the current paradigm but there’s no body around to exist as a basis for it.

[Anonymous No.13314782]

>>13314712
>your perspective

I didn't post a perspective you loon. I just see you in every thread that even tangentially mentions Ernst Junger talking about how you're being persecuted by "pol nihilists" or "pol racists."

You know this is an anonymous imageboard with a lot of people on it right? It's not just you and one other guy who disagrees with you?

[Anonymous No.13315004]

>>13314643
Actually, his criticism is fair. Most of those English speakers who read Jünger today focus on his early work. It is a total misrepresentation of the man to only consider these ideas, which need to be understood as a product of a particular place and era. National Bolshevism is not an idea that is congruent with our time.

[Anonymous No.13315053]

>>13314677
I agree. Neo-liberalism is a happy mix of any policy from anywhere that will make stocks go up, allow and promote libertine sexuality, and Aid Israels intérêsts.

It’s all non-related except with the pro stock growth element being the core. Immigration, trade, etc are all aimed to boost corporate profits.
Given that boomers plan on living 30+ years off of capital gains it’s basically an economy and government designed to give them wealth for retirement. Israel and LGBT

[Anonymous No.13315531]

>>13314782
Again, your perspective is well off from reality. See >>13315004
You seem obsessed with this microscopic aspect of Junger's thought (posting multiple times about how Creighton is superior, and even lying to insulate your position), which certainly has its interesting qualities, or perhaps could even be read as the most significant. But not as you are doing so.
I made several in-depth arguments regarding Junger's overall philosophy, and you and that one other guy started calling me a schizo and Jordan Peterson pseud without even attempting to consider what I was saying.

But in any case, those links speak for themselves.

[Anonymous No.13315544]

>>13314677
(I hope this is readable. I don't have the time to cover it at the moment, but will post it in the hopes of potential discussion.)

I would have to disagree. It is a great mistake to assume that an opponent is devoid of form, or that it is something completely in opposition to us. Clearly, and no matter how much we may want to despise it, liberalism says something about the human being, our dominion or even loss of it. It does have a form and deep meaning to it, otherwise it would not have overtaken the entire Western political and philosophical world.

The origin myth of creating a vast machine-god already tells us everything we need to know. Humanism, at its inception, is already on the other side of the apocalypse. All of its rebuilding, its philosophy and culture, is already prefigured in the form from the beginning. Only those who do not realise this find themselves in opposition, and their position only deepens the destructive qualities, as if the monster does not want to see his own hideous form in a mirror before the reconstruction is complete. The modern human does not envision the death of gods, he sees them as monstrous, lesser - and so he seeks greater forces.

One can imagine all of this within the functioning of freedom of speech, the dialectical form of reconstructing human dominion beyond the realm of the heavens. Each part of the dialectic is an assemblage, and whether it fits or not is irrelevant, as even oppositional ideas add to the monstrous quality of the vast machine - like spikes on leather armour. Devastation is precisely the quality which allows the human to adapt, to live on where nothing else can.

[Anonymous No.13315561]

>>13315544
>(*time to go over it)

Just like the political groups which do not realise this functioning, ideas themselves are fed to the vast machine with equal force to the vitality in their opposition. Perhaps even a greater force, as modernity is not simply a materialist dialectic, but a subsumption of metaphysical and theological laws to hidden materials. And in this sense each opposition is reduced, then distilled into its powerful and combustible qualities. The humanist form realises a power which its predecessors could never have known, and once refined the oil is pressed beneath a crank shaft into an explosion. Materialism unveils a world on the other side of form.

Even if we may disagree with this conception we are forced, eventually, to admit its power or guile. There can be no discussion of the old world, it is stricken out by law at the very beginning of any discussion. And in this we see the power of freedom of speech: its very form exists in opposition to laws of being and dominion, and instead forces negation, laws of becoming and devastation. It assumes authority over natural law and extricates material out of form and idea. Even war's devastating power is seen as a weakness before it.

One can sense this in the strategy of defense in depth, in the endless raining of shells to which the line of defense had to be abandoned. Man returned to the earth, dug himself into it, covered himself in mud, even hid in the burned out tree trunks once the forest had been consumed by steel and fire. Nothing survived of the old form of war, and man was little more than a runner or shield of impossibly destructive forces. Hence why the most devastating elements often occurred away from the battlefield - war begins to appear as a stasis within an eternal churning of ruin, a moment of peace. Certainly not what it should be.

[Anonymous No.13315572]

>>13315561
Our own ideas reflect this, what survives where 'only men endure'? And how much longer can one hold out against metaphysical Livens Projectors? Saturation ensures that all defensible territory brings an end to places where only men endure, and the technical advantages of rudimentary technology allow the vast humanist machine to abandon all remaining human qualities. At its end, the Leviathan drowns us in the muck so that we might replace the subterranean combustion, and at its climax the technical takes on the appearance of the black oil that made our triumph over death possible in the first place.

We have never been further from the human, and yet this is precisely who we are. The human, at least in its Western conception, has always existed tentatively, on the precipice of total dominion and formlessness. And perhaps only now, at the very end, are we capable of understanding that the humanist world once seemed so close to grasping everything. From this perspective it appears that the traditional element, more than anyone else, lost sight of the eternal human laws.

Nothing technical survives human necessity. And so we see that the traditionalist conception of technology ensures that it becomes nothing more than an explosive powder, the lead-then-uranium-weighted projectile, the depleted-soul which gives the subterranean Leviathan its formative qualities allowing it to span the earth as colossal reconstructions of the Behemoth and Talos - only to dig itself further back into the ground.

[Anonymous No.13315893]

>>13315531
When people call you schizo for thinking everyone is the same person, and you reply by accusing them of being the same person, and they reply that they're not that person, and you reply by freaking out and accusing them of saying a bunch of schizo shit, you may be a schizo.

>you and that one other guy started calling me a schizo
It's much more than two guys now. Fancy that, you are getting called a schizo a lot. Take your pills bud. Anonymous forums are bad for your mental illness if you think everybody on them is the same guy.

[Anonymous No.13315996]

>>13315004
>Most of those English speakers who read Jünger today focus on his early work
For the same reason that Evola in OP's letter is interested in that time period. Post-WW2 Junger knew that the time for action had passed already and was resigned to his fate. But the time for action is coming back around again.

[Anonymous No.13316098]

>>13315996
I think you are underestimating the colossal power that you are up against. This is not merely a political question. You may act, and this act may have historical consequences, but it will not succeed in stopping the world-spirit.

>Fourier’s idea is excellent: namely, that creation failed in its very casting. His error was that he considers Creation reparable.

>Just as war is the father of all things, so, too, is anarchy their mother; a new age is ushered in.

>Pain is the historian’s portion. It strikes him particularly hard when he ponders the fate of the do-gooders. An endless lament and an eternal hope are handed down through the generations like a torch that keeps going out.

>The revolution of 1848 was bizarre in that throughout the European countries where it took place, it achieved the exact opposite of its goals, thereby damming up the world torrent for nearly a hundred years.

>Fine, the historian should not take sides. He must also see the zoological and the physical terrain under the social humus. For him, reactionism is a movement like any other - indeed, one indispensable to progress, which it accompanies as shadow does light. In harmonious times this can assume the form of a dance

[Anonymous No.13316127]

>>13316098
Oh the right won't topple anything; the liberals will topple themselves. It's in this vacuum that the only chance for reaction or revolution exists.

[Anonymous No.13316134]

>>13314677
It is more simpler than you think. It really is just an agreement between social liberals and corporate elites. The elites affected education so that kids would learn that helping minority groups is the holiest thing you can do and will give you salvation. Globalization is also taught to be a new god. It is the new church. They also made sure to teach things like FDR's new deal was a failure and sweep under the rug that most people wanted government guarenteed jobs at the time. Those kids grew up and the corporate elites made a deal with the social liberals. The liberals wouldnt focus on income equality at all, and the elites will assist in bringing the fruition of the goals of social justice. Immigration is the key to that victory. That is why they will literally do anything it takes to keep the borders at least as open as they are now and maybe open them further. Whites will finally be out of power and the elites will be making big money off the immigration and free trade they introduced. There are other groups, but these are the main two.

The rest is theoretical, but the corporate elites know this plan will eventually lead to the country's death knell, so they are trying to slow the decline as much as possible to make as much money as the possibly can before the country collapses and they flee to a country like china. Countries like china will insist on national loyalty from the corporate elites if they want to keep their money. The elites will agree, but then a new race will begin between the elites and the government on whether the elites will again twist the country to fit their own needs like they did in the US, or if the government doubles down and moves hard on these elites ussr style.

[Anonymous No.13316188]

>>13316127
This

[Anonymous No.13316224]

>>13316134
This is basically a pinball machine theory of history. You are proving his point.

[Anonymous No.13316247]

>>13316224
IDK how you could look at our society and not see this.

[Anonymous No.13316248]

>>13316127
This assumes that liberals are in charge. Even if this were the case, what do the waiting birds offer other than their turn to peck away at the corpse?
Or do you not see the natural liberalist form within such a position? All the current right-wing movements basically confirm this inescapable political technicalism.

[Anonymous No.13316290]

>>13316247
Not see what? I'm saying it's obvious and a reduced vision of what really is at play. What you describe are minor effects, and as such cannot be the cause.
If we're just a ball in a pinball machine rattling off various springs, plungers, and flippers, then there is no overarching logic. It is inescapable, and the very form creates this inescapable quality.
Elites don't have that much control, just look at all the recent military blunders, woke capital, and the endless fuckups. If you think these people are able to account for countless variables in a worldwide conspiracy I got news for you, they can't even figure out the 'culture' of chans.

[Anonymous No.13316348]

pseud to pickelhaube

ha ha

[Anonymous No.13316356]

>>13312064
>neoliberals are keeping us without education
>in 21st century
>with internet existing

this is your brain on perennialism

[Anonymous No.13316364]

>>13316290
There is no arc of history. Embrace the chaos theory. I never said there was some vast conspiracy. All I described can basically broken down as lobbying. Hell, many GOP people have even admitted to appointing people based on previous political donations. All we have is people with money exploiting weak institutions. There are wide spread effects based on these simple acts that shaped the society we have today. Our society was never explicitly planned to be like this, but it is the natural result of elites being able to use institutions for their own game while the institutions beg for more of it because of self interest. This is really the path of least resistance.

[Anonymous No.13316365]

>>13316356
They are keeping the masses from an actual education that is for sure. It has always been the case that very few people self study and they trust their authority figures and their authority universally tell them the same thing to promote neoliberal economics in some form or another.

[Anonymous No.13316379]

>>13316365
>masses
>actual education

are you a jacobin? perennial's idea of society is benevolent autarky where democracy is kept away - far, far away from average serf. only they don't call them that because unlike socialists (of old) they didn't do one day of hard labor in their life. that's the whole point of conservatism; it was always connected to lazy oligarchy offsprings. in post-scarcity it developed with the generation that found bing bing wahoo to be too superficial an effort.

[Anonymous No.13316383]

>>13316248
I don't know what you're getting at, when the liberal order falls apart in the US the whole world is going to be released from its current stasis. The only thing keeping a truly multipolar world at bay is the post-WW2 liberal capitalist soft power structure underlined by American hard power. Sure more illiberal regimes like China and Russia navigate this system but only because they have to. Europe is quickly moving in a similar direction which again, only is moving so slowly because of the current supremacy of US power structures. And I don't think it's any secret that whatever takes place in the American vacuum, whether it's balkanization, alt-right, far left, etc, it's not going to have any respect for human rights or the ability and will to project that forced respect over the world again.

[Anonymous No.13316429]

>>13316364
This is backwards. You are rewriting history and ideas based on effects, which is itself a liberal conception.
The theory of contracts arises before the micromanagement based upon contracts. So indeed there is an arc of history, whether you see it or not is irrelevant to its existence.

Pic related quote isn't that far off from Schmitt. And my first thought is that at one point even liberalism had a deeper feeling for war, even a theological component, than the rudimentary political reactionism of the fascists, who were supposedly informed by Schmitt. If this is the case - both a fundamental agreement in law and technology as well as a degenerative determinism - then there must be something else at play besides liberalism.

[Anonymous No.13316459]

>>13316383
Without the metaphor, what form is this reaction and revolution going to take? Or in other words, what informs the decision to take action, its timing, and motivations? What will rise from the vacuum?
In simple terms I am saying that the opposition writes its own myths in Greek, all roads lead to Rome, birds of a feather... And I am asking you to prove me wrong. How does the right-wing set itself apart from liberal dialectics of negation? What does it affirm? How does it escape the academic methodology of critique?

[Anonymous No.13316514]

>Across his career, Evola translated Oswald Spengler’s Decline of the West, Otto Weininger’s Sex and Character, and most controversially: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (I will here note that he reiterated frequently (see, Myth of the Blood) that he did not believe the text to confirm a Jewish conspiracy, though he did believe the text outlined historical and current events and had value for that reason

this is the person anti-postmodernists adore

[Anonymous No.13316516]

>>13316514
schizo?

[Anonymous No.13316557]

>>13316429
If you think there is some arc, then there is really nothing I can do for you. Good luck continuing to look for it I guess. The ideas on what the arc of history is changes so much that that it proves that it is based on no factual basis. The perceived arc of history is determined by whoever is in power at the time. This is always used to lift ourselves above everything else, but the powers in control always meet their end date. The truth is nothing ever ends and we are constantly being pulled back and forth.

[Anonymous No.13316695]

>>13316557
So that's your arc.
Thanks for proving my point.

[Anonymous No.13316722]

>>13315893

[Anonymous No.13316727]

>>13316695
lol, a complete non arc is an arc now I guess. I am not dealing with you anymore you pseudo intellectual.

[Anonymous No.13316730]

>>13316516

[Anonymous No.13316796]

>>13316727
Powerful argument.
And yes, historical relativism is a philosophy of history. But keep calling anyone who disagrees with you a schizo and pretending you're the one under attack.
This is creightonfag, everyone, and he is superior to all of us >>13314634 >>13314643
Remember that Junger was a Nazi and biological determinist. And if you disagree you are nothing but a Jordan Peterson schizo pseud...

[Anonymous No.13316808]

>>13316459
What rises exactly depends on a lot of unknowable but what is certain is that it will be illiberal. I'm not sure what you mean what will differentiate it, they will more than likely not support key liberal policy issues like human rights, free trade, democracy, judicial review, etc. Intellectual criticism of illiberal regimes often only exists outside of the reach of those regimes. The biggest detractors of fascism and communism did not make their criticism from under the regime.

[Anonymous No.13316819]

>>13316727
This has happened in every Junger thread recently. You resort to the same personal attacks and refusal to discuss each time.

It's clear that you are the problem here.

[Anonymous No.13316820]

>>13316796
I'm the one who called you a schizo (>>13314643) and I am not >>13316727.

Nigga do you need any more proof that not everybody is the same fucking person? I don't even know who or what Creighton is, and I didn't read any of the discussion you just had with the other guy.

This is why you actually are a schizo.

[Anonymous No.13316830]

>>13316819
Seriously anon take your meds. You are paranoid.

[Anonymous No.13316859]

>>13316808
Well, this is to some degree understandable. However, to assume that this will all just fall into place when the liberal order has taken over the entirety of the West is a bit of a risk. That is a very large vacuum.
Is it not likely that we will just get something far worse than liberalism? Humanism but without any human qualities? That is where all signs point at the moment.

[Anonymous No.13316876]

>>13316820
Yes, supposedly there are two of you who have the exact same philosophy and respond to my posts in the exact same ways.
Possibly true. But that just shows how utter shit you both are and why Junger threads are impossible here.

[Anonymous No.13316887]

>>13316859
I don't see how we don't already live in a state of humanism without human qualities. If you're suggesting what we have now but more...authoritarian, than I would say that's better than what we have now by magnitudes. The worse part of our current system is that is masquerades as voluntary, if it were to become transparent in its authoritarian nature at least it would stir fence-sitting boomers into actually doing something with their gun collections.

[Anonymous No.13316892]

>>13316876
>why Junger threads are impossible here.

This is your schizo shit coming out again. /lit/ threads are universally low quality. It's not a special conspiracy to have bad Ernst Junger related threads. The fact that you keep meticulous track of every Junger thread is already a bit strange.

Maybe consider Reddit for real anon. They have persistent usernames so you can track your enemies and discussions are more moderated. That way your imagination has less freedom to concoct elaborate fantasies about how everybody is the same person out to get you and there are inter-thread conspiracies.

[Anonymous No.13316926]

>>13316887
What would improve by putting an authoritarian mask over it?
But, again, this is getting away from the core argument. Although it is interesting that your response steps away from revolution and reaction into reformism and the mere appearance of revolution. So perhaps that answers my question.

[Anonymous No.13316952]

>>13316892
>schizo schizo schizo
You really love that word.
But considering how often you two post Junger threads it seems you are either desperate for discussion or simply post for politically subversive reasons. I've made my case for the latter, as have others.
But since you insist on maintaining your low quality threads I have tried to have some discussion and learn from them, even if no one else does. Call that schizo and reddit all you like, but your detachment from reality is very telling...

[Anonymous No.13316966]

Define the right.

[Anonymous No.13316967]

>>13316952
Now you're accusing me of being in cahoots with the other guy, and accusing one or both of us of being the OP of not just this, but other Junger threads that you don't like as well.

I keep saying this to you. There is a reason you keep getting called a schizo. The irony is that you are the only easily identified poster across threads because you're a nut.

[Anonymous No.13317039]

>>13316967
There is a post counter sweaty. It is very low for every Junger thread.
And there is no accusation of a conspiracy in what I wrote. Are you really this desperate to gaslight or are you just impossibly shit at reading? It is quite hard to tell.

No one called me a schizo in this thread apart from you and your imaginary friend. The only person who commented agreed that my criticism was fair. So who is schizo? Take your biological determinism meds, sweaty. You're falling apart.

[Anonymous No.13317077]

How did everyone know each other back then?

[Anonymous No.13317081]

Sick stuff. Junger was the king.

[Anonymous No.13317083]

>>13316926
It wouldn't be putting on an authoritarian mask, it would be revealing the authoritarian face beneath. We live in an authoritarian state right now, if this fact was made more transparent it would spur more people to action. The greatest weapon the liberal world order has is the illusion of anti-authoritarianism. "As long as they're not going door-to-door confiscating my guns it's fine that they'll tack 20 years onto my sentence if they find me with a magazine that holds more than five bullets"

>your response steps away from revolution and reaction into reformism
I literally have said the opposite of this the entire time what the fuck are you on about?

[Anonymous No.13317096]

>>13317077
There were writing circles and organisations. People wrote letters to one another and discussed things to advance ideas. They didn't immediately accuse someone of being a schizo for not being a biological determinist. There was some remaining semblance of desire for dialectics.

[Anonymous No.13317112]

>>13317039
Your attempt to co-opt 4chan lingo from two years ago is making me think the root of the problem is that you're some old unhinged guy. Well, I tried to help. Enjoy shadowboxing on an anonymous forum where nothing you post will ever have any permanence.

[Anonymous No.13317129]

>>13317083
Spur people to action for what?
So we're just revealing the hidden authoriatarian character like NRx, neoabsolutism, or r/acc? Is that not just a false authoritarianism?
Anti-authoritarianism is powerful, but I doubt that anyone really sees it as an illusion. It's quite well-known how powerful we are, dystopia and apocalypse are huge genres of fiction.
And I was referring to the comment about Boomers finally doing something. Just seems like a crude mix of reformism and the illusion of revolution.

[Anonymous No.13317138]

>>13317112
>I tried to help
Imagine being a Based NatSoc, accusing people of being reddit schizos, while constantly being a passive-aggressive cunt.
Seriously fucking KYS, Creightonfag.

[Anonymous No.13317144]

>>13317112
Post your writings. Show us the permanence of 1924/25 Junger UberNationalist Studies.

[Anonymous No.13317156]

>>13317138
I'm a Muslim.

>>13317144
Of course just step right into my boudoir where I keep all my studies of such things.

[Anonymous No.13317179]

>>13317156
>He made clear the monstrous power of Nihilism. When such people speak of biology it's just a means to kill others.

[Anonymous No.13317228]

>>13317179
this is the original biologyfag you argued with 11 threads ago on March 8th 2019. FUCK YOU ernst junger was a transcendental biologist unlike what you say about him and i will fight you forever across all threads and even come to your house and prove to you that ernst junger was a biologist

Just kidding, it's me again haha. I hope I didn't trigger your flashbacks for real there! Thanks for the quote I guess schizofriend :^)

[Anonymous No.13317242]

>>13317129
What the fuck do you mean for what? What were you just accusing me of stepping away from? I don't know if you're being obtuse on purpose or if you're just fucking stupid but it's starting to piss me off. How are boomers violently resisting the

>So we're just revealing the hidden authoriatarian character like NRx, neoabsolutism, or r/acc?
Sort of? Both NRx and modern liberalism want the same end goal but the difference is their way of getting there is different and modern liberalism won't get where it intends to go, it will implode.

>Anti-authoritarianism is powerful, but I doubt that anyone really sees it as an illusion.
Anti-authoritarianism isn't powerful because it does not exist within the liberal world order, the powers that be are necessarily authoritarian. It doesn't fucking matter if nobody "sees it as an illusion", it's still an illusion. That's actually the entire point of an illusion, for onlookers to not realize it is fake.

>Just seems like a crude mix of reformism and the illusion of revolution.
What are the "muh constitution" Boomers going to do if they rise up in some sort of semi-organized revolution and overthrow the government for trying to take their guns? If they merely replace the people in charge but keep the same system, they're going to end up right back where they started because the voting populous will remain unchanged to the point that the same "woke" policies will be reached in the end. You either end with illiberal authoritarianism or you change the populous of the country to the point that they no longer vote for "woke" policies, which itself is obviously and extremely illiberal process.

[Anonymous No.13317245]

>>13312040
At least we have Moldbug and Jim.

[Anonymous No.13317271]

>>13312167
>But now the masses won't go scum around as Occupy Wall Street. They'll become Antifa, BLM, 3%ers, AIM, Patriot Front, etc
It feels like this was the plan from the beginning. More likely than not Occupy Wall Street was a mistake.

[Anonymous No.13317273]

>>13316820
>>13316876
No dude, I am >>13316727 not >>13314643
I don't care to argue with idiots anymore. I haven't been in a thread like this before, but I am glad I haven't because you know how to say so much without saying anything. Have fun with your relativist arc that will never be found. I am glad I am not wasting my life on that shit.

[Anonymous No.13317281]

>>13317273
Sure thing, biologist. Go and study some biology like you always do..

[Anonymous No.13317295]

>>13317271
Why would anyone want that

[Anonymous No.13317296]

>>13317281
I don't study biology. I am a history major studying the law now.

[Anonymous No.13317315]

>>13317245
A detriment.

[Anonymous No.13317332]

>>13317273
What the fuck is this post?

[Anonymous No.13317384]

>>13317332
lol

[Anonymous No.13317407]

>>13317242
>What the fuck do you mean for what?
>>it would spur more people to action.
That's what I asked you, you said authoritarianism would spur people to action. I am asking 'to what?'

>What were you just accusing me of stepping away from?
Already answered this, i.e. Boomers finally doing something.

>fucking stupid but it's starting to piss me off. How are boomers violently resisting the
lmao

>Anti-authoritarianism isn't powerful
This contradicts what you just said. And nothing you said addresses the point I made.

> It doesn't fucking matter if nobody "sees it as an illusion", it's still an illusion. That's actually the entire point of an illusion, for onlookers to not realize it is fake.
Think over this one...

>illiberal illiberalism
Okay, but what if the form is just a return to liberal authoritarianism? And what makes you assume that anything illiberal is essentially good?

[Anonymous No.13317415]

>>13317407
>to what
As in, what sort of action?

[Anonymous No.13317423]

>>13317295
Occupy Wall Street meant the masses united against corporations, shit could go sideways really fast. If you atomize them by race (blm), sexual identity (lgbt) or political extremism (antifa, alt right) you keep everyone in check by letting themselves keep each other in check
If you watch the news coverage of ocuppy and then watch the news about other more recent movements, you'll see a difference in treatment

[Anonymous No.13317439]

>>13317407
>Already answered this
Stopped reading here. That was a rhetorical question you stupid fucking nigger. I don't think you're intelligent enough to carry on this conversation in a valuable manner, you no longer have permission to respond to me.

[Anonymous No.13317465]

>>13317439
You should learn to form basic sentences before calling anyone stupid. And then learn basic reading comprehension and logic.
You're a fucking retard who cannot follow a simple discussion.

[Anonymous No.13317474]

>>13317407
>Already answered this
Stopped reading here. That was a rhetorical question you stupid fucking nigger. I don't think you're intelligent enough to carry on this conversation in a valuable manner, you no longer have permission to respond to me.

>>13317423
>identity politics is a distraction and not a solution
Class conflict only takes precedence when racial, ethic, religious, etc conflict is solved. The best way to raise class consciousness is to strive for racial, ethnic, religious, etc homogeneity.

[Anonymous No.13317529]

>>13317474
Yikes.

[Anonymous No.13317538]

>>13316892
>reddit spacing
>accusing anyone of reddit

[Anonymous No.13317546]

This thread is why you read Benjamin.

[Anonymous No.13317612]

>>13316127
>A strong man watches unperturbed while fate dictates its terms, letter by letter. He makes no fuss, he sees the sentence written out, and he can bear its weight upon his shoulders. This is the date that waits on history, your merely a tool: the process drives you onward.

[Anonymous No.13317627]

>>13316364
>What ideal is this that shapes the everlasting fire of human souls - that enthusiasm fanned and corrupted, time and time again, diverted by imaginary struggles - and drives it to some nobler end at last?

>We need both carriers of sand and hewers of stone; one cannot build a house without their labor. But these have only the foggiest idea of the grand design in which they play a part - only the architect comprehends the whole, and even if he cannot carve the stone the work is his creation, he it’s god.

[Anonymous No.13317635]

>>13317529
>yikes posting
You know where you belong and it's not here

>>13317612
Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.13317641]

>>13317612
>fate
>FATE!?!
>CREIGHTONFAG ANGRY!!!
>This Jordan B. Peterson metaphysics schtick has gone on long enough. This is your brain on Evola, boiling causative events down to "magic" and "fate". It's so fucking lazy while pretending to be the exact opposite.

[Anonymous No.13317642]

>>13317465
We shall shun those who employ as hominem attacks on anon.

[Anonymous No.13317649]

>>13317627
>everlasting fire of human souls

[Anonymous No.13317652]

>>13317627
>diverted by imaginary struggles

[Anonymous No.13317659]

>>13317627
>foggiest idea of the grand design in which they play a part

[Anonymous No.13317667]

>>13317627
>he it’s god

[Anonymous No.13317912]

>>13317635

A man far ahead of his time.

>Life’s an ocean, roaring, tidal, every breaker bears a world, one flung upward, one dragged downward, who cares which way they are hurled? - you fear now for the individual engulfed by masses, then you feel for millions of vanquished subjects ground under the tyrants heel. You fear for poetry the one day, the state of science ruins the next, lock the waves up in your system, bind the breakers in a text. Struggle as you will, grow weary, water’s all you stand to gain, the roaring splendor of the ocean laughs and thunders with disdain. Let it thunder, life will govern all the strands of her domain. Nothing’s lost, however many battles she may fight. The years pass and leave her ever youthful: her siren voice attends your ears.

[Anonymous No.13318036]

>>13317912
Interesting

[Anonymous No.13318110]

>>13312040
we're too far into the kali yuga

[Anonymous No.13318135]

>>13317077
they debated each other on youtube

[Anonymous No.13319712]

b

[Anonymous No.13320123]

>>13316429
>>13316557
not any anon involved but I am now. the idea that an arch is created by those in power is a coherent idea. The Third Reich believed what they were doing was the arch of a new world free from usury, misappropriation of cultures, etc.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States thought that, that was an arch. An arch of history were the 'evil empire' had fallen and the US had full dominion over the world (more or less).
If their is an arch of history, where is it? how can one account for it? would it be when a cave man made his first kill? how about when it become known how to make fire? or the construction of buildings? or jumping ahead to the industrial revolution? where is the arch of history?

[Anonymous No.13321202]

>>13320123
If I may use your error as an example, the arch gives us an interesting image for the arc of history. One may ask whether those in power are creating the arc themselves or merely perceiving its already existing form and attempting to live up to it. In other words, is their own form contained within the arch or do they exist beyond it?

It is a romantic notion to think that man may overpower the course of history, surpass entire societies, even continents, and bend the ideology of an era to his will. But if we take your examples then we see that this is simply not the case, both America and Germany failed miserably in their aims. The arches collapsed upon them due to forces that the building could not withstand. If some of the most powerful nations in history were incapable of determining the will of their era, what does this say of the human ability to escape time and determine a territory beyond its laws?

Your idea is that of our era, that the human is much greater than he seems even in failure. It is a false notion perhaps most easily seen when relating it to Zeno's Paradox of the Tortoise, as if our command of the abstractions of time allow us to overcome it, as if a conception of complex mathematics allows Achilles to easily overcome the tortoise. But all this is doing is rewriting the rules, refusing to see the essence of the problem. Both apart and together Achilles and the Tortoise form One Being, there is only passage within instantiated time - surpassing the criticism lodged by the Aristotelians by prefiguring it.

Similar to this, one may view the arc of history as if looking upon the Roman Colosseum, an entire enclosed elliptical shell with arches built atop one another into an imposing facade. There is linearity within the moment of its construction but in its completion time can be seen as a whole, every arch flowing into another and forming a beautiful and powerful creative dominion - one can then imagine an epoch as a single arch within the entire architecture. And from this viewpoint the single arch stands complete when it is self-supporting, when it is entirely self-contained; the opposing forces of each exerting themselves against neighbouring stone so that the whole may stand against time. Shifting eras and great wars often perform this function, terrible inertias tearing apart whole nations as they are reestablished into entirely new formations.

[Anonymous No.13321208]

>>13321202
One should set aside theories of degeneration and degradation to allow the image to convey its full power, an ugly or asymmetrical building can be conjured up after the ideal building reaches completion - as form is easier to perceive within that which is striking, arresting. These are not ruins that we are dealing with, the arches do not fall into each other, invading the structural integrity of the opposite walls, for this could set into motion a chain of collapse threatening the entire building. It is also important to remember that the great architect is not only concerned with material integrity, the endurance of stone - he is not merely skilled, he realises the necessity of his city and nation to fulfill a greater purpose, thus his construction is formed within the arch and arc of the city's essence. The great building rises from the earth as if a natural forming of the city's being, a reflection of the autochthon, a perfect image of the citizenry communing with eternal dominion. Just like his city, the architect's creation exists as a duality, in two places, against time and space yet forming within it.

Here we can situate the individual and his strength, the possible reach of his laws, the potential for success of his mobilisation of material against metaphysical realms. Is he capable of realising what remained hidden to the rest of the populace? Does he allow completely opposing laws and aesthetic celebrations to rise from the earth? Or is he an arbiter of some greater force? A harbinger of coming gods? It should be obvious that the individual is not more powerful than the building which takes entire communities to raise it from the earth - and certainly no one would estimate his power as greater than the city itself. At best, his image helps to complete the aesthetics of the Colosseum, he appears as perfect within his short time standing within one of the arches. Yet, even this is no small task, we moderns tend to forget the power residing within the simple.

It is possible to liken this image to that of the Shield of Achilles. The great heroes of the ancient world saw themselves as minor figures within a greater whole, and it was this humility which permitted greatness. Contrasted against this, perhaps we can say that the modern individual who sees himself cutting away at the world only does so because he has lost sight of time, he perceives of himself as beyond its laws. He sees the archway standing on its own, floating in the air, a portal dedicated to nothing more than his own being. The city and nation, even the world and its gods, are subsumed by personal feeling. And so the rest of creation disappears against the approaching horizon of a single image. Time consumes, and we see the construction of our era as the disgorgement of all that resides outside of it - a necessary adaptation of the impossibly weak.

[Anonymous No.13321215]

>>13321208
Where romanticism attempted to apprehend beauty within ruins, the post-humanists imagine a technicalised ruination where matter is self-organising, forming its own architecture within realms of immaterial intellect. If man is to prove that his being is more powerful than the surrounding constructions of city and country then he must set himself apart from time even more than the building towering above him - just as his buildings sought to devour nature, he devours his own creation. He must mine materials and condense them into explosive powders, placing them within the support columns which collapse the archways. Done properly the construction will disappear into dust, forever divided from reality and memory. And it is here that material is formed out of the condensation of time, man has surpassed the need of the old architecture and now envisions a form of material which flows against itself, encircles its own dominion as the architecture which can never be stepped into the same way twice. Yet one may understand that these are only hidden archways, a construction based upon a monstrous planning.

When we consider the sovereignty of man over nature we tend to assume an opposed territory as something lesser - the qualities of that which is greater are somehow flattened, turned into a simplified and tangible abstraction. But we must imagine these forms as something much more powerful; where the intricacies of our own life seem to collapse eternity upon us as a great trial of pain and endurance we will nevertheless have to reconcile with the fact that the rivers and forests standing before us will endure far beyond our imaginations. Entire worlds will play out from within the smallest territories to the extent that even the greatest men will appear as nothing. There is always a looming sublimity, a greater force threatening to return us to something less than nihilism.

The man who believes in his superiority over the archway does not understand its laws, the instantiated techne which must be set against itself to create something beautiful. And thus he is destined to create something ugly. Even in ruins the image of the Colosseum persists as a whole, if not as reality then as some lost law. Even in war, when countless explosions threaten the arches, when people struggle bleeding beneath fractured stone, the arc looms as possibility - an unending langour betraying the will of man.

[Anonymous No.13321223]

>>13321215
Ages persist. The image may never be perfect, but to deny it is to constrain time and space within the imperceptible. There are laws of the Golden Age, just as there are laws of the Heroic and Iron Ages: the Colosseum falls into disrepair; is covered in scaffolding to return it to a previous age; sectioned off for multiple celebrations; is overrun by the spectacle of violence becoming an insurrection; or even falls into silence as time surpasses its need. Just as the arch must contain its arc and entryway the human must combine strength and humility; time its sovereignty over space and nothingness.

The arc of history is man's setting upon his own territory to contend with and reconcile present necessity with eternal laws. Beauty and strength rise as an era seems to surpass the laws of time - the great and monstrous archways towering above the others, and giving a glimpse of what resides within.

[Anonymous No.13321249]

>>13312015
>I want to translate this book but I can't find it
Riveting.

[Anonymous No.13321264]

>>13318135
*chuckles smugly*
Arendt: Read Loki

[Anonymous No.13321267]

>>13320123
The short answer.
While it may be coherent in theory this is something separate from Truth. In other words, it is possible to construct a coherent theory that all of history exists for oneself, but this could also be the farthest thing from the truth.
Your own example isn't coherent either, because the massive failures of Germany and America show that their theory of a historical arc was completely divided from how history realised itself.

Where is the arc? Largely laid out in religious myths, especially concerning the Fall and Ages.
How can one account for it? Contemplation of the whole and one's place in it.
First kill? Unlikely, more significant is what divides man from nature and animal.
Fire? Perhaps one of the most significant, the entirety of technological history can be seen within the flickering of fire.
Buildings? A significant relation of man to dominion within time.
Industrial revolution? Can be set within the formal law of modernity.
Where? In eternal laws, the will of gods.

[Anonymous No.13321343]

>>13321202
Fascinating. Though, I do not perceive humans to be more than what they are. When it's done and over, a man is still a man.
From your example, the constructs of each individual arch creates a whole that stands as a bunch of arches and as a collective grand structure. this structure is resemblance of the those that built it, as those that built it resemble who they are in their architecture.
Of course, as with in as with out.

[Anonymous No.13321380]

>>13321215
>There is always a looming sublimity, a greater force threatening to return us to something less than nihilism.

Nailed it.

[Anonymous No.13321408]

>>13321215
Excellent post. yes, the post-humanists wish to play god with their technology. this is apparent with talks of cyborgs and robots. It's a desire to dominate in a new way, no longer with buildings over nature, but with ideas attempted in reality in order to dominate with modern computing systems as the new guise.

>>13321223
The arc of history is man's setting upon his own territory to contend with and reconcile present necessity with eternal laws. Beauty and strength rise as an era seems to surpass the laws of time - the great and monstrous archways towering above the others, and giving a glimpse of what resides within.

This is the answer. This is truth.we've come full circle for us to agree on this.

[Anonymous No.13321429]

>>13316514
Yeah, and?

[Anonymous No.13321458]

>>13321267
Perhaps I misread the conversation a bit, It was late and what-not. I perceived that their was a contest of the idea that their was/is/going to be a point in time when things culminate towards the arc of humanity over all. I perceived such idea as silly, as to say it is nothing more than 'Chasing the Dragon'
I used those two examples of the US and the Third Reich as examples of what at one point was perceived to be an arc, was revealed to not be, for various reasons. my further examples were to just 'prod the fire' to see what would happen.

Though you mention the eternal laws, such as this anon refereed to:>>13321223
this is the land I confer with, so it makes sense to me. we both agree. thank you anon

[Anonymous No.13321668]

>>13321343
>>13321408
>>13321458
Thanks for these responses. I am writing something else at the moment, and have to do a few other things, but will attempt a proper response later on.

[Anonymous No.13323074]

>>13321668
I concur, these posts were top notch, almost Jünger-esque.

[Anonymous No.13324048]

>>13321343
>I do not perceive humans to be more than what they are. When it's done and over, a man is still a man.
Can you expand on what you mean by this?

[Anonymous No.13324296]

where do I start with evola

[Anonymous No.13324429]

>>13316796
He seems to be enjoying this

[Anonymous No.13324479]

>schizoid junger poster replying to himself
It's becoming weird now

[Anonymous No.13326376]

b

[Anonymous No.13326386]

>>13324479
lmao, how seething are you?
But feel free to argue against what I posted.

[Anonymous No.13327005]

>>13312040
Schmitt turned me into an ultraleftist. I now have uncontrollable urges to round up all bourgeois state bureaucrats - be they police or Costco employees - and send them to work the corn fields.