Storm of Steel

[Anonymous No.13175636]

What edition do I buy of this? Hofmann or Creighton? Is Creighton really as bad as Hofmann claims and why is Hofmann's edition supposedly revisionary?

Pic related also looks pretty corny. Any better recommendations?

[Anonymous No.13175838]

Creighton is translating from one of the 1920s-1933 versions, I think, which are not only nationalistic but increasingly nationalistic to the point of arguing for things like "a logic of the blood" to supersede politics etc. From what I understand based on asking this same question a while back, Hofmann is correct in some of his criticisms, but you can do the comparisons yourself and see that (I think) Hofmann can also be a bit bloodless, no pun intended, in translating Junger.

The bigger problem is that Hofmann is translating from a much later edition, I think a postwar one. Junger in this much later period famously calls his pre-1933 writings his "Old Testament," meaning both an earlier phase of his thinking and a more bloody, doctrinaire, sturm und drang phase. So if you're reading a revision of one of his "Old Testament" works, arguably his most famous one, made during his "New Testament" years (in which he was much more introspective, concerned with aristocratic detachment and morality, interested in experimental drugs and psychedelia, and so on), you're just not getting the Storm and Steel that made him famous in the first place.

I think the general idea is that Hofmann reads Junger like a slightly more ambiguous Remarque, a kind of melancholy but ambivalent insider's perspective of a meaningless war, and that's true of Junger, but it should also be noted that he then spent 15 years reacting to this meaningless by arguing vociferously for an (essentially) fascist solution rooted in primal warrior fellowships and a "beyond good and evil" Nietzschean outlook on politics. I don't understand the point of reading Junger as pseudo-Remarque when it's this other side of him, his youthful phase (really, more like the first half of his life), that made him a literary titan to begin with. You can't understand late Junger except by reading early Junger, you can't appreciate Hofmann's post-war Junger except as an outgrowth of Creighton's bloodthirsty amoral Junger who essentially advocates for a Furherprinzip. You can't understand On Marble Cliffs' criticism of the Woodsman unless you understand why Junger writes in the book that the protagonists had themselves spent time with the Woodsman.

[Anonymous No.13175844]

>>13175838
Addendum: On the plus side, there are nice audiobook versions of Creighton available for free online if that's your thing.

Junger really deserves to be read chronologically and with biographical detail, including his letters, diaries, and so on. He's one of the best writers of the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.13176114]

>>13175838
>>13175844
Thanks for the detailed response. It seems like these two different versions of the book are really at odds. I'm really not sure which edition to get. I've only been able to find used editions of Creighton's version. I wish it were in print still. I might pick up a used version even though I have a general rule against buying used books online.

What do you think of this brightly colored Penguin edition? Don't you think it's somewhat ironic given the subject matter or is it just me? I know Penguin has an older edition out there with a more fitting cover. I don't know if I'm just being picky.

[Anonymous No.13176171]

>>13175838
Interesting read
Lit needs more posts like this

[Anonymous No.13176202]

Read it german, pleb

[Anonymous No.13176241]

>>13176202
I wish that I could, but even then there would probably be a problem with the edition stuff since Jünger repeatedly revised the book! There is a beautiful edition on Amazon now in German that has some insect on the cover. I wonder what edition that one is based on.

[Anonymous No.13176260]

>>13175838
>>13175844
Nice posts.
>>13176114
Not him but I think it looks kinda gaudy and juvenile.

[Anonymous No.13176265]

>>13176241
I think there’s an (expensive) German box set edition of the book featuring every revision of the text.

[Anonymous No.13176490]

>>13175838
I did some digging since i was unsure which revision my translation was based on and it turns out the Creighton translation is itself based on a revision, in which much of the nationalistic stuff was added.

My edition was based on the 1961 revision which is the same as Hoffman apparently. I disagree on that you can't understand his later stuff without reading the early version of storm of steel, all that stuff is pretty clear when reading on the marble cliffs even if you have read a newer edition of storm of steel. Later editions still have a very strong sense of warrior virtues and the rush of battle. And the critique of the head forester is very clear regardless imo.

"On the marble cliffs" was also revised but i don't know how they differ and I've only read the pre-war version.

[Anonymous No.13176742]

just learn german you fucking spic

[Anonymous No.13176772]

>>13175838
>>13175844

Great posts

[Anonymous No.13176806]

Rate the (comparative) aesthetics of this new edition

[Anonymous No.13176852]

>>13176806

I like the understated green and the unadorned design--it fits a martial story of this sort.

[Anonymous No.13176871]

>>13175636
>>13176114
>>13176260
>>13176806
There are at least 4 covers for Hoffman's translation of Storm of Steel. This Penguin Classics cover is my favorite. Here are the others that I found:

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41MRYT0RZAL._SX291_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

https://bookdepot-lmwv1z0x2r9fdffrc7q.netdna-ssl.com/covers/large/isbn978014/9780141186917-l.jpg

[Anonymous No.13176879]

>>13176871
Fuck me, I forgot to attach the image.

[Anonymous No.13176905]

Did you know the expression "Storm of Steel" has a long and storied pedigree?

[Anonymous No.13176926]

>>13176490
>Creighton translation is itself based on a revision
This. The 'nationalistic' version is not the version which made him famous, much of that content was added due to the political situation in the 20s.
It is primarily a book about war and material battle, not nationalism. And those passages, no matter your stance on nationalism, are irrelevant to the whole image. One might even say that they contradict the book and drag upon its intent, considering that the First World War was the end of nationalism.

[Anonymous No.13176939]

>>13176926
So when the hell is someone going to do a translation of the original version of Storm of Steel?

[Anonymous No.13176955]

It's as if he was on another planet...

[Anonymous No.13176961]

>>13176939
Highly doubt they will, considering the current translation philosophy. And despite his semi-popularity here there's probably not enough of a market to warrant multiple translators.
One would have to seek out their own copy.

[Anonymous No.13176990]

>>13176961

We might see an academic edition in some hundred-and-fifty years. Something fully annotated and dissected in appended scholarly essays. Junger will cast a different light then. The two great wars will also take on strange new meanings I suspect.

[Anonymous No.13177012]

Rare Jünger

>Ernst Jünger during his first sojourn to the isle of Rhodes, 1938. His brother Friedrich Georg stands behind him.

[Anonymous No.13177256]

>>13176926
>considering that the First World War was the end of nationalism.

kek, go to bed hofmann

[Anonymous No.13177288]

>>13177256
You're welcome to make a counter-argument.

[Anonymous No.13177358]

>>13177288
okay: "weimar"

https://www.jstor.org/stable/20753587

[Anonymous No.13177369]

>>13177358
even better:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/019165999390228I

[Anonymous No.13177806]

>>13177358
>gets btfo by nationalist digits
>still proceeds to argue
Simply because some people continue to believe in nationalism doesn't mean it remains as a form of the world, or at least one which can establish dominion within the present telluric laws. The Great War was the completion through material force of what had long been established in law: a universal state without dominion.

Those who continued to believe in the potential for nationalism were foolish, or perhaps betrayed by their sorrow. One can have sympathy for them but it was clear that the old world was dying well before the war, and every aspect remaining would be destroyed in the material clash. One might even say that the mutual slaughter was simply a sacrifice of that which was already being destroyed in the metaphysical and hidden realms.

Junger realised this, many in the adjacent circles did not. The hardened foolishness of the National Socialist regime was an element of nationalist death, striving to keep its spirit alive where it was impossible - hence all of the images of death, and not just at an aesthetic level.

None of this is to cast judgement upon nationalism, its potential virtues or otherwise. It is simply a recognition of fate, and having the humility to recognise what is possible, what is necessary, what we can fight against and what we cannot. The Romans called this gravitas, and if anyone should have recognised it then perhaps it was those men who made runes out of eagles. Given that they did not, we must conclude they were lacking in the eagle's spirit.

Those who denied the end of the old world existed in a dead realm and tried to drag everyone else down into it. One can even see that all of the potential lessons learned in the First War were abandoned, even thwarted, in the Second. And, as Junger says, it was entirely conservative forces that were to blame.

What was necessary for German victory was, first of all, to survive, and then ease its way into the continental redivision. People did not even want war, and the land taken in the first movements of the Second War was a gift - one which should have been graciously accepted, and accounted for along with a fateful sovereignty which followed the First War and German occupation. If liberalism showed weakness then it was necessary to not rouse the dragon from its slumber. Hitler, in his foolishly skeletal authority and incompetent military strategy, betrayed everything that was necessary for the survival of Germany as a state.

After the funeral procession of nationalists it is only luck that anything of Germany remains. But if you disagree, feel free to point out a single nationalist state that remained after the Wars.

As a secondary argument, Schmitt's theory of the partisan proves that nationalism only survived as an oppositional force, as a skeletal formation of states under threat. It was no longer an active or creative force after the First World War.

[Anonymous No.13177823]

>>13177806
okay but this is a thread about ernst junger. you asked me to rebuke "Nationalism ended with WW1" in a thread about junger. i linked you an academic peer reviewed article saying that junger was not only the foremost weimar nationalist but was regarded as such by his contemporaries.

>Junger realised this, many in the adjacent circles did not.
i linked you an academic peer reviewed article saying that junger was not only the foremost weimar nationalist but was regarded as such by his contemporaries.

>nationalism only survived as an oppositional force, as a skeletal formation of states under threat. It was no longer an active or creative force after the First World War.
junger himself apparently disagreed, given that he styled himself as, and was regarded as, the foremost nationalist theorist under weimar.

i did not appreciate your pretentious essay. you should read the thing i linked you, it was one page long.

[Anonymous No.13177910]

>>13177823
You might not appreciate it but you clearly do not understand the difference between form and material perception. There is a form to which a nation must rise within the current trajectory and law of the world, and if it fails so will the nation. Again, just because a group of people believe in a particular form of government does not mean those ideals will be able to withstand the internal pressures once functioning in a real state which must reconcile with the laws of the world.

One must also differentiate between pride for one's nation and the philosophical idea of nationalism as it functions within the forming of the modern era as a whole. As of World War I, this function was complete and nationalism no longer had a purpose.

“Chivalry here took a final farewell. It had to yield to the heightened intensity of war, just as all fine and personal feeling has to yield when machinery gets the upper hand. The Europe of today appeared here for the first time on the field of battle.”

This is an eruption into the world of the new laws of Europe. The old regime, and its nationalism, is dead. Romanticism and idealism are dead. Neoclassicalism and state territory are dead. A new type of warfare to which class, national identity, and spirit were subordinate developed in those years. No one was fighting for nationalist purposes, but for the fulfilment of modern European law. If nationalism was reborn after the war it was simply in a state of confusion, a refusal to accept the reality of what the new state entailed.

I think in another work Junger mentions the Second World War as the end of nationalism, but this would be the dying of its dead form, its being laid to rest.

You can call this pretentious all you want, but trying to grasp the truth is simply one of the old virtues; virtues which you apparently lack.

[Anonymous No.13178851]

>>13176879
such an amazing photo, my cucked-hofmann edition has this image but flipped and in a greyscale

[Anonymous No.13180013]

>>13177910
poltards BTFO once again.

[Anonymous No.13180467]

>>13177806
>>13177910

>guy says some shit

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.13180478]

>>13175636
ok

[Anonymous No.13180484]

>>13177910
ok but i wasn't arguing about your wikipedia self help philosophy of life, you asked me to show that nationalism was a thing after WW1 and junger was involved with it, and i linked academic sources saying he was a leading figure in weimar nationalism

[Anonymous No.13180494]

>>13176171
This.

[Anonymous No.13180510]

>>13180467
Sure, kid. Keep using leftist arguing tactics while thinking you are keeping True Right-Wing Nationalism alive.
Junger would have hated your philistine view of the world. And he'd be right, you represent everything wrong with the West, the end of values.

[Anonymous No.13180517]

>>13175838
Thanks for the insight anon, I was unaware of this book until now, and I could not have hoped for a better way to be made aware of it than your post.

[Anonymous No.13180551]

>>13180510
>True Right-Wing Nationalism alive
Right or Left wing are arbitrary designations when discussing Nationalism. Nationalism is necessarily a biological force and may be quantified. By all means, keep beating your dick over mystical and spiritually deterministic explanations though, it's a lot easier then tediously pouring over diplomatic relationships, war time mutual defense agreements, individual ambition, etc, etc. Lazy pseud.

[Anonymous No.13180560]

>>13180484
Do you have any concept of logic? You think that some rote mechanism undoes reality and truth, but this just isn't the case. All it does is show how out of touch you are.
And why are you, a good nationalist, appealing to the leftist academia? You should be embarrassed by these cheap tricks, not employing them in every single thread.
If you want to argue that I am wrong, then make an argument. All you are doing is making clear to anyone with an understanding of these ideas that you haven't even begun to consider them.

Go read this again.
>>/lit/thread/S13058325#p13063235

[Anonymous No.13180568]

>>13176171
>>13180494
It's wrong though, as the poster himself admitted.

Why don't people read threads?

[Anonymous No.13180607]

>>13180551
>Nationalism is necessarily a biological force and may be quantified.
Imagine blindly obeying leftist myths and then claiming that myths have no power...
Imagine thinking that a stockpile of progressive documents is closer to the truth than theology and myth...
You are proven wrong with every instant the modern world goes on. You resort to namecalling and degeneracy because you have lost all traditional values. You do not understand philosophy or theology, yet you insist you are the one in a position of authority in this discussion. No reading comprehension and no ability to use even basic logic.
You are scum, forged animal sperm, precisely what brought the white race to its current pathetic state.

[Anonymous No.13180636]

>>13180551
A quote for our high-energy poltard academics.

"Today we even recognize the secret law of this vocabulary and know that the most terrible war is pursued only in the name of peace, the most terrible oppression only in the name of freedom, the most terrible inhumanity only in the name of humanity.

Finally, we also see through the mood of that generation which saw only spiritual death or a soulless mechanism in the age of technicity. We recognize the pluralism of spiritual life and know that the central domain of spiritual existence cannot be a neutral domain and that it is wrong to solve a political problem with the antithesis of organic and mechanistic, life and death.

A life which has only death as its antithesis is no longer life but powerlessness and helplessness. Whoever knows no other enemy than death and recognizes in his enemy nothing more than an empty mechanism is nearer to death than life.

The comfortable antithesis of the organic and the mechanistic is itself something crudely mechanistic. A grouping which sees on the one side only spirit and life and on the other only death and mechanism signifies nothing more than a renunciation of the struggle and amounts to nothing more than a romantic lament.

For life struggles not with death, spirit not with spiritlessness; spirit struggles with spirit, life with life, and out of the power of an integral understanding of this arises the order of human things.

Ab integro nascitur ordo."

Carl Schmitt, who was responsible for National Socialist law, himself said that a return to mythic and spiritual understanding was necessary for human and German survival. As did Heidegger, Junger, and basically any worthwhile writer of the modern era.
You are on the wrong side of the very ideas you pretend to worship.

[Anonymous No.13180645]

>>13180607
>of progressive documents is closer to the truth
>the records of events don't conform to what Dady Evola told me so they're ipso facto "progressive"
Lmao, see, you're a lazy fucking pseud.
>You are proven wrong with every instant the modern world goes on
that's a non-sequitur and ironically enough, reeks of an "end of history" Fukuyama-liberalism worldview
>you resort to namecalling and degeneracy because you have lost all traditional values
No, I'm berating you because you deserve to be berated
>if only you were as big-brained as me you'd get it ; _ ;

[Anonymous No.13180654]

>>13180467
>boiling causative events down to "magic" and "fate"
At what point did the right come to adopt dialectical materialism?

[Anonymous No.13180658]

>>13180560
i never said i was a nationalist.

you said "Nationalism ended with WW1" and i showed that you don't know much about history if you think that. the exact kind of nationalism that junger pushed for ten years is why weimar fell. this is pretty standard in histories of the period.

junger's later relationship with his youthful nationalism is a lot more ambivalent than your cringy backpedaling lets on, too. source: i've read all his journals and letters in german.

>not employing them in every single thread.
i don't know who you think i am. you said something false, in this thread. i corrected you. you asked for proof, so i immediately linked two peer reviewed articles showing that you're wrong. that's the extent of our interactions.

no one is reading your seriously embarrassing blog posts. you're flailing around for a nonexistent audience. i can't possibly think lower of you than i do right now, so there's no chance saving face there. why not just give up and let the thread die? at least then your embarrassment will be forgotten. and you can learn from it in the future by not speaking up about shit you don't know anything about.

[Anonymous No.13180669]

>>13180636
>Carl Schmitt, who was responsible for National Socialist law, himself said that a return to mythic and spiritual understanding was necessary for human and German survival. As did Heidegger, Junger, and basically any worthwhile writer of the modern era.
I never made a claim one way or the other you fucking hack, I said using spiritualistic determinism to describe and explain away events is lazy and stupid. It remains lazy and stupid, as much as you want to pretend I was making claims about the merits of societal secularization.

[Anonymous No.13180675]

>>13180645
>bitches about a magical understanding of the world
>proceeds to pull bullshit out of the air
You don't even know what a non sequitur is, nor even how to spell it. Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself with these 'i know you are but what am i' tricks?

[Anonymous No.13180685]

>>13180654
Reminder for the spiritual to exist, it necessarily must pass through or be generated from the biological, material, medium.

[Anonymous No.13180695]

>>13180675
Yeah sure thing boss.
>if it's wrong it wouldn't exist

[Anonymous No.13180707]

>>13180658
>reading that much Junger
>being a philistine piece of shit
>still not getting that there is a difference between national pride and nationalism as a philosophical idea
Okay, that's enough. It's a waste of time to engage with /pol/. Just as dogmatic as the left they claim to hate.

[Anonymous No.13180742]

>>13180669
>>13180685
>>13180695
Pol nihilists ruin yet another Junger thread.

[Anonymous No.13180770]

>>13180707
>there is a difference between national pride and nationalism

again: junger was a leading nationalist activist who literally, deliberately, and continuously advocated for "Nationalist" parties, "Nationalist" manifestoes, and the metapolitical overthrow of the weimar republic. in 1926/7 he called for a general nationalist political program to collate the more general "apolitical" nationalists, and tentatively praised the nazis.

the tendencies you are probably half-assedly describing are more associated with the juni-club and ringkreis, which were more traditionally elitist and conservative. such distinctions become easier to make when you actually learn the fucking history before spouting off about it.

i never once revealed my political allegiances. you're just a retard.

[Anonymous No.13180804]

>>13180742
>>13180707
Cringe posts. The other guy is pretty /pol/ himself.

[Anonymous No.13180886]

>>13180770
Political movements are not nationalism. The life is not the lifeworld. Existence is not form or spirit.

Nationalism had a spirit, and after WWI it became something else entirely. What the Germans called nationalism was not Nationalism in its essence. It was a dead form politically revivified by a political organisation with no sense of how they had already lost, and would only deepen this loss in a world fundamentally in opposition to Nationalist spirit. How is this not clear to you?

If a form has no Being it makes no difference whether or not people believe in it, they are simply being swept up into unknown forces. What they refer to as nationalism is then just an empty symbol, and this opposition to Being, what is, results in their being swept away into an even greater destruction. Much of the violence of the Third Reich, and its opposition, was precisely due to this being out of step with truth and the natural laws taking place. Without grasping this they made the situation far worse than it would have otherwise been.
Much like yourself. You insist you are winning the argument at a base level without realising it is taking place at a much higher level. You don't get the dialectic, the truth which is being discussed by thinkers like Junger. ANd in doing so you are bastardising not only Junger's thought but the truth itself.

If you don't understand basic philosophy you should not be in this conversation. Lose your pride if you want to have any understanding of the world beyond base materialism and experience.

[Anonymous No.13180896]

>>13180804
Perhaps, but at least it's an attempt at a discussion rather than baiting and namecalling.

[Anonymous No.13180933]

>>13180886
if a highly specific metaphysical interpretation of nationalism was your point in the first place, then you are moving the goal posts, because you originally didn't specify that.

even giving you the benefit of the doubt on this, though, junger himself, the thinker in question, WOULD HIMSELF DISAGREE WITH YOU because he himself called it "nationalism" during the period in question. i am not the one being pedantic. you are the one who throws up sophomoric smokescreens of jargon you think will be intimidating when you get called out for making a sloppy, false statement.

you are doing yourself a disservice by acting like this. i'm happy that you're interested in these philosophies but your first response to meeting someone else (someone who might have talked to you about them, constructively and collaboratively) is to start posturing defensively like your "turf" has been invaded. you should learn from this experience and be more open to criticism in the future, and not see use your neophyte interest in lebensphilosophie primarily as a soapbox for impressing others on an anonymous forum. that's a good recipe for remaining a dilettante forever.

it's now embarrassing for me if i continue talking to you so good luck.

[Anonymous No.13180939]

>>13180886
>>13180770
In other words, you are believing a claim simply because a claim is being made. But just because someone claims to be an adherent to an ideology does not mean they are an ideal representative of that ideology.
What I am saying is that any nationalism proclaimed after WWI was completely deprived of the essential elements of Nationalism as a form - one might even say the two were in opposition.
In Junger's terms, there was simply no possibility of Nationalism as a dominion.
Today, we refer to this as larping.

[Anonymous No.13181000]

>>13180939
i would argue the exact opposite, and i think mainstream scholarship would support me on it. one of the most common interpretations of nationalism is that it's an essentially romantic ideal (or ideology, depending on your slant), philosophically dependent on historicism and notions of eigentumlichkeit going back to herder. the post-WW1 nationalisms were not a shedding of the old form of nationalism, they were the shedding of hegelian universalism and the bureaucratic rational state form with which it was associated, so that nationalist movements achieved practically the entelechy of historicist/cultural uniqueness type thinking.

one of the greatest watchwords of post-1918 weimar, used by junger himself, was "the ideas of 1914" as opposed to "the ideas of 1789." the ideas of 1914 are not pre-WW1, they ARE WW1, they are (in junger's eyes and the eyes of many like him) the ideal of nationalism that was straining to escape from the administrative state since 1871.

[Anonymous No.13181016]

>>13180933
These were the first posts, you disingenuous cunt.
>>13177256
>>13176926
>>13177806
> nationalism doesn't mean it remains as a form of the world, or at least one which can establish dominion
This was made clear from the very beginning, and your first post began this ridiculous line of discussion.

You are a fake, a degenerate, one who resorts to a false projection of power. A child who resorts to namecalling at the sight of the first thing he dislikes. This was made clear throughout the thread, and I would have no interest in discussing things with swine like yourself. You clearly have a false morality and worldview, apparent in how you engage with others.
And worst of all, you're passive-aggressive, a coward. And no doubt your first response will be to try and call me a hypocrite for ad hominem. But you are the one who began this line of discussion, so now I am putting you in your place, you arrogant fucking pseud.

[Anonymous No.13181066]

>>13181016
>you: "the First World War was the end of nationalism" [verbatim]
>me: uh, not really
>you: "Make a counter-argument" [verbatim]
>me: (to what??) well, in any case, it's not the 'end of nationalism' according to any historian, using almost any conventional definition of 'nationalism', and not according to Junger himself, who was one of the most representative champions of what he called 'nationalism'
>you: Ah but see Junger later thought that [dilettantish understanding of Junger's kehre for 4,000 puffed-up words in purple prose]
>me: ... okay, but we're talking about conventional definitions of nationalism, or we're at least talking about junger's definition of it; either way, your statement was erroneous
>you: BUT YOU SEE, NATIONALISM IN THE POSTWAR PERIOD WAS THE SLOUGHING OFF OF THE DEAD FORM OF A DIALECTICAL INVERSION OF THE [etc.], AND THAT'S WHAT I REALLY MEANT ALL ALONG, NOW LET ME BLOGPOST WITH PURPLE PROSE
>me: i'm infinitely more familiar than you are with the philosophy you are attempting to intimidate me by pretending to know, but i'm going to be polite and gracious and not humiliate you for no reason
>you: Fool that you are! I have paragraphs upon paragraphs of purple prose in store for you!

[Anonymous No.13181093]

>>13181000
You would argue this, and you would be wrong.
Someone who cannot make a single coherent argument.
Someone with no grasp of the line of discussion.
Someone who can't even point out a single nationalist state.
>mainstream scholarship
lol, but do go on.
>romanticism
Where's the romanticism after WWI?
How does a European spirit survive when the Europe of the Romantic age died? It was entirely replaced by technicity and the mobilised human.
I was willing to make arguments, clarify my position while you all tried to call me a pseud. Where's your arguments? You're just making blind appeals. Let's see some rigour and spirit to show this enduring vitality of nationalism and romanticism.
Oh, yeah, you called me a pseud and a hack for even attempting a romantic interpretation of our current predicament.
>entelechy
And you called me pretentious...
>so that nationalist movements achieved practically the entelechy of historicist/cultural uniqueness type thinking.
And a hack...

>so that nationalist movements achieved practically the entelechy of historicist/cultural uniqueness type thinking.
This is the only useful thing you said, and even though it is full of contradictions it is something that I would like to see clarified.
Although you would have a very difficult time suggesting that this is what Junger meant. You are reading too much through this early period and the circle of which he was a part for only a very short time.

[Anonymous No.13181116]

>>13181093
again, i just feel bad for you. your dilettantism has plateaued.

enjoy talking to yourself in your dead thread. remember to bump it a few more times with "Based, polfags got obliterated >:^)" cringe shit.

[Anonymous No.13181119]

>>13181066
Imagine being this lacking in self-awareness and incapable of taking criticism while insisting you understand the German spirit.
Again >>13181016
You're a disingenuous cunt.

[Anonymous No.13181131]

>>13181066
accurate

[Anonymous No.13181132]

>>13181119
negative, i am a samurai

>>13181131
thank you

[Anonymous No.13181137]

>>13181116
Yeah, you made that claim in the last thread, but that was proven wrong.
Keep desecrating German ideas, Anglo. And keep contradicting yourself, you made it clear you are without values.
>i-i-imm-imm-imma stop now

[Anonymous No.13181144]

>>13181131
Samefagging again.
Pathetic.

[Anonymous No.13181184]

>"Ernst Junger was a nationalist" vs. "Nationalism doesn't exist"
Good thread guys, very productive debate.
Just tell me what translation to read already.

[Anonymous No.13181298]

>>13177012
>that moment when Jünger finds his wounded brother on the battlefield and saves him from most certain death

Jünger brother actually writes his account of this happening in the book himself, and its one of the best parts, his brother is really good with words!

[Anonymous No.13181345]

>>13181184
>ISBN: 9780865274235
Google that. Try to get the old ones from 20's. They are rare

[Anonymous No.13181408]

>>13181184
The available one. It's what Junger edited himself and wanted people to read.

[Anonymous No.13181422]

>>13181066
This is the guy making all of the threads claiming that the current editor is bad and trying to manipulate people into a liberal conspiracy.

I think there might be a discord agenda at play.

[Anonymous No.13181436]

this book can be comfy

[Anonymous No.13181448]

>>13175838
>spent 15 years reacting to this meaningless by arguing vociferously for an (essentially) fascist solution rooted in primal warrior fellowships
This is not true in the least. Junger reacted fairly quickly to the National Socialists and refused membership.

There is some interesting political manipulation behind these threads. Beware.

[Anonymous No.13181463]

>>13175838
>>13177256
Pure ressentiment.

[Anonymous No.13181478]

>>13177358
How was weimar nationalist?

[Anonymous No.13181502]

>>13181000
>>13180770
Is this "junger is a globalist" poster?

Your reading is shit.

[Anonymous No.13181865]

>>13177288
>I only became a nationalist under the influence of France, and especially thanks to reading Barrés immediately following the First World War; Barrés really inspired me. It was he who said ' I really am not national; I am a nationalist'. I immediately adopted this.
Ernst Jünger, Entretiens avec Ernst Jünger, ed. Julien Hervier (Paris: Gallimard, 1986), 23.

[Anonymous No.13181896]

>>13181865
>>13177288
>Yet [Jünger] was less concerned about the possibilities for action than a nationalist "worldview." ... This explains the speed with which Jünger rose to become the central figure of a "new nationalism." He considered nationalism not only a necessary but a healthy fever, which had seized everyone who wanted to contribute to the resurgence of Germany ... "We nationalists believe in no universal morality. ... We believe in the value of the particular."[1]
- Armin Mohler, friend and personal secretary of Jünger immediately during and after World War 2

[1] Ernst Jünger quoted from "Das Sonderrecht [The Special Right] des Nationalismus," 1927

[Anonymous No.13181899]

>>13181865
does anyone have all the articles junger wrote for right wing papers back in the day ?

[Anonymous No.13181915]

>>13181896
>>13181865
is this supposed to prove that ww1 ended nationalism or am i reading this wrong

[Anonymous No.13181921]

>>13181915
Nationalism was done for.

[Anonymous No.13182042]

>>13181921
>National revolutionar
how revolutionary are we talking here?

[Anonymous No.13182050]

>>13175838
How do you recommend reading Junger? Is there a specific order I should read his books in, any specific editions, letters, etc?

[Anonymous No.13182132]

>>13181865
>>13181896
Yes, Junger was a 'nationalist' for a few years, along with much of Germany, as the right-wing coped with losing the war and essentially being under economic occupation.
But what exactly do you think this proves? Can you not read, Thrasymachus? I admitted this spirit of nationalism, and that in one place Junger makes an argument that Nationalism died with the Second World War.
How many times do I have to repeat this? The type of nationalism, to once again reframe it in Junger's terminology, is not the same as the figure of Nationalism. The nationalism of the 1920s is a completely new form of nationalism, opposed to its essence in the 1800s, and it flickers in those final few places like a fire consuming its last embers.
Do you not realise that Junger was a Platonist? Why do you insist on this modern atheist and enlightenment reading? Junger is not a modernist, nationalist, atheist, fascist, or liberal, no matter how much you want him to be and try to trick people into your reductionist readings and shitposts.

"The meager resistance which the armies had offered compared with the fighters of Douamont bore witness that the conflict was no longer conceived as a fight to the death. France, considered as a national state, had exhausted itself in the tremendous sacrifices of the First World War. On the other hand, unlike England it drew no power to invigorate its thoughts and actions from realms of empire.

[Anonymous No.13182143]

>>13182132
In Germany, on the contrary, the element of nationalism was not yet exhausted. Therein lies the reason why the struggle was renewed and now seemed to be assuming its final form; the reason being that Germany had to lose the war of conquest which she waged as a national state - and correspondingly one saw the forces of resistance grow in proportion as her efforts increased. Now it is important that along with the others she should win the war in so far as it is a war of unity."

What does this mean? Firstly, and the significance of this should not be understated, the birthplace of Nationalism has been exhausted, both in nation and spirit. Where nationalism remained it was as an element, and in an occupied state completely at odds with the Western order, this was a temporary stoppage in the move to "its final form." What then occurs in the war is that with every effort to exert itself as a nationalist state Germany is met by a much greater force, and is then exhausted. It assumes the same fate as France, sacrifices itself in the war of unity.

In essence, nationalism after the First World War could only exist as a minor oppositional force to the world order, a negation of itself, and any appearance only increased the need to finalise this order. WWII was the death march of the last nationalist state against the European/world order.

How badly do you want to lose this, Thrasymachus? You are arguing bare symbols against forms, and a minor period of a writer against his work as a whole. You want to scratch the surface and claim this is the whole story, disregarding any real engagement with the entire image. Yet you would be the first to argue against Walter Benjamin making a greater claim of understanding war than Junger. Is not the whole understanding of an individual's work greater than the partial, just as a complete consideration of warfare is required to understand war?

Need I remind you that Junger saw the individual as a single essence? His younger period is not at all opposed to the later period, this is a rising of his spirit, which must be reconciled with and then finalised as the entire character of his being. One could certainly view his younger period as a moment of perfection of this whole character, but then we might see something else entirely. Rather than a nationalist, we see the rising of a noble and ancient spirit, and the quick turn against the fascists proves this reading.

You are a terrible reader and wannabe academic. And completely disrespectful to me, anyone wanting a real discussion of these difficult works, and Junger's ideas. As if academia wasn't trash enough to begin with, and in complete opposition to Junger's thought, you come into this with swagger, passive-aggression, and two fistfuls of bullshit. You may be too pompous to realise this now, but perhaps in time you will be rightfully embarrassed. What a pathetic way to argue.

Now fuck off, Creightonfag, your agenda is clear.

[Anonymous No.13182155]

>>13181915
This is Creightonfag thinking that the instance of nationalist feeling is the same as its Form and dominion.
He doesn't understand Junger's philosophy, nor how to interpret nationalism through it. All he cares about is using Junger's ideas as a platform for biological nationalism.
He's a nihilistic fascist who spams these boards alog with a few other neofascists. Others have revealed where they come from.

[Anonymous No.13182159]

>>13182050
You're asking someone who gave false information and misrepresented Junger multiple times.

[Anonymous No.13182277]

>>13175636
I made a thread about Jünger a year ago on lit and got disregarded. Fucking tourist.

[Anonymous No.13182282]

Creightonfag would like us to ignore the complexities of the young man.
>It reveals more of a bourgeois mentality, and the aesthetic element, with a hint of decadence, is highly present in the young men who talk about war.
This was regarding one of his other works on war. Should we conclude that Junger was merely a decadent?

[Anonymous No.13182290]

>when World War I broke out, the young people were extraordinarily enthusiastic in our cities, just as in London, Paris, or Moscow-it was a kind of intoxication. Whereas when the hostilities broke out in 1939, everybody felt sad and dejected: "Do we have to go through it again! How stupid to repeat it!" Enthusiasm was out of the question.
Doesn't sound very nationalistic.

[Anonymous No.13182323]

>Just between us, I was in favor of negotiating, it would have spared us millions of deaths. The world state progressed all the same, for all those national issues were already obsolete.
Perhaps Creightonfag could explain the significance of nationalism when national issues are obsolete.

[Anonymous No.13182376]

>>13182050
i'd definitely try to read him historically and chronologically if i were you, and there are still plenty of things (zeitmauer e.g.) that you can only read in german. two decent biographies in english are Into the Abyss and A Dubious Past if you're interested in that route, and for the very early younger i think roger woods situates him well in the post-WW1 nationalist milieu in one of the early chapters of The Conservative Revolution in the Weimar Republic. i only know of other bios in german (kiesel schwilk schwarz) but honestly you should be fine with the english ones for basic framework.

there are three basic phases to junger's thought: the nationalist phase between 1918 and 1932 (though it starts tapering off pretty quickly in the late '20s), then the transitionally postpolitical phase (The Worker, On Pain, Adventurous Heart, African Games, On Marble Cliffs) and then his late phase, starting in the '40s. all this is pretty rough but there's a broad transition from hope for a genuine volkisch revolution, to brief hope for a strange grappling with technological "Gestell" of modernity, to more melancholy and experimental attempts to find ways to live in a world that isn't going to be saved or overturned any time soon (put very roughly).

aside from the biographies (the chapter in woods is probably the best place to start), try reading his '20s "soldiering" works, with translations derived from '20s editions, then reading Total Mobilization (https://anarchistwithoutcontent.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/junger-total-mobilization/)), The Worker (just translated), On Pain (i think also just translated), and vincent blok's recent book on Heidegger and Junger if you're interested in the philosophy. then read Marble Cliffs, Adventurous Heart if it's in English, and if you can/want to:
>The Devil's Captain: Ernst Jünger in Nazi Paris (2011)
then his correspondence with heidegger (short), 1949-1975, which also includes his essay Over The Line (1951) in translation

then you can read his later stiff chronologically: Heliopolis, Forest Passage (just translated i think), Glass Bees, Eumeswil, etc.

if you can read german he has lots of letters available, worth looking into his friendship with hofmann of LSD fame and later interviews and such, his journals, and there are more things kicking around online. check this out:
https://libcom.org/files/Approaches%20-%20Drugs%20and%20Ecstatic%20Intoxication%20-%20Ernst%20Junger_1.pdf

>>13182323
stop sperging out retard

[Anonymous No.13182384]

>>13182290
>you'll never be enthusiastic with your bros about going to war and then die in pure screaming horror after all the trenches and machine guns
Postmodern life is boredom.

[Anonymous No.13182398]

>>13182050
here's Adventurous Heart:
http://www.telospress.com/store/#!/~/product/category=4186633&id=17898053

[Anonymous No.13182435]

>>13182376
>s-s-st-stop p-p-please
What happened? Why'd you lose your fight? Nationalism and romanticism died?

[Anonymous No.13183118]

You can come up with one argument, Creightonfag. I believe in you.

[Anonymous No.13183122]

>>13182277
Well, now you know why.

[Anonymous No.13184445]

>>13182323
>Just between us, I was in favor of negotiating, it would have spared us millions of deaths. The world state progressed all the same, for all those national issues were already obsolete.

where is this from?

[Anonymous No.13184573]

>>13181298
Where can I read it in English?

[Anonymous No.13184659]

>>13184573
if you get a copy of the book it will be there, and its in english obviously

[Anonymous No.13184675]

>>13184659
What book are you referring to? Is it The Failure Of Technology?

[Anonymous No.13184682]

>>13184675
no, storm of steel

[Anonymous No.13184703]

>>13184675
>The Failure Of Technology
it would be interesting to read this book, i read that it's almost impossible to get a hold of it

[Anonymous No.13184780]

>>13184682
Shit. I thought you meant that Ernst's brother wrote his own book that referred to that moment in Storm.

[Anonymous No.13184802]

>>13184780
aha i see

[Anonymous No.13186026]

lmao imagine spending two weeks seething over a thread and writing a shitty critique of a translation (which is really just a critique of the translator's introduction) only to get your ass handed to you once again.

probably see a hilarious set of Junger threads again soon.

[Anonymous No.13186285]

>>13180467
>>13180484
I've been thinking about these two posts. Obviously they are just simple rhetorical tricks, yet they say something about how impoverished we are as people today. Especially considering the subject matter: Junger, who was such a careful and generous thinker, always concerned with spirit and force; and the soldiers themselves, many of whom saw ghosts during the wars, and even credit them for saving their lives.
Truly a sad display, and terrible that these are the types advocating tradition while they dishonour the dead.

[Anonymous No.13187530]

>>13186285
>simple rhetorical tricks
>now let me construct a specific set of rules where all of my false claims are actually true!

stay mad. I'm also not a traditionalist.