The Anarch

[Anonymous No.20329082]

Two friends of mine have been lauding an excerpt from this book as exemplary, with the less self-assured one wishing they were as elevated as the anarch and the more self-assured one claiming they had found the philosophy they had been following without knowing how to phrase it laid out before their eyes. My sister, on the other hand, thinks the writing pretentious and unrealistic and believes this fuels my friends' delusions of superiority to and contempt for humanity at large. I understand Jünger opposes the anarch to the anarchist as being truly free by not having to preach about freedom all the time but instead living it, taking what he can from the powers that be instead of hypocritically and/or pointlessly confronting them yet never submitting to any authority beyond his own personal interest at the time. The anarch supposedly lives life on a more primordial level than everyone else, seeking fleeting reality in art mostly. Jünger also opposes the liberal to the anarch in that the first always wishes he lived in a free world whereas the second knows he can be free and makes the conscious decision to be and remain free. While Jünger makes some novel and thought-provoking points, I am reticent to adhere to what I sort of see as sophisticated je-m'en-foutisme and irresponsibility as a "nugget" of wisdom, as my more self-assured friend called it. Has anyone here come across this text before? What did you think of it?

https://voxnr.com/8245/ernst-junger-lanarque/ this is the excerpt in question, a few Google Translate tricks should help you find it in English.

[Anonymous No.20329100]

>>20329082
>a female doesn't like the book
this must mean it's bad!

[Anonymous No.20329105]

>>20329082
On the to-read list but haven't got to it yet.

[Anonymous No.20329293]

Junger is peak midwit-core—he's like fucking catnip to them

[Anonymous No.20329307]

>...derive pleasure from what is present and do not toil to procure the enjoyment of something not present
>It appeared to Aristippus that the basic principle of all life was to be found in two states of being, the state of happiness and the state of pain, the one the child of wisdom, and the other the child of folly, the one agreeable and the other repellent to every living thing. Epicurus taught that if the mind could be free from anxiety and the body from physical disorders, happiness would inevitably be present. So tame a form of happiness would have been repudiated with contempt by Aristippus, who believed it was possible to plan for pleasures, and in some cases to snatch them from the hands of envious Fate, as a dog will snatch a cold woodcock from out of a pantry window. It seemed to him that happiness was as accessible to the poor as to the rich and was a condition that could be induced by a cunning wisdom. In order that a man should never become a slave to his passions, complete self-mastery was essential. A man should be able to curb his desires or abandon himself to them in accordance with the dictates of prudence and good sense.

[Anonymous No.20329324]

>>20329082
Your sister is correct. No man is an island. It's a hubris conceit of men that they can defy society that women are instrincally less suspectable to, women needing to constitute themselves at the secure centre of society to safely raise children whereas men can operate on its frontiers and insecure wildlands. Read Fichte, Hegel, and Kojeve on the philosophy of right.

[Anonymous No.20329328]

>>20329324
>what is trade
Spook

[Anonymous No.20329363]

>>20329082
>seeking fleeting reality in art mostly
There's a word for that, aesthete. Waltar Pater, Oscar Wilde etc.
https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/aestheticism-and-decadence

[Anonymous No.20329450]

Read the jungeranon threads. He cleared up a lot of the misunderstandings people have
>>/lit/thread/S15323312
>>/lit/thread/S15071624

[Anonymous No.20329546]

>>20329324
You haven't read the book.

[Anonymous No.20329788]

>germany lost war
>therefore hide in forest
>hide in allegorical forest but stay in city
Bravo Junger

[Anonymous No.20329795]

>>20329788
>>germany lost war
I mean how many times are you supposed to put all your human power and abilities in, sacrifice everything, your life and even your own sons to achieve a goal even at the level of a greater society and good and get beat down again and again before you can just dip out?

[Anonymous No.20329855]

>>20329293
>>20329788
anti-jungerfag just won't quit.

[Anonymous No.20330079]

>>20329307
Meaning?

[Anonymous No.20330140]

What's the quote in English?

[Anonymous No.20330159]

>>20329795
That's the problem with Junger, it's therapy for the defeated. All very well for old men who were forced then to live "amongst the ruins", but why ought we in a different era malinger in their historical conditions?

[Anonymous No.20330176]

>>20330140
"peepee poopoo"

[Anonymous No.20330177]

>>20330159
>a liberal and traitor
>geriatric
Don't you ever get tired of this?

[Anonymous No.20330193]

>>20330177
You're malingering in a historical defeat instead of embracing and living in the possibilities of the present. You're taking on another persons historical impotence and the therapeutic techniques he employed to grapple with that impotence.

To be weak is miserable, doing or suffering; why malinger in another's weakness when the conditions that produced that weakness do not apply to you?

[Anonymous No.20330203]

>>20329450
“ Whereas the anarchist wants to abolish power, the Anarch is content to break all ties to it. The Anarch is not the enemy of power or authority, but he does not seek them, because he does not need them to become who he is. The Anarch is sovereign of himself—which amounts to saying that he shows the distance that exists between sovereignty, which does not require power, and power, which never confers sovereignty.

“The Anarch,” Jünger writes, “is not the partner of the monarch, but his antipode, the man that power cannot grasp but is also dangerous to it. He is not the adversary of the monarch, but his opposite.” A true chameleon, the Anarch adapts to all things, because nothing reaches him. He is in service of history while being beyond it. He lives in all times at once, present, past, and future. Having crossed “the wall of time,” he is in the position of the pole star, which remains fixed while the whole starry vault turns around it, the central axis or hub, the “center of the wheel where time is abolished.” Thus, he can watch over the “clearing” which represents the place and occasion for the return of the gods.”

[Anonymous No.20330216]

>>20330193
How did Junger linger in historical defeat?

[Anonymous No.20330220]

>>20330203
It's therapy for losing WW1 & WW2 and being impotent to determining the social form of the society he lived in. The answer is not to forgo society and pretend to be a self-determining atom, but to win the social again and partake in determing the form and nature of the society in which you live. Perhaps that was beyond him, old and twice defeated, but why should others, in a different era, malinger in that impotence, and pursue that same therapy for the weak?

[Anonymous No.20330227]

>>20329082

[Anonymous No.20330230]

>>20330220
What are you talking about you schizo? It's a critique of anarchists

[Anonymous No.20330231]

>>20329324
>conflating society with community

[Anonymous No.20330237]

>>20330216
By giving up on politics and therefore giving up on determining the form and nature of the society in which he lived in, and rather choosing to be content with being a self-determining anarch. Perhaps he had no other choice and for him it was not malingering in the true sense, but rather proper therapy appropriate for the historical conditions he was confronted with. But for us, now, in a different time? It is malingering in the deeply negative sense, taking on an impotence and volentarily subjecting oneself to the therapy for the weak before that weakness has been imposed upon you.

[Anonymous No.20330242]

>>20330231
There isn't a difference, to posit a difference is to invent a therapy for your impotence in the political field.

[Anonymous No.20330255]

>bro, just work to get Germany destroyed a third time and lose your grandsons this time lol
>surely this time the anglo will understand.

[Anonymous No.20330265]

>>20330237
Read the old threads. >>20329450
He wasn't political to begin with

[Anonymous No.20330266]

>>20330230
Both anarchism and the anarch are strategies of impotence against a society that you can not effect the form or nature of. It's a debate of the weak outsiders over which therapeutic path they will take to accomdate themselves to their impotence against a hostile society they can not change. The anarchist desires to tear it all down, the anarch desires to be self-determining, to form his own internal microcosm of society and state. Both are wrong from their inherent anti-social nature, they fail as social-political policies because they aren't social, they're therapeutic strategies to being outcast alone from society.

[Anonymous No.20330274]

lmao who is this dude sperging out in every Jünger thread?

[Anonymous No.20330276]

>>20330242
The technical society and the Christian community are at complete odds with one another

[Anonymous No.20330281]

>>20330265
He retreated from the political because he lost. The retreat is therapy from being outcast, from political impotence. There's no need for anyone else to malinger in his impotence, unless you too are truly impotent and defeated like he was, and therefore you too need his therapy, even then it's misrable.

[Anonymous No.20330283]

>>20330266
Where does he say it's for therapy?

[Anonymous No.20330289]

>>20330276
That's why Christianity is anti-social movement, as Hegel wrote. It's for a small intimate group of believers holding property in common, and can not be the basis for a society or state.
http://hegel.net/hegelwerke/Hegel1948-OnChristianity-EarlyTheologicalWritings.pdf

[Anonymous No.20330294]

>>20330281
Lost what? Doesn't seem like you read him at all.

[Anonymous No.20330297]

>>20330281
>you WILL submit to a totalitarian state run by schizos

[Anonymous No.20330299]

>>20330283
His post-WW2 corpus is a therapuetic manual. Read the OP, the two friends discuss the book as therapy and therapeutic technique.

[Anonymous No.20330302]

>>20330294
He lost two world wars. He would have been a very different writer with a very different, and very socially responsible state position, if Germany had won WW1.

[Anonymous No.20330306]

>>20330297
You live in a society. Choose your therapy for how you accomdate youself to the facticity of your social being.

[Anonymous No.20330320]

>>20330299
Post the quote.

[Anonymous No.20330325]

>>20330302
Nazis would have killed him.

[Anonymous No.20330329]

>>20330320
It's a critique of Junger that I am making.

[Anonymous No.20330332]

>>20330299
So anon's sister doesn't like him and that makes him a bad writer. Got it.

[Anonymous No.20330333]

>>20330289
So you do believe that there's a difference between society and community then? Surely you are not saying that women must be a part of society to raise children, considering it is this very modern globalized society which has led to the decline of childbirth, and the crisis of raising children in a safe environment as you put it.

[Anonymous No.20330336]

>>20330325
They had 25 years and didn't, not a good post.

[Anonymous No.20330343]

>>20330332
The sisters critique is correct, but that's beside the point, all are evaluating is as a therapeutic manual, the two men positive, the sister negative.

[Anonymous No.20330356]

>>20330333
No there is no difference. The early Christianity that Hegel beleives could work is an extended family, and once it goes beyond the intimate bonds of common property ownership and close day-to-day friendship it fails because it is anti-social.

[Anonymous No.20330363]

>>20330343
Stupid people think all art is pretentious.

[Anonymous No.20330377]

>>20330363
The sister correctly identifies the anti-social nature of the anarch concept and the negative therapeutic consequences of social alienation for the person who realises it
>(sister) believes this fuels my friends' delusions of superiority to and contempt for humanity at large

[Anonymous No.20330378]

>>20330237
Who's a non-therapeutic writer who could have saved Germany with heroics?

[Anonymous No.20330389]

>>20330377
What does this have to do with the book? It's not about tik tok

[Anonymous No.20330413]

>>20330389
Because the book is written and read for a therapeutic purpose, not merely an aesthetic experience.

>>20330378
A better millitary strategist? A better political counsellor against hubris and over-extension? Giving Bismarck a daoist immortality elixer scroll?

[Anonymous No.20330425]

>>20330356
What about the Amish? They live in multi-family communities.

[Anonymous No.20330436]

>>20330425
And depend on the state that harbours them for security and the administration of law.

[Anonymous No.20330516]

>>20330436
What do you mean by that? The Amish don't participate in the military or law-enforcement, and most of the issues they have are handled in-community.

[Anonymous No.20330766]

>>20329082
Emprunté à la librairie, j'ai pas pu aller au-delà de quelques pages. Stirner > Jünger.

[Anonymous No.20330795]

>>20329082
Cringe. Just read Stirner at this point, he's not deluded by a false sense of nobility

[Anonymous No.20331168]

This samefag. Why do you hate Junger?

[Anonymous No.20331180]

The epilogue was probably the greatest twist I have encountered in any piece of literature.

[Anonymous No.20331193]

>>20329580
Real anarch but they choose to sleep on it
reading-books homies
fossil shit pre-historic book worming
'yeah I read joong. I read thomas pidgeon'

tell me, what are you going to read when all book sentences will be mandela-effect'd to SNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEE

[Anonymous No.20331220]

I've read Marmorklippen, Waldgang, and Abenteuerliches Herz. What should I read next?

[Anonymous No.20331264]

>>20330231
A distinction without differences. Socialists do the same with personal and private property. State, society, community are all just describing states.

[Anonymous No.20331305]

>>20331220
Probably Storm of Steel.

[Anonymous No.20331314]

>>20331305
I recently read Christian von Massenbach and that was enough war kino for me for the time being.

[Anonymous No.20331453]

>>20330220
The best future you are achieving with some kind of course-correction is an upper South American tier state.

[Anonymous No.20331460]

>>20330265
Have you ever read any of his work from the interwar period? This is clearly false.

[Anonymous No.20331465]

>>20331220
On Pain
The Worker
Interwar articles
Copse 125

[Anonymous No.20331478]

>>20329082
I read the book and you know, it’s all bullshit to me and I don’t believe Jünger was actually promoting egoism but that he was only attracted artistically to the idea. I mean that’s really all it is, a cool concept. Anyone who actually things they “should” live like the guy in this book is irrational and attracted to the aesthetic, there is no philosophical basis for the anarch. In fact I don’t even believe Stirner would have seen the anarch as the embodiment of his philosophy. For me the climax of the book was when the narrator finally namedropped Stirner and the rest was only carried afloat by Jünger’s style. Obviously the book has no plot and reads like an exercise in mental masturbation which is fitting since it’s exactly the kind of thing the narrator would write.

[Anonymous No.20331503]

>>20331180
Why ? All I remember is that his brother found the book and obviously had a different conception if the narrator. Idk I didn’t get the meaning of having the narrator die or get lost or whatever at the end

[Anonymous No.20331545]

>>20330325
Hitler specifically instructed the intelligence services that J:unger must not be harmed.

[Anonymous No.20331609]

>>20331460
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.20331641]

>>20331478
My challenge remains. If any a reader finds a shred of praxis in this author, then say so, because I, for myself, find nothing.
> be a forest rebel
> be an anarch
> make art and poetry
This from the man who wrote exhaustively on the ever-expanding reach of the technological world state and the methods by which it throttles art, chokes off poetry. If this is his praxis, it is beyond useless.
Here I would like to add that Jünger was a very valuable writer, an important figure, and admirable man. But he was not a worker. He did not no work, economy, or even technique (ironically). Ernst Jünger knew war, the machine, thought, and writing, but he knew little else. He was a romantic. He was the last remnant of a heroic ideal which was allied to shine brightly just before it faded from the world. He did his military service and retired to live his life as an essayist and then a bohemian writer, like a Greek. What can the modern man in say, Britain or America, deprived of estate and pensions, get from him? Or the student, trapped between disciplines and a ballooning debt burden? Or the man who wants to return to the other, but has to work for a living, forced to live in the dredge and muck of a modern megalopolis while he works as a Sys Admin for the city? Nothing. He has nothing to offer them. He’s a man who, like others in the 20th century, held romantic and idealistic notions about art, poetry, and myth especially, but conveniently forgot that the ever-expanding technological machine and its global apparatus is precisely the throttling of art and the death of poetry, something he foresaw and diagnosed himself. Those myths were not even his own, but belonged to the Greeks, and those which he leaves us have no praxis at all, and barely an origin which can be relied upon. Modern man cannot live inside those myths any more than he can live inside those which we find in the Holy Bible or in the works of Homer. That is to say, he can’t live inside them at all. And those capable of realizing dome abstract, Jungerian ideal (were it to exist)? Ironically, they are the extremely few and the only ones who have no need for him at all.
> you’re just missing the forest for the trees
Perhaps I am. But either way, I grow very tired of engaging with nonsensical and illusive language that can hardly be parsed out at all. It’s extremely frustrating.

[Anonymous No.20331688]

>>20331545
>Hitler was God
Are you retarded anon? Things don't just change in one direction.

[Anonymous No.20331738]

>>20331688
w-what?

[Anonymous No.20331739]

>>20331220
Heliopolis

[Anonymous No.20331766]

>>20331641
This is a reply you saved from a thread that was up something like a year ago. Why?

[Anonymous No.20331792]

>>20331738
You said he would have been a based Goebbels ironybro if the Nazis won but Junger hated the nazis

[Anonymous No.20331803]

>>20331766
Because it's based and none of the jungerfags can defend his praxis. He was a weak man and traitor.

[Anonymous No.20331813]

>>20331792
He didn't care about the Nazis. He got a cushy officer job in France for reenlisting and got to fuck french sluts and drop acid.

[Anonymous No.20331845]

>>20331792
Are you having a stroke?

[Anonymous No.20331907]

>>20331813
>didn't care about the nazis
He only wrote a book calling them worse than commies.

[Anonymous No.20331923]

>>20331907
That's just him being a fucking Chad. His whole life was just fuck you I won't do what you tell me.

[Anonymous No.20331951]

go sell your esoteric hitler funkopops.

[Anonymous No.20331988]

Ignore the nazi tranny. He gets paid per post

“All the systems which explain so precisely why the world is as it is and why it can never be otherwise, have always called forth in me the same kind of uneasiness one has when face to face with the regulations displayed under the glaring lights of a prison cell. Even if one had been born in prison and had never seen the stars or seas or woods, one would instinctively know of timeless freedom in unlimited space.

My evil star, however, had fated me to be born in times when only the sharply demarcated and precisely calculable where in fashion.... "Of course, I am on the Right, on the Left, in the Centre; I descend from the monkey; I believe only what I see; the universe is going to explode at this or that speed" - we hear such remarks after the first words we exchange, from people whom we would not have expected to introduce themselves as idiots. If one is unfortunate enough to meet them again in five years, everything is different except their authoritative and mostly brutal assuredness. Now they wear a different badge in their buttonhole; and the universe now shrinks at such a speed that your hair stands on end.”

[Anonymous No.20332007]

>>20329293
Junger is good, anyone talking about Junger online is a tranny trying to coopt him for some midwit liberalism, same as Tocqueville

[Anonymous No.20332148]

>>20332007
>glowing

[Anonymous No.20332162]

>>20331460
"HERVIER: So then you're generally hostile to a writer's committing himself politically?
JüNGER: It's also a question of age: literature and politics diverge to the extent that one is interested on the one hand, in the world as will, and, on the other hand, in the world as representation. In a young man, the forces issuing from will are still very powerful: remember the sympathy that our classical German writers initially felt with the French Revolution: you enter a situation, but then you're quickly disappointed. You know that Baudelaire originally hailed the Revolution of 1848 as a passionate spectator but he was rapidly disgusted. And the same thing happened to our [Theodor] Fontane. Young men, whose temperament is still highly active, are unable to resist political temptations,·even if it's one of our greatest poets, such as Hölderlin, who is now being drafted for politics. Yet politics plays a very ephemeral and subordinate role in him. Hölderlin expressed himself about politics, for instance, in his poem about the peace of Lunéville, and today they're making such a fuss about it. Upstairs in my library, I have the big edition of Holderlin: if you gather up the political portion, you won't even have one percent of the total number of pages. His exemplary aspect is of a completely different nature. The writer and, above all, the poet are less ideologues than men capable of uttering exemplary words and creating exemplary characters. Perhaps they have the right to try intervening in politics once: on a major occasion with important consequences, as was the case in the Dreyfus Affair, in which writers played a considerable role. One can then say: "That man was perfect politically." But whether he's a good writer is a completely different story."

[Anonymous No.20332169]

Shame that people fell for the autism instead of reading Jungeranon's threads.
Has anyone collected his posts into a pdf? They're the best resource I've found in English.

[Anonymous No.20332319]

>>20332007
We all get it, jungerposter destroyed your worldview. Now take your meds

[Anonymous No.20332767]

Anyone reading Visit to Godenholm? It's really good.

[Anonymous No.20332824]

>>20329082
Why is there a black cube on the cover?

[Anonymous No.20332844]

>>20329082
>Jünger opposes the anarch to the anarchist as being truly free by not having to preach about freedom all the time but instead living it
>Jünger also opposes the liberal to the anarch in that the first always wishes he lived in a free world whereas the second knows he can be free and makes the conscious decision to be and remain free

[Anonymous No.20332848]

>>20330516
And therefore are not a self-contained society that can meet all of the communities needs, for internal security or self-defence. A society can not be governed by the actual Christian principle of pacifism.

[Anonymous No.20332862]

>>20331641
Junger doens't offer a praxis to win or overcome, but a consolation, a therapeutic strategy to accomodate oneself to defeat; which mirrors his own life happenstance.

[Anonymous No.20332871]

>>20332862
Indeed; follow my blog—ergo, indeed; whilst.

[Anonymous No.20332886]

>>20332871
What's the blog. It has to be good to make you sperg out every thread.

[Anonymous No.20332945]

>>20332848
>A society can not be governed by the actual Christian principle of pacifism.
That's exactly how the Amish societies are governed though. They don't require any external police force or army to manage govern themselves.

[Anonymous No.20332993]

>>20332945
Yes they do.

[Anonymous No.20333224]

>>20329450.

>This is the conflict of power, and rather than a turn towards liberalism, as many accuse Junger of, his figures should be seen as a survival of human types of power within the victory of telluric forces. A totality where it would otherwise be impossible. The conflict of the Forest Rebel and Anarch are thus a means of freedom, when totalitarianism threatens man's freedom, when the forest rebel figure is no longer possible. At the moment his dignity is threatened, however, a descent into criminality may be the only escape.
For Nietzsche the criminal is something of a strong man without other means.

Underrated post. Thank you.

[Anonymous No.20333503]

[Anonymous No.20333514]

>>20330203

Sounds a lot like Evola's idea of the "true personality" that can only be reached through conquering the animal and contingent self.

[Anonymous No.20334374]

>>20332993
Whether the U.S military exists or not is irrelevant to the Amish, they don't care about geopolitics.

[Anonymous No.20334566]

>>20334374
The Amish depend on the sovereignty of the US government. They depend on the US millitary to defend them from external threats. They depend on US laws, the 1st amendment, laws exempting them from conscription, favourable tax and corportion laws etc. in order to exist. They had to flee from the other side of the world to find this host state to provide them with the state social structures they could not provide themselves.

I was recently reading about in the similar Mennonite community there gave been a series of court cases to decide property rights between rival factions. Paul forbides court cases between Christians, in a small body of believers where everyone is an intimate friend perhaps you could forgo having a court system. But here, again, actual Christianity fails to meet the basic needs of a large society, disputes arise, and courts, despite Pauls instructions, are needed to settle them.

[Anonymous No.20334610]

>>20330516
>The Amish don't participate in the military or law-enforcement
Exactly the point, both are neccessary for a society, following actual Christian practices precludes you from fulfilling basic social needs like defence and law enforcement. The actual Christian group depends on a host society to provide those basic needs that is either non-Christian or willing to transgress the impractical anti-social impositions of Christianity, like pacificism and forbidding court cases or a court system. Christianities social-political rules and ethics are meant for a small group of intimate friends, not the basis for a general society or large group.

[Anonymous No.20334717]

>>20334566
The Amish do not depend on the U.S for anything, they depend on the absence of interference in their community. If the U.S forced them to conscript in the Army they would probably be conscientious objectors, if the 1st amendment didn't exist it would be irrelevant since they care more about the law of God then American laws, it does nothing to stop existing laws from interfering from how they want to live. You say "external threats", but all threats are external to them, whether American or foreign.
>>20334610
I don't understand why defence or law enforcement are considered to be "basic needs". I also don't see why this way of living is somehow limited to only small communities, as long as a common bond is held they can continue to grow (and the Amish have grown immensely in the last few decades).

[Anonymous No.20334818]

>>20334717
>they depend on the absence of interference in their community.
Again, a dependence on others, they depend upon the laws and practices of their host society to enable them with internal peace and freedom and to not extirpate them like the German states did. At a minimum they depend on the host society to grant them confessional freedom, which is not a given thing as you seem to naively assume is a baked-in freedom.

>if the 1st amendment didn't exist it would be irrelevant since they care more about the law of God then American laws,
And when unfavourable German laws were passed against them they ceased to exist within Germany. Likewise in America where at times Mormons have fled state governments and to Mexico where the laws of their host no longer granted them peace and freedom, likewise the Mennonites to Canada at times.

They Amish didn't grow in Germany did they? The transcendental conditions for growth: pax and freedom, were not provided for them there and they could not provide them for themselves.

This is the problem for any actual Christian practice, it can not itself provide the transcendental conditions for a general society or even a large group. It depeneds on others to provide the neccessary conditions for them to exist; peace, laws, a justice system, confessional freedom etc.

To rejoin back to Junger, this is also the problem with the anarch. He lives in a society. His social being is determined by his social relations within the form of that society. Whatever his alienation from society he can not be a microcosm with a social being entirely within and determined by himself, society will still exisits outside of him and will still condition and determine him, anarch pretensions or not.

[Anonymous No.20334941]

>>20334818
There is a fundamental difference between depending on something and having something affect you. I have no doubt that the Amish understand that the wider American society has some influence on them in some way, but they do not put their faith in the government continuing to play nice with them and allow them certain freedoms. The freedoms they actually value come from God, not from human establishments.
I used the population of the Amish to show that the "upper limit" of growth in their communities where they somehow must transform into a society is ridiculous. The Amish do not worship growth, whether of their people or their technology, as some sort of necessary human goal, it is simply a consequence of the present material conditions. So the problem that you pose has no bearing on these communities, as they don't see those necessary conditions (as you claim) of law enforcement through independent organizations, a justice system reliant on institutions, or legal freedoms granted by government "through God" as a requirement for living. The difference between society and community is a sort of academic distinction that has no bearing on them, they will continue to live as God commands regardless of their size. Even is certain communities are persecuted, they will simply live in new lands.
This is the same for the anarch, he may enter or exit society at will but his true freedoms are provided by God (at least for Junger), not by human authority. God is concrete, the ever-changing cultural norms and laws of a certain society are forever chasing an ideal. He does not live IN a society, his participation is voluntary.

[Anonymous No.20334995]

Hello it's me, the anabaptist anarch. I live within the very centre society but within myself I am unconditioned by society. I'm hanging free, self-determining, a forest ornament within the town centre.

[Anonymous No.20335185]

>>20334995
Hello it's me, the atheistic modernist. I completely agree with everything in the globalized democratic liberal society, but I am a free-thinker. I have freedom (because the government says I do), and not influenced by propaganda to go to university and achieve a technical degree to slave at my job for the next 50 years. I'm living free, self-determined by my own rational intellect, a beacon of light in a dark world.

[Anonymous No.20335244]

When you critique something you actually have to understand it. Calling Junger a liberal or a slave doesn't mean anything, you're just reinforcing weak ideas.

[Anonymous No.20335331]

>>20334717
>Being this fucking daft

[Anonymous No.20335819]

>Manslaughter is anarchic, murder is not

[Anonymous No.20335827]

>>20335819
"They found no mischief in me. I remained normal, however deeply they probed. And also straight as an arrow. To be sure, normality seldom coincides with straightness. Normalcy is the human constitution; straightness is logical reasoning. With its help, I could answer satisfactorily. In contrast, the human element is at once so general and so intricately encoded that they fail to perceive it, like the air that they breathe. Thus they were unable to penetrate my fundamental structure, which is anarchic.

That sounds complicated, but it is simple, for everyone is anarchic; this is precisely what is normal about us. Of course, the anarch is hemmed in from the first day by father and mother, by state and society. Those are prunings, tappings of the primordial strength, and nobody escapes them. One has to resign oneself. But the anarchic remains, at the very bottom, as a mystery, usually unknown even to its bearer. It can erupt from him as lava, can destroy him, liberate him. Distinctions must be made here: love is anarchic, marriage is not. The warrior is anarchic, the soldier is not. Manslaughter is anarchic, murder is not. Christ is anarchic, Saint Paul is not. Since, of course, the anarchic is normal, it is also present in Saint Paul, and sometimes it erupts mightily from him. Those are not antitheses but degrees. The history of the world is moved by anarchy. In sum: the free human being is anarchic, the anarchist is not.”

[Anonymous No.20335835]

>>20335827
>>15082857
When we read the first paragraph of this it becomes clear that he is not taking aim at murder, nor even the sovereign individual. The essence of what he is discussing here is the human element, that which drives him towards freedom, the inner force which may even be in conflict with the will. Specifically, this is directed to his own character, or Venator's anarchic spirit. Sovereignty is only a concern, at least in this passage, in its distancing of power from the will.

Important to keep in mind is the difficulty we have today in placing the essence, our manner of thought tends to ignore it, we even obscure it through rationalisation processes (this is quite the opposite of what we tend to think of with obscurantism). This is partly what is difficult in reading Junger, he uses the modern style, all of its language, yet he retains the ancient quality of thought. I have a quote from his brother that explains this perfectly well, I'll post it below.

Continuing on with his idea here, he says that "Normalcy is the human constitution" and it is reasoning which gives order to this, allows him to contain his freedom and effectively remain as anarch without any suspicion regarding his behaviour. This allows him to get closer to power without being affected by it, but also what allows him to be an even greater threat. He does not simply allow the anarchic element to overwhelm him, he is instead sovereign over it, controls it in time so that it may be released with greater force when the time is right. Otherwise, he will control this force to prevent catastrophe. For example, the assassin who kills without any concern for consequences: his aim may be to end a corrupt state power, yet his very act may return a sense of urgency to the state, thus strengthening its defenses. In other words, the will destroys itself, it is brought to ruin through the blindness of moral will.

There is a specific quality formed within the individual through his being civilised - his family life and education specifically. And it is this quality which is in conflict with his anarchic elements, the entirely metaphysical aspect of the will. How one is raised, the extent to which one is given free access to become his spirit, can act as a barrier to the anarchic element or even increase the force through which it is released. Suicide can be a result of this, the forceful element takes sovereignty over the will and all that remains is a powerlessness - the element must find its end.

[Anonymous No.20335837]

>>20335835
The ancient maxim "Know Thyself" speaks to this, the duality of being and the overwhelming power of knowing one's fate. At times one must "resign oneself" to the moral will, yet the primordial strength remains within him, unknown. This has a freeing element, one is swept away by time and the form which has become sovereign within a territory. The manslaughter is thus an event, whereas the murderer is responsible for a controlled form of killing - he threatens power against sovereignty, an order that may sweep across the land as a war state. Elsewhere he discusses the death penalty and its relation to murder, the great weight attached to decisions of law and justice. "The blood must not remain in the country." Murder can sweep across the land like a plague, and this may be the reason for homo sacer: the murderer has established his own law and right to sovereignty, a state of exception within the man. The only response is to try and keep this opposed territory as minor as possible - he is left to the gods or sacrifice. Either way, murder will not spread.

It is worth stating again that murder is not the intended focus of Junger's comments, I simply rely on it as a way of reframing what drew your attention. Junger's thinking is not moralistic, and as he says, 'these distinctions are not antitheses but degrees.' In this sense, murder and manslaughter may be understood as types within the form of killing - the element at the core of a man's being shifts from the unknown, the anarchic, into the known. Their essence never changes, however the way they are exerted through the moral will may cause greater dangers and conflicts with power and sovereignty.

The other distinctions include love and marriage, the latter understood as the law upholding the sovereignty of the family; and the warrior and soldier, perhaps no better example of the former exists than the Bacchanalian drunken charge in which death is forgotten. The anarchist denies his anarchic freedom, he turns revolt into a reasoned figure of himself. It is an ordered form of freedom, hence the hardened manner in which he will throw himself at the state, destroying nothing other than himself. A moral will of rebellion which acts as a form of sovereignty which refuses its own power.

[Anonymous No.20336263]

[Anonymous No.20336997]

Too based for r/lit.

[Anonymous No.20338667]

[Anonymous No.20339438]

>>20329100
>this must mean it's bad!
Have you seen the state of /lit/?

[Anonymous No.20339790]

>>20329082
I read it last summer. Glad to have gone through it, but it was a slog. The ramblings are a bit cringe most of the time. He's name dropping high-brow cultural references every two paragraphs just to flex, as it adds nothing to the discussion most of the time. Main thought throughout all this was why would someone chad enough to have written and lived through storm of steels would go on to do something this cringe. You can get a summary of the Anarch concept much better than by reading this book. Again, the plot is non-existent.

[Anonymous No.20340221]

>>20339790
Cringe.

[Anonymous No.20340244]

How knowledgeable I have to be on other Jünger works to read Eumeswil?