/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17294026]

FIND THE FLAW

[Anonymous No.17294032]

>>17294026
>Where is Peter Hitchens?

[Anonymous No.17294039]

Junger: Hated Nazis but offered nothing constructive after criticizing them, unlike Heidegger who at least understood they were a disappointing failed form of something that should have been good. Acts like a dandy for another 50 years while Germany rots from the inside, does nothing about it.

Schmitt: Literally none

Evola: Literally none

Nietzsche: Too much of a nihilist. It drove him mad in the end.

[Anonymous No.17294057]

>>17294039
I think Nietzsche as a pre-eminent framework and the so called dynamite he claimed is actually not a bad thing.

I don't think he himself was capable of going all the way with his own philosophy but lets be honest he set the bar pretty high.

[Anonymous No.17294085]

>>17294039
>dude one man revolution lmao
Imagine being american

[Anonymous No.17294094]

>>17294026
How do you put Nietzsche and Evola in the same picture? They're literally the polar opposite of each other

[Anonymous No.17294103]

>>17294026
One isn't German

[Anonymous No.17294112]

>>17294026
Only one has a moustache, but he's got enough of hair on it for all four.

[Anonymous No.17294117]

>>17294103
Two

[Anonymous No.17294118]

>>17294026
evola

[Anonymous No.17294121]

>>17294117
Nietzsche was german no matter how much he wishes he wasn't

[Anonymous No.17294130]

>>17294121
Wasn't he Polish?

[Anonymous No.17294156]

>>17294039
bait

[Anonymous No.17294185]

You don't need Junger if you have Evola and parts of Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.17294375]

>>17294026
junger: none
schmitt: none
evloa: tranny
nietzschit: incel
>>17294185
>you don't need evola when you have junger
corrected

[Anonymous No.17294859]

>>17294026
Swap out Evola with Spengler

[Anonymous No.17294881]

the gross mustache?

[Anonymous No.17294906]

Worker thread and commentary on the 21st century
>>17285979

[Anonymous No.17294915]

>>17294026
>>17294859

[Anonymous No.17294962]

>>17294039
rest of your post is pure cope but
> Acts like a dandy for another 50 years while Germany rots from the inside
is pretty accurate, are there any Jungerbros who happen to know why Junger strayed from politics and political writing after the war? did he got softer and more liberal in his later years?

[Anonymous No.17294982]

>>17294026
Find the flaw

[Anonymous No.17294987]

>>17294982
Cringe

[Anonymous No.17295067]

>>17294982
Beyond cringe

[Anonymous No.17295152]

>>17294962
>>/lit/thread/S16856649#p16879009
>>/lit/thread/S17268778#p17276748
This thinking stems from Evola's poor reading of Junger's later work, as well as poor judgement of the world situation.
One way of thinking about it is that technology and the world state ended any possibility for the strong politics that Schmitt spoke of, what was necessary for the rule of law over technology and neutralization in the twentieth century. He and Heidegger became pessimistic to a large degree, which is understandable given the situation.
The success of neutralization, and the grossraum, does not demand an end to politics however it suggests that it falls into the background. It is no longer possible without a shift in character and the world condition. Junger is looking further and deeper, into myth and forces, the only possibilities in post-historical time. This is not a resignation to weakness and liberalism, nor even an abandonment of political thinking. In some way Junger continues to deal with questions similar to those of Schmitt, only the perspective and line of sight changes, as in that of military repositioning. There is plenty of discussion of war and state, ancient rules of conduct and character, in his later writings.

Nietzsche went so far as to attack Homer as the destroyer of the Greeks. Junger's 'politics' are much like this prehistorical order and law through forces and the elements. In this way of thinking politics is not explicit, it is not a substratum from which we orient ourselves, but something unspoken and which we can leave behind. It is Holderlin's counsel for Zeus in reconciling and finding freedom in his being one with his father.

[Anonymous No.17295237]

>>17295152
Eumeswil also deals with this. Politics is an impossibility for us today, it is something that becomes grotesque with the modern human type.
Order can only return where this comes to an end, and politics can only be approached as a walk into death. Politics, or even the state, is not a thing in itself, but rather a means. One may even say that where it becomes central there is already a weakening of dominion. This is the law of Achilles, Plato, Xenophon, Hobbes, Tocqueville, Schmitt, and countless others. The political form begins to ossify where character subsides, where political formalities and legislation come to take the place of positive civil war.

Or in other words, much like art, politics is a means of harmonization with higher laws: theology, myth, the elements, or the gods themselves. Without these higher values politics can only be self-defeating or monstrous.

[Anonymous No.17295297]

>>17294026
Nietzsche doesn't deserve to be in the same chart as those frauds, but at least Evola was somewhat competent at his craft. The rest are garbage.

[Anonymous No.17295316]

>>17295297
Retard

[Anonymous No.17295462]

>>17295297
yes, because a cross dressing faggot obsessed with magic tricks is more competent than a visionary war hero and actually relevant geopolitical theorist

[Anonymous No.17295476]

>>17295297
>tfw evola sent mail to both junger and schmitt but got ghosted

[Anonymous No.17295498]

>>17294987
>>17295067
:( why?

[Anonymous No.17295512]

All irrelevant

[Anonymous No.17295519]

>>17295476
this
>>17295498
I liked the inclusion of jarry, don't worry fren

[Anonymous No.17295811]

>>17294094
Nietzsche was huge influence on his first books.

[Anonymous No.17295839]

>>17295462
what?really?

[Anonymous No.17295846]

>>17295811
They're still polar opposites
Evola is a pure metaphysician and Nietzsche opposes non-materialist metaphysics altogether

[Anonymous No.17295936]

>>17294026
flawed but good people with good intentions
Nietzsche, even tho he wasnt religious and was jealous, is mostlikely in heaven rn
Same for Junger, for Schmitt and Evola

[Anonymous No.17295953]

>>17294982
I find it funny that baudillard and guenon are in the same picture

[Anonymous No.17296117]

>>17295846
Deleuze, too, is a pure metaphysician, and yet…

[Anonymous No.17296141]

>>17294039

>Nietzsche: Too much of a nihilist. It drove him mad in the end.

His brain dissolved, retard.

[Anonymous No.17296173]

Other people will state the big criticisms of him more eloquently, so I'll state a more niche one -- Nietzsche was one of the biggest popularizers of the aphoristic style of philosophy. Aphorisms are great for making a memorable distillation of a statement you've justified, but they're not a substition for justification. You see this style reflected in writers as diverse as Guy DeBord and Marshall McLuhan, where they present powerful statements as self-evident truths. This feels good to readers, but the reality is that the bigger the claim on truth, the more necessary exposition becomes.

[Anonymous No.17296176]

>>17294026
for me it's the good old boys

[Anonymous No.17296188]

>>17294962
Pure waldganger
He put himself above all the things that happened at the moment and just focused on self realization
Just read eumeswil. It's like that. Seemingly loyal to the system but actually not at all.

[Anonymous No.17296228]

>>17294130
He was Jewish

[Anonymous No.17296299]

>>17294982
who's bottom left

[Anonymous No.17296320]

>>17296299
alfred jarry, he's the based pre-dada pataphysician

[Anonymous No.17296344]

>>17294026
How’d you get that old photo of Jordan Peterson on bottom left?

[Anonymous No.17296380]

>>17294039
>Nietzsche: Too much of a nihilist. It drove him mad in the end.
Why has this become the go to b8 recently?

[Anonymous No.17296655]

>>17295152
>Nietzsche went so far as to attack Homer as the destroyer of the Greeks
how does that work?

[Anonymous No.17297030]

>>17295152
Hello Jungerposter. What do you say to his diaries from Paris? Have you read them?

Also have you read his interwar articles, on pain etc etc?

[Anonymous No.17297051]

>>17294982
Is that Varg in the bottom
Left?

[Anonymous No.17297136]

>>17295152
>Junger is looking further and deeper, into myth and forces, the only possibilities in post-historical time. This is not a resignation to weakness and liberalism, nor even an abandonment of political thinking.
Have you read Junger's book "The Peace"? I think it's extremely difficult to say that Evola had a "poor reading" of the later years of Junger when "The Peace" seems to offer a look into a very hardline liberalism.

[Anonymous No.17297254]

>>17296176
BASED!

[Anonymous No.17297363]

>>17297136
I think this is a misunderstanding of the text and the motives for writing it. It is Christian theology in its tone and argument, equally a defense of Germany and an attempt to find peace for the whole of Europe. There was a sense that Versailles would be repeated at an even worse level, and Junger saw this more than anyone so his concern was that of justice. Another Versailles would not only be a disaster for Germany but the whole of Europe, the desecration of its founding laws. Given what has happened since, and the complete injustice of the occupation of Germany, I would have to say he was right.

Even in Copse he mentions the great transition towards peace, how it is tied to war and the strength of a people. But if you can be more specific I'd like to see why you think it is a concession to liberalism.

[Anonymous No.17297386]

>>17297363
The whole book was just repulsive to me after reading his interwar articles and Storm of Steel. Your argument seems to imply that it was a tactical cucking, but that's completely contradictory to the entirety of Junger's character up to that point.

[Anonymous No.17297397]

>>17294026
Too modern, they don't arrive at anything solid except with the necessary "-other". You could Evola has that place, but he's not great enough to base your worldview directly around.

[Anonymous No.17297432]

>>17297136
Also, more specifically I was referring to Evola's comments on Junger's turn towards secular thinking, and against spirit. The writing Evola refers to is Junger's most religious work, so I find it a bit strange. It is vital to understanding the modern relation to myth and religion.

[Anonymous No.17297449]

>>17294982
based pataphysician

[Anonymous No.17297466]

>>17297432
>Also, more specifically I was referring to Evola's comments on Junger's turn towards secular thinking, and against spirit. The writing Evola refers to is Junger's most religious work, so I find it a bit strange.
Where do you see this reference? The best I remember reading was him talking about how the mentality of the "young Junger" is something to be emulated or in other words implying that the older Junger has degenerated. I have not seen him refer to a specific work and criticise it.

[Anonymous No.17297489]

>>17297386
Well I don't think it was 'tactical cucking'. Law and justice is a major part of it, but it was also intended as something of a ritual transition to peace. (If such a thing was even possible.)
What do you find repulsive about it? I don't think it contradicts his character up to that point, or at least not to the extent that some suggest. It is difficult for us to imagine such a period of hope and defeat, the final years of the old order and nationalism. To be able to find peace in a situation like that is incredible, even heroic. a sign that one has "titanic strength".

[Anonymous No.17297549]

>>17297466
http://www.juliusevola.net/excerpts/Junger_-_from_Conservative_Revolutionary_to_Sluggishly_Liberal_%26_Humanistic.html

He basically says that Junger's spirit had been drained, and that he was defeated by liberalism and humanism. The book he refers to by name is An Der Zeitmauer, which is almost entirely devoted to questions of spirit, the post-historical age as it relates to nihilism and myth.
In one of the threads on the worker I included a couple of quotes on these spiritual concerns.

[Anonymous No.17297618]

>>17297549
Quote here
>>/lit/thread/S17138742#p17138742
There is another which suggests an understanding of the spiritual battle on the level of Goethe, Holderlin, and Nietzsche. So I would stand by what i said of Evola, that he was a poor reader, willfully ignorant for the sake of polemics, or responding from a point of being slighted.
In any case it is an unfair reading.

[Anonymous No.17297649]

>>17296188
This too.
There remained the possibility of imprisonment or even worse punishment since Germany was under strict occupation and subversion. This was largely fate and having to survive from the point of death.

[Anonymous No.17297815]

>>17294026

[Anonymous No.17297838]

>>17294039
Junger disliked nazism bec-
never mind, I read further, good bait but got too obvious when you talked about Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.17297841]

>>17297489
>What do you find repulsive about it?
What do I not find repulsive about it? It's been over a year since I have read it so I don't remember the details, but I remember the feeling of shock and revulsion shifting through the pages. In fact, I cracked the book open just now and it literally starts off with a gay Spinoza quote about love overcoming hate. This shit was written between 1941 and 1943, when Germany seemed to be on the brink of victory in the world war. The second paragraph opens an argument on how the Allies should basically save Germans from themselves and use the postwar period to even spiritually wipe out the then-current Germany and its various traits in favour of something "favourable to all" - we all know what this is referring to. He even specifically uses the phrase "secret love between conqueror and conquered" lmao. The whole book is a giant, emotional humanist whine about the horrors of war etc. This is totally at odds with the vision of Storm of Steel.
>To be able to find peace in a situation like that is incredible, even heroic. a sign that one has "titanic strength".
No, it's fucking cucked. If it's such a "tragic" time, then go down with the ship. That's the honourable thing to do. Whining about it and talking about a "secret love between conquered and conqueror" is profoundly disgraceful.
>>17297549
There seems to be no specific reference to that book, though? Thanks for the passage anyway, btw. I have only skimmed Path of Cinnabar and haven't seen this before. With all that said, I definitely think Junger emerged a humanist from the war. There seems to be no sign of his previous existential devotion to great causes.
>>17297618
What in those quotes suggests to you a radical, existential nonconformism like that of the early Junger? I can't see anything outstanding there. In fact, the idea that "the Titans" will come to predominate only seems to support what Evola suggested in that passage you posted - his view that demonic and quantitative forces will end up prevailing in the long term. Yet, he seems to not be very opposed to that phenomenon anymore.

[Anonymous No.17297902]

>>17297030
I like the Paris Diaries very much. But as for questions of spirit, if this is what you're referring to, one can see the loss even more in the hardened fighters, as on the Eastern Front where officers were demanding a moralistic type of warfare from the other side, even though they had themselves used 'gangster tactics' in the First World War. Fighting as earth forces (verteidigung in der tiefe), much like partisans and guerillas, was the source of the best fighting in WWI and they turned against that spirit. There was weakness in the old order not being able to establish its own form of mobilisation, their efforts turned from professionalism to blind faith in overwhelming strength, and then brute force. That is a replacement of morale with mere formalism, an army of the dead.

I also like the interwar articles. In Evola's defense there is a shift in tone. Junger's focus is something like a mobilised nietzscheanism, with a greater focus on elemental forces and mythic thinking. Everything seems to come from within, or at least there is a greater focus on the inner elements. After the war the elemental forces seem to be outside of Junger, beyond the individual. But there is also a great sense of inner peace. Rather than a weakening I would read this as becoming a figure like Goethe, one who is of a wealth that can never be diminished. There is also a connection to the myth of Midas one whose wealth is so great that it becomes the surrounding territory.

[Anonymous No.17297909]

>>17297902
Elsewhere I have suggested that Junger is a Nestor-like figure, who was the greatest of heroes. Someone like him is almost foreign in our age, unthinkable. Nestor may be contrasted with Achilles: one an absolute being who is beyond the eternal, the other infinite becoming as one exists in a period of complete transition and the metamorphosis of time. It should be obvious which holds more appeal in our age.

FG Junger discusses Nietzsche as a dynamic being, and Schopenhauer as static. Ernst was neither, which unfortunately makes him a somewhat confusing character in our age where the static being is both forgotten and seen as a figure of death.

Our focus on the apparent aspects of character is largely due to its loss, that most of us no longer have it, or that it is severely under attack. A Nestor or Junger appears to us as almost dead, if not godlike, because they live without the need of an overwhelming character. This speaks to the natural qualities, and a strength in form which goes beyond the needs of appearance, surface-level character.

[Anonymous No.17297920]

>>17297909
If this doesn't make a lot of sense Holderlin's commentary on Achilles and character may be helpful.

[Anonymous No.17297948]

>>17296655
Pan-Hellenism. He says that Homer made Greece more shallow by centralizing it and destroying independence.

[Anonymous No.17298047]

>>17297841
Is this the paragraph?

"It may safely be said that this war has been humanity's first joint effort. The peace that ends it must be the second. The builders who fashion peace out of chaos must not nly test and improve the old structures, but also create new ones towering above and uniting them. On these men it depends whether good spirits will guard the new house, and whether mankind can live in it in freedom and happiness, or whether prisons and cells for martyrs are again to be hidden in its foundations as sources of corruption."

Keep in mind that love and hate have a very different meaning in his time, let alone that of Spinoza's. Hippies and new age religions have pretty much destroyed these words, but we still have to think past that.

[Anonymous No.17298071]

>>17294094
Abhorrently stupid post

[Anonymous No.17298072]

>>17298047
If you can copy the other paragraphs that would help.
Evola mentions At the Wall of Time, which is An Der Zeitmauer. I'll be back in a bit.

[Anonymous No.17298095]

>>17297841
And from one of his last writings
>>17294122

[Anonymous No.17298209]

>>17298047
>>17298072
>>17298095
That paragraph opens that line of thought, yes, but it drags on for a while more.
>Keep in mind that love and hate have a very different meaning in his time, let alone that of Spinoza's. Hippies and new age religions have pretty much destroyed these words, but we still have to think past that.
It's obvious from the context what he's referring to. A couple of paragraphs in and he goes on a rant about the seeds of brutality etc. and then says that he hopes the peace will be a "seed that will give us bread for a long time" or whatever that will be beyond the silly oppositions of the past, in other words the idyllic postwar future where the conquered love the conquerors etc. For that exact line, check page 21 - I can't copy text on this digital version fsr.
Not sure why you linked me to that other post, though.

[Anonymous No.17298256]

>>17298095
The linked quote is an example of his continued concern for the spirit, and siding with the gods.

[Anonymous No.17298312]

>>17298256
There's too little context for me to draw any conclusions on that.

[Anonymous No.17298327]

>>17298209
Quote for reference:
>And in the memory of furthest ages this great spectacle will remain: how in every land, when the hour had come, they went out to battle on the frontiers, to sea-fights on the oceans, to deadly encounters of squadrons in the air. Then in every people and in every army there were deeds of wonder and to spare, and long-established fame in arms acquired its meed of new laurels. In this battle of giants each opponent could be proud of the other; and to the extent that time tempers enmity the secret respect and even the secret love between conqueror and conquered will grow. The one gains meaning from the other.

Can I ask what your beliefs are?

[Anonymous No.17298364]

>>17295297
big retard

[Anonymous No.17298369]

>>17298327
>Can I ask what your beliefs are?
I suppose the quickest way to summarise it would be a synthesis between Junger's interwar beliefs and all of Evola's works and metaphysics. Perhaps add a sprinkle of Niekisch for the more left wing economics and the whole "eternal barbarian" thing.

[Anonymous No.17298385]

>>17295846
Nietzsches complete rejection of "religion" "morality" dogmas laws and various other cope formulas is essential to understanding Evola.

However much you want to say Evola was "pro-religion" he wasn't first and foremost, he wanted to entirely liberate and embolden mankinds animating forces, the same way Neech did. The only way they differ is Evola understands that those other things and structures will come into play as secondary functions after the primacy of power and raw quality takes it's rightful seat at the top, Neech wanted to erase them alltogether like a retard. Evola says Nietzsches gut instinct to reject these modern false skeletons of "religion" and "morality and such is of the utmost importance to any of his differentiated men.

The truths of Religion and morality will only work after we re-invigorate ourselves with raw spirit and bold essence, they are sequential treasures, not essential measures.

[Anonymous No.17298406]

>>17298385
>However much you want to say Evola was "pro-religion" he wasn't first and foremost, he wanted to entirely liberate and embolden mankinds animating forces, the same way Neech did. The only way they differ is Evola understands that those other things and structures will come into play as secondary functions after the primacy of power and raw quality takes it's rightful seat at the top
To say that Evola conceived of these "animating forces" in "the same way Neech did" is misleading. To Evola, all the highest forces involved in human life were essentially spiritual and transcendental, not biological or immanent like Nietzsche believes. This is a major difference between them.
>The truths of Religion and morality will only work after we re-invigorate ourselves with raw spirit and bold essence, they are sequential treasures, not essential measures.
This is true if you account for what I just mentioned.

[Anonymous No.17298453]

>>17298369
Do you know anywhere to find Niekisch writings?

Another quote:
"So battles were made possible in which even the defeated, the unarmed could not count on mercy - encirclement and captivity which offered no prospect of escape. Over wide plains and open fields the terrors of the elements vied with a technology of murder and unshakable cruelty. There were areas where men destroyed each other like vermin and broad woods in which to hunt men like wolves. And one saw, cut off from all hope as if on a dead star, great armies go to their death in the horror chambers of the pocket battles."

[Anonymous No.17298489]

>>17298453
>Do you know anywhere to find Niekisch writings?
I've only got snippets. I used to talk to a German guy who would post his original translations but we lost contact a while back.
>"So battles were made possible in which even the defeated, the unarmed could not count on mercy - encirclement and captivity which offered no prospect of escape. Over wide plains and open fields the terrors of the elements vied with a technology of murder and unshakable cruelty. There were areas where men destroyed each other like vermin and broad woods in which to hunt men like wolves. And one saw, cut off from all hope as if on a dead star, great armies go to their death in the horror chambers of the pocket battles."
This is what I mean when I say "huge contrast with Storm of Steel".

[Anonymous No.17298515]

>>17298385
Is JBP a student of Evola then?

[Anonymous No.17298552]

>>17298453
"So, above all for the true and pure of heart, the war entered the realms of tragedy and to an upright mind the contradiction between the voices of future and past, between the world and one's native land, between duty and intuition seemed insoluble. There were many to whom death in the open field, in honorable combat, seemed the only, the best solution. With them the best, full seed fell into the ground."

[Anonymous No.17298661]

>>17298515
Juden Bloomberg Peterstein?

No

[Anonymous No.17298721]

>>17298406
Nietzsche didn't want to put faith in anything beyond matter and beyond himself, and if that was his downfall then that's that. Nietzsche in general is a perfect example of someone who was absolutely on the right track and got ahold of extremely powerful ideas but fumbled them and never got over the finish line the way he intended.

Guess Evola was better.

The point being is they both wanted to reinvigorate life and Nietzsche provides a lot of crucial first steps for Evola.

[Anonymous No.17298765]

>>17298721
Evola certainly made use of a lot of Nietzsche's ideas in Ride the Tiger, though there's no point in my criticising Nietzsche further in this thread since all of my criticisms have been ripped directly from the first half of Ride the Tiger, lol.

[Anonymous No.17299023]

>>17298489
A bit of a naive question, but could Storm of Steel have been rewritten for the Second World War? This makes me think of Tocqueville's comment on the impossibility of repetition in history, the painting which is ruined through its ridiculous placement in a new frame. The conditions that Jünger found himself in during the Second World War were entirely different, but aside from the character of fighting the possibilities had shifted. After WWI there was defeat, but in the midst of some of the greatest possible fighting. There were attempts at destroying Germany, even humiliation, but despite this the possibility of nation remained, spirits were even emboldened. The WWII situation was far worse, not only the defeat of Germany was on the horizon, but the whole of Europe, and perhaps the world. This was not merely a shift in morale, of vitality and the sense of pride one held for his people, but in spirit at the level of an age. This is in the sense of Hesiod's myths, or what we would refer to as a new species.

It is worth mentioning Jünger's strong man of values in The Glass Bees, and his discussion of Cato in Eumeswil. In The Peace he calls those who had to fall in battle the best of spirits, the full seed which fell into the ground. Does this not contradict what you have said in regards to disrespect, or not dying with honour and falling among fellow men? He held deep respect for these men, it was simply not his fate to die, to be sacrificed. In the battle of the Titans not all go to war, and some align with the gods perhaps for a form of justice which does not align with our understanding of time. In the seeds fallen to the soil there is also an image of Cadmean victory, of the nation which will survive death and the defeat of its territory. For the Russian this is the Invisible City of Kitezh.

If you are familiar with Schmitt's comment on the Serbian epic you may get a better idea of what is intended. The Serbian fights all day with a Turk, and in the end overcomes him. After the Turk had fallen a snake appeared from out of his heart and told the Serb, "You were lucky, I had been put to sleep before the battle." And the hero cried out, "Woe is me! I have killed a man who is stronger than me!" This story was told to Jünger when he was stationed in Paris. From it one may get an idea of what Germany faced, defeated by a weaker foe. Or perhaps something more terrifying, the whole of Europe defeated by that which is lesser.

[Anonymous No.17299029]

>>17299023
2
Everything that Jünger discusses holds this understanding of sides, even multiple sides in the case of the European civil war. The brutality is that of technology, and the monstrous also faced by the Germans in the great cauldron formations, encirclements that captured entire armies. This is war as an absolute force, and one which no longer recognises borders, boundaries. The weak, who may otherwise be elevated through wealth of war become the main targets. These are no longer the incursions that Herodotus spoke of, victory by supplanting farmland, but brutality which sends humanity itself into the earth. Ares fights on both sides of the battle, and in the same way peace must be equal for both sides - the territory returned to a natural order even if that means death.

However, ancient rules cannot just be supplanted, written over our own laws. We could not live up to those laws, or perhaps we would even destroy them. The old laws must take on a metamorphosis, be freed into our time if they are to have any power. Goethe's Kriegsglück may be helpful in understanding this. Where one is wounded he approaches the boundary between life and death, becomes equal to war and peace, the plunder which is to become wealth - where territory becomes dominion. He is given to the new world, "to the town the victor is holding, the same one you arrived at in anger." This is the inner light of war as it creates order anew for the king, who hears of the great warrior's strength. Jünger imagines this for the whole of Europe, and in a condition where any victory or peace seems impossible. This is its great merit, and even if a counsel that was not heard it remains as a portal for us in the sense of the highest possible justice.

[Anonymous No.17299034]

>>17299029
3

These are old questions. Schmitt mentions an anti-Semitic position in which wiping out the Jews would leave the victors to become them. For the conquered to love their conquerers is to recognise the great hold that the land holds over territory, the autochthonous forces which participate in war. To defeat the nomos of the enemy is not to conquer its numinous territory. Here the battle may return at any time, after many ages have passed. The serpent may only appear when it has been forgotten, even if its people have been wiped out.

To love the conquerers may be understood in the sense of the friend-enemy problem, the first step which must be taken before peace can take hold, the nomos given over to the numinous territory, the unseen. The Jews began the battles which wiped out entire peoples, the Christians the invisible warfare of great forces which take over the numinous and elemental forces within man. There is nothing that can be done about this now. We may wish, as Nietzsche had, to go to war with the greatest of poets, to begin by reclaiming the elemental spirit, but this will not return the independence of the Greek city-states. Our war, and any sense of justice, can only be fought on the ground before us. And just war can only ever begin from a vision of great peace - this must be established from the beginning so that the conquered may fall in peace, be given the possibility of rebirth. Our territory rests upon theirs, or can only rise from within it. This is Promethean warfare, a type which is not determined by waiting, but the gathering of the entire force of the future before setting out for the fight.

Jünger's work can only be understood in the language of its time, one in which the world state was the only solution. This should not be felt as an end, but a necessary beginning.

[Anonymous No.17299067]

>>17298047
>It may safely be said that this war has been humanity's first joint effort. The peace that ends it must be the second.
And to clarify, this is regards to the appearance of the new European man, the new figure of being, and the wall that has been built against the old world. All greatness was sacrificed for this, no matter on which side we began. Peace, at that point, was the only way forward.
With the failure of this one may only begin to welcome the end of the world.

[Anonymous No.17299357]

None

[Anonymous No.17299450]

>>17294375
Get a load of this retard

[Anonymous No.17300486]

>>17297051
Janny

[Anonymous No.17300576]

>>17298721
Nietzsche is far more fundamental, original and brilliant than Evola, but one could argue Evola was morally superior without while still being brilliant in his own way.

I say this because you seem to put Evola and Nietzsche on an equal scale, even though they definitely are not (and I say that as someone with closer beliefs to Evola than Nietzsche).

[Anonymous No.17301235]

>>17300486
For free

[Anonymous No.17301345]

>>17294962
His thinking, and the thinking of many others, was basically “Our political world had come and gone and there’s no real point in trying cause a revolution because not only is that counter to our ideals but any meaningful change we effect will end in disaster so it’s better to concern ourselves with how to live in light of the state of things”. Hence, Jünger would go on to eventually develop the idea of the anarch.

[Anonymous No.17301483]

>>17301345
In regards to revolution his thinking is much like Tocqueville's, the shift occurs in the atmosphere first and the revolutionaries are simply actors measuring up to the conditions. They are workers calmly assembling barricades but the destruction from either side will not have effects from the political order, it occurs at a higher level.
With the increase in power and technology, the size of the state, the revolutionaries will have even less power over the course of action. The events also become more destructive and disaster awaits. These are not so much pragmatic concerns as they are attempts to harmonize with a great new order.
The anarchist says, "You can't blow up a social relationship." This is the last defense against his liberalism, and before he turns to pessimism. Junger sees this from the other side, patiently waiting, harvesting power for the decisive moment.

[Anonymous No.17301524]

>>17301483
Right but revolution is also inherently antithetical to certain political ideals.

[Anonymous No.17301534]

I wish I never read Evola desu. This board doesn’t ever really discuss him well. I feel like I’m the only person who’s ever really closely examined what he wrote and now I can’t help but see the world in a similar way. In some respect, I saw it that way before.

[Anonymous No.17301563]

>>17299023
>Tocqueville's comment on the impossibility of repetition in history
Does he deal with this in Democracy in America, or in The Ancient Regime and the Revolution?

[Anonymous No.17301601]

>>17301524
While true for ancient politics, is it for us? Part of it is also that the revolutionary organizations can never live up to the destructive aspects of revolutionary forces, shifts in world power, law, technological order. The utopians imagined a fantastical type of order, seas of lemonade and giant men who live for hundreds of years. Paradise was for them not enough. In this sense the scientific imagination was greater than any political ideal, and revolutionary movements, in the face of this, were doomed to failure and pessimism from the start.

This suggests that the great revolutions of time and order exist as a law of the age, and no political ideal can escape it. Even in fascism there is a type of revolution that approaches this adherence to earth forces, return to the original man. It appears as a greater threat than revolution, and to liberal eyes a negative revolution. This is why it is seen as a greater threat, and why liberalism will align with socialism before fascism. Opposite to what Orwell said of the Spanish Revolution as the central point of the 20th century, anarchism is a complete non-factor.
Revolution can never be enough for us, it is an opiate. Hence the pacifist hope for an apocalyptic force.

[Anonymous No.17301602]

>>17301563
Recollections. I'll try to type it up if you want. Have never found a digital version.

[Anonymous No.17301605]

>>17301534
What do you like most in Evola's writing?

[Anonymous No.17301608]

>>17294982
W2C Baudrillard's shirt?

[Anonymous No.17301647]

>>17301608
Van Laack

[Anonymous No.17301661]

>>17301605
I just can’t help but see the world the way he saw it. The defining characteristics of the modern world are a complete lack of awareness and even outright denial of anything supernatural, sinking further beyond the natural and into the unnatural, accompanied by a sense of inertness, basically. I come from a Catholic background where I had to learn theology and I think that’s been helpful in really understanding his writing, even his idealist writings. I can’t help but see the tragedy in Cartesian living and the consequences of that personally are rather pessimistic. I want badly to be able to dismiss him and move on to someone else to contextualize my worldview but I just haven’t.

[Anonymous No.17301674]

>>17301563
"The men who were thus charged with heading off the revolution of 1848 were precisely the same men who had made the revolution of 1830. They remembered that the army had been unable to stop them then and that the presence of the National Guard, which Charles X had so imprudently dissolved, might have caused them a good deal of trouble and foiled their plans. So they did the opposite of what the government of the elder branch of the royal line had done, yet achieved the same result. Mankind never changes, but the popular mood is in constant flux, and history never repeats itself. One era can never be directly compared with another, and an old painting forced into a new frame never looks right."

[Anonymous No.17301701]

>>17301661
Why do you want to dismiss him?

[Anonymous No.17301764]

>>17301701
Because it’s difficult to live in light of that particularly given personal circumstances. Also, I just don’t like how he’s so often co-opted by people who really don’t care to approach with depth or nuance. He’s a bit of a meme around here, you know. I think it’s unfair but it’s obvious.

[Anonymous No.17302173]

>>17298071
t. never read Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.17302223]

>>17300576
Evola is just better and incredibly more well rounded, and even then morality has nothing to do with that.

[Anonymous No.17302691]

>>17302223
What's his best work?

[Anonymous No.17302846]

>>17302691
Depends on what you're looking for

People call Revolt Against The Modern World his magnum opus but it's not very accessible compared to something like Men Among The Ruins or Ride The Tiger. Probably one of those.

Meditations on the peaks is good too.

He also has several articles which are top tier like "The face and mask of Contemporary spiritualism" where he BTFOs modern hippie larpers who aren't actually seeking higher forms of living but being escapist niggers.

[Anonymous No.17302867]

What do I need to read before der arbeiter? I've read storm of steel and want to get into junger's more political work, but haven't read a lot of political theory.

[Anonymous No.17302912]

>>17302867
>HURR DURR WHAT DO I NEED TO READ BEFORE...
Fuck off if you think like this^

Anyway to answer this, all of Ernst Jungers political work is extremely accessible and straight forward, you shouldn't need anything to hop right in and understand it 100%

Most of it follows a similar theme to Nietzsche and Evola in that humanity is pussifying itself into something ugly and weak. Jungers contribution to this realm of thought is about the presupposition of safety as the ultimate ideal in modernity and how running away from danger or pain is futile and ultimately worse than just facing it.

[Anonymous No.17302956]

>>17302846
People should read his works on idealist philosophy if they can. I think they’re really crucial to actually understanding his worldview and most often over looked because he distanced himself from them. They add context in that way though.

[Anonymous No.17303085]

>>17302867
>>17302912
I agree that this would be ideal. But the whole reading list thing is coming up because of the loss of a traditional education.
The old intellectuals read lots of difficult works at a young age and spent years discussing the ideas with friends and family. Going into The Worker without any understanding of history, politics, and ancient thought would make it nearly almost impossible, although still worth it if one is really interested in the ideas. To some extent what you read will continue to form in your mind over the years.

Read some selections and if you can understand them stick with it. On Pain and Total Mobilization form something of a trilogy with The Worker, so you may want to read those beforehand. And if you have trouble return to Plato, Tocqueville, Schmitt.

[Anonymous No.17303102]

>>17302691
I would add The Bow and the Club as a useful summary of his doctrine. But what >>17302846
said is very good to begin with.

[Anonymous No.17303426]

>>17294039
>Nietzsche: Too much of a nihilist. It drove him mad in the end.

[Anonymous No.17304064]

>>17300576
Evola didn't believe in morality, at least not on its own terms.
>>17301534
I've also examined his work closely, anon!
>>17302846
>Meditations on the peaks is good too.
Patrician as fuck.