Piffle. Jünger was not responsible for what happened in World War 2, nor was he supposed ro be the leader, yes his writing changes but still has power. He aged. Something that will happen to you,soon, Wait. Most of my do or die ideas from my bedore 30s seem foolhardy, retarded or outdated. He didnt stop being a warrior. He kept at it. Name one other top writer, personality in Hitlerian Germany who repeatedly flipped off the regime? He told them no every single time. No, Im mot going on Goebbels radio, No, Im not heading the Literary Society, No, Im not taking a seat in the Reichstag, No, Im not foing to sit idly by in Paris as the regime slaughters Jews, No, Im mot going to shut my mouth. Ad infinitum. Its crass, puerile,insane even to say he is as much to blame as Hitler. Passive aggresive? Goddamn, the man snubs a psychotic murderous freak/ devil to his fucking face , numerous times and a modern day " trad wife" calls him passive aggressive?
Thankfully, the choices for leaders arent only sacrifice myself or have my people erased. Thats inane.
What heroic age are you talking about? Nobody is going back anywhere. There were no Golden Ages.
Jünger was extremely courageous. I would say his actions in WW1 were unparalleled. Still brave in WW2, but not as directly. He was the heir apparent basically before Hitler even rose. This is more about him not fully culminating into his potential destiny, not calling him a coward especially compared to regular people. Here is the article:
Responsibility is not synonymous with blame. I do not blame Jünger. He very much was the choice of most in the conservative revolution but didn’t want to take leadership that he was meant for.
I’m not trad not in the normative use of the term. I’m a racialist for pan-European ethno pluralism. You are welcome to read my Lost Heroic Age series if you want to know more context. On a longer timeline, the direction of leadership towards self serving or self sacrificing most definitely matters.
Lol trad wife. I’m not just spouting others worn-out talking points and clinging to the recent past like most trad wives… nor am I targeting mass appeal like a grifter, but more detailed and direct. Though I would take a post-Lycurgian Sparta just about any day. They wouldn’t be considered trad by todays standards.
You make very bold claims about how Jünger could've "beaten" Hitler to forming the National Socialists' ideology, but this just isn't true. Anton Drexler had already formed the basis for Nazism and had created the DAP by 1919, and Hitler joined that in 1920. By 1920 the party had solidified its ideology. Jünger hadn't even published Storm of Steel yet, and was in the Army until 1923. His interwar articles and other writings of that time were already being opposed by the Nazis because Jünger associated with some National Bolsheviks and those adjacent to NazBols. Jünger was opposed to Nazism from the start, and to pretend as if he could've or should've "taken control" of Nazism and led Germany instead is a complete misread of the situation and frankly displays a lack of knowledge of the history of Germany at that time. This article doesn't cite any historical sources or back up any claims, especially the wild assertion that Jünger personally failed by not becoming Führer or that he didn't do enough (as if those were even possibilities or within the realm of what Jünger actually wanted for Germany and for himself). As Jünger quickly realized, national romanticism was not going to save Germany, but this is what most wanted.
The plot to kill Hitler failed miserably for a reason, and Jünger throwing himself further into that situation would've caused him to meet the same fate as Rommel and the rest.
Lycurgus, likewise, didn’t want to be a king though he was seen as the natural king. He saved his nephew from early infanticide and left the nation to prevent any confusion about leadership or his desire to be one. He came back out of necessity. He never wanted to be a leader either. Jünger was most definitely cut of the same cloth.
It is the confounded archetype of Ceasar that wants above all else to be the only one at the top. Spartans had the mentality of first among equals that the thinkers of the conservative revolution also espoused.
The entirety of the German conservative revolutionary thinkers created the ideological basis of the adjacent ideas in NS, but yes they had a wider range. Jünger was not close to the only one or the earliest. The political formations previous were not what allowed NS to take power, but a lack of clear leadership from the conservative revolution. I didn’t mean he could have beaten him to forming the same party, but he could have and should have chose to be the leader of the conservative revolution. Edgar Julius Jung died for overtly opposing him, had Jünger joined him with his extreme clout in the time overtly they could have been elected.
Hitler didn’t win one election. He was appointed chancellor but unlike the conservative revolutionary thinkers (not to be mistaken for modern day conservatives) he didn’t allow for a wider range of thought, killing off his opposition that helped him rise in the night of the long knives. Someone of Jünger’s reputation would have won in those elections.
His association with some nazbol’s might have prevented the catastrophe in the east and a three front war. It is foolish to think you can have an ally going into war that you are ideologically opposed to on a biological level. The conservative revolutionary thinkers that inspired the best ideas in NASDAP were men prior to Jünger like Spengler, Jung, Van Den Bruck, Sombart (a former communist who realized its spiritual errors) and further back even Nietzche all wanted better terms in the east and didn’t hold his anti Slavic position. I did not mean Jünger was the basis of all these ideas, but part of and the result of them that was seen as a natural leader that didn’t want to be one.
What Jünger wanted at that time was outlined in his interwar articles. Many of the best leaders are those that don’t want to be, they don’t form personality cults. It is obvious that he was seen as the natural leader by the conservative revolutionaries by the fact that he was the figure of the nationalist resistance to Hitler. Romanticism is way inspired the rise of nationalism in the first place, it only makes sense that the most passionate and sacrificing man should have led it.
The time to take action was before that second election and then the appointment (not majority vote) to chancellor. Many died trying to stop him at different points. Germany was lost by the night of the long knives, by the later attempts it was already way too late.
The Conservative Revolution was not a very popular movement by the Weimar era, when Jünger really began his foray into political discourse. It failed, and really stood no chance. It opposed the Communists, who were very dominant, as well as the liberals and the Nazis. The Conservative Revolution was similarly attacked and opposed by all those groups. I think we just have to accept that history was running its course and fate was in play. Things played out that way for a reason, and Jünger is hardly even a little at fault for not becoming this big anti-Nazi Conservative Revolutionary leader as you suggest he should have. If he had done this, he almost certainly would have been killed by either the Nazis or the Communists. What Jünger realized is that the best form of resistance was the quiet resistance and, above all, the interior maintenence of freedom and personal integrity in the face of modern totalitarianism (both liberal and illiberal). His later writings have only been confirmed, and his evolution as a thinker is not random. You may have the benefit of hindsight, but Jünger managed to diagnose modernity and prescribe solutions for the individual in a way that few others have. His contributions, I would argue, have been far greater than if he was just another military leader who attempted to take power during that period.
He had a beautiful mind and soul. I loved his adventurous heart journaling the most especially into the blind quarter and the unforeseen. His later work seems to be haunted by the shadow of his potential fate even if it also has some gems. I did like the Forest Passage, since it has still some of the fire left in it. He was a great man the entire time, but his full potential was even greater and it wasn’t as a military leader.
For a person who talks of my making claims with nothing to substantiate, you sure do a lot of the same. Who says they were not popular by that period? Could it be a lack of leadership?
In the first comment he was too close to Nazbols and now it was that they were too opposed with communists?
It’s easy to say history just ran its course too in hindsight as if nothing else was possible because it didn’t happen. This full predeterminism is ridiculously simplistic and not proven by the fact that things did go one particular way.
Even by Jünger’s own ideals in pretty much any of his work, being killed isn’t a deterrent nor is it a reason for inaction. Why did Hitler not kill him? Why did the British not kill Napolean? Martyrdom in its truest form by someone of that magnitude or that holds a high esteem has a great impact on people. It is a transmutative force that can sway hearts and minds. These aren’t static things… if it was dying out it was because they were not taking leadership positions or willing to sacrifice for it.
Nothing in here saying anything about military leader. His devolution to individualist escapism from the glory of what he was did predict and describe a lot along the way.
These are old accusations against Jünger based on Evola's misreading of his late work and its supposed opposition to his early work. Setting aside the philosophy for a moment we can ask a simple question, how does one take a leadership position after being threatened with assassination and being subject to house searches and interrogation (as in the case of his brother and Niekisch)? The march of nationalism had come and gone, the aristocratic types declared enemies.
We can add here the case of Carl Schmitt who willingly offered his leadership to the regime but was not trusted due to his previous work during the interwar years. This speaks to the weakness of national socialist figures and the uncertainty in the face of real struggle, the necessity to take political risks. And ultimately this was the downfall of Hitler's Germany, as Schmitt said, he faltered in the face of the risk necessary of true political decision (Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact).
Jünger always believed in in the necessity to "banish the desire for individual salvation in the vortex of possible catastrophes." Nothing in his history of the war years or his later work suggests that he betrayed this. He was never concerned with individual salvation, everything suggests a catastrophe beyond individual power and that such power had even become a universal enemy. All of the forces of democracy, of which national socialism is only a type, embraced the catastrophe and developed neuroses in the face of salvation. Heroism was impossible and all untimely efforts became a ridiculous spectacle. In practical terms anarchistic efforts of destruction only become a part of the greater destruction. The unheroic age will not see heroism, not even in true acts of heroism, only titans and opposing titans can be seen.
Here the oldest struggle becomes the only path, nihilism and religion. This was not opposed to an earlier nationalism as it died with the world wars. Those who cannot see this simply have not grasped the extent of the catastrophe. In this sense, Jünger's stoicism, the necessity of the noble man to turn away from the world, was always there: "I would rather write a single good poem than lead sixty thousand fools." He recognised that he was not a leader, but 'part of the court' in an age against court and crown. And it is unfortunate that so few share this humility.
Where are these old actuations because I’ve never seen them. I am not a big fan of Evola, never got into him. Big of Jünger and read most all of his work translated into English. I was obsessed with him over a decade ago and used to fall asleep with his books.
How? Well Edgar Julius Jung would show you at least more overt opposition, which is why Jünger later wrote of the gods dying young. Jünger wrote many times about how you are only as free as you are willing to die. However, even before Hitler’s appointment to chancellor, Jünger should have ran for the position. He had a similar opposition to leadership as Lycurgus, even though both were natural leaders. I also think you might conflating my use of the word responsibility with blame. I don’t find Jünger a coward or horrible at all, I love the man. In fact, I esteem him so much I think he was a reincarnation of Lycurgus. That is the highest honor I could think of.. I just don’t think he reached his ultimate destiny.
I agree with a lot of your analysis. I think Germany was lost by the night of the long knives, sadly.
This article is not about individual salvation. “He was never concerned with individual salvation, everything suggests a catastrophe beyond individual power and that such power had even become a universal enemy.” Which era, his interwar articles or earlier or his Marble Cliffs and later? Be specific.
If you read my series on the lost heroic age, you would understand the frame of reference from which I’m writing. I do not think the catastrophe can be avoided nor do I think it should be, but what type and how large are not set in stone. This article isn’t about salvation of the individual, it’s not about blaming Jünger or even Hitler, and it’s not about avoiding catastrophic events… it’s about what can change the course of events. This is not synonymous with the idea that there is one good choice that can avoid any type of catastrophe… that can’t be avoided but with rerooting we can seed a foundation for something that comes after catastrophe and possibly lessen the insidious nature of it.
If you have time I have a six article series on this called the lost heroic age.
Sorry for the slow response. I intended to get back to you but just have not had time.
My comments are not meant as criticism, just an exploration of what Jünger's position may have been.
Evola's criticisms can be found in a few essays, one of them being Ernst Jünger: From 'Conservative Revolutionary' to Sluggishly Liberal and Humanistic.
Sorry, how are Jewish leaders more unlikely than everyone else to sacrifice themselves for their people? Isn’t that precisely the issue in American (and likely all modern) politics? The need for sacrifice by those in power IS the issue that prevents any positive regeneration.
Also, not sure what Trump has to do with any of this. If he is able to do anything meaningful it will be in the guise of Caesar rather than Lycurgus by your analysis. His materialism is legendary and where there might be self-sacrifice we see only self-preservation. Being a victim does not make one a hero.
Interesting thoughts but also some motivated reasoning that is out of phase with your theme.
It was another example, not something that is mutually exclusive. I agree it’s totally an issue in the entire west with political whores and career politicians. Internationalist Jews that support Israel do so in a way that actually harms is more to the point.
Ceasar and Lycurgus are completely different yet conflated archetypes, which I’m writing about for the next article. Good catch! Trump will not save anyone which is the point of telling people to reroot. For better context, I would suggest reading my Lost Heroic Age series. It helps to give a frame of reference for many of these ideas.
I do find Lycurgus or the brothers Gracchi to be far more heroic than Ceasar.
The reality is that Germany stood against a conglomeration of nations with more oil, metal and coal than them. It wasn't a spiritual deficiency, it was a banal logistical spreadsheet with a predetermined outcome. Germany's adherence to rigid military doctrine, something Junger and Traditionalist Germans were responsible for, kept Germany from reaping the benefits of a large commando force like the Allies fielded as well.
I understand the attempt at rehabilitation of German nationalism, but dunking on Hitler for a lack of sacrifice after a lifetime of service to Germany and its people is delusional.
To the point that Junger could have led a movement that wouldn't have incited a global reaction against Germany, that is untrue. To quote Winston Churchill:
“You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest.”
The war would have happened so long as Germany threw off the yolk of Versailles. You need not impugn one of Germany's greatest heroes to try and improve the standing of another one of Germany's greatest heroes and thinkers.
Look at leaders of men, from sports teams to empires. They promise one thing: winning. Bleeding is what the losing side does. If you’re looking to self-sacrifice as a means to victory, you’re on the back foot. Sacrifice not the king, preferably not the rook, often the pawn, but above all else the ENEMY. The good leader sacrifices his opponent first.
Chess played one on one is highly emotional lol especially for big ego’d rationalists… let them kill enough pieces and act like you’re so worried, they don’t even see the set up. I’ve beat good men that way.
Then riddle me this. Why is it that Hitler didn’t directly kill Jünger? Why did the British not kill Napolean? Hyper rationalism has ruined so much of the west’s understanding of human connection and drives. It’s reduced everything to a survival mode or the drives of beasts ie food, shelter etc. out of this survival mode, only hedonistic drives are possible or that of fame. Then everyone wonders why we end up in hyper-decadent society.
Lycurgus killed himself, yet few leaders have left precepts followed close to as long or as well.
Piffle. Jünger was not responsible for what happened in World War 2, nor was he supposed ro be the leader, yes his writing changes but still has power. He aged. Something that will happen to you,soon, Wait. Most of my do or die ideas from my bedore 30s seem foolhardy, retarded or outdated. He didnt stop being a warrior. He kept at it. Name one other top writer, personality in Hitlerian Germany who repeatedly flipped off the regime? He told them no every single time. No, Im mot going on Goebbels radio, No, Im not heading the Literary Society, No, Im not taking a seat in the Reichstag, No, Im not foing to sit idly by in Paris as the regime slaughters Jews, No, Im mot going to shut my mouth. Ad infinitum. Its crass, puerile,insane even to say he is as much to blame as Hitler. Passive aggresive? Goddamn, the man snubs a psychotic murderous freak/ devil to his fucking face , numerous times and a modern day " trad wife" calls him passive aggressive?
Thankfully, the choices for leaders arent only sacrifice myself or have my people erased. Thats inane.
What heroic age are you talking about? Nobody is going back anywhere. There were no Golden Ages.
Jünger was extremely courageous. I would say his actions in WW1 were unparalleled. Still brave in WW2, but not as directly. He was the heir apparent basically before Hitler even rose. This is more about him not fully culminating into his potential destiny, not calling him a coward especially compared to regular people. Here is the article:
https://arktos.com/2023/07/26/the-lost-heroic-age-part-one/
Responsibility is not synonymous with blame. I do not blame Jünger. He very much was the choice of most in the conservative revolution but didn’t want to take leadership that he was meant for.
I’m not trad not in the normative use of the term. I’m a racialist for pan-European ethno pluralism. You are welcome to read my Lost Heroic Age series if you want to know more context. On a longer timeline, the direction of leadership towards self serving or self sacrificing most definitely matters.
Lol trad wife. I’m not just spouting others worn-out talking points and clinging to the recent past like most trad wives… nor am I targeting mass appeal like a grifter, but more detailed and direct. Though I would take a post-Lycurgian Sparta just about any day. They wouldn’t be considered trad by todays standards.
You make very bold claims about how Jünger could've "beaten" Hitler to forming the National Socialists' ideology, but this just isn't true. Anton Drexler had already formed the basis for Nazism and had created the DAP by 1919, and Hitler joined that in 1920. By 1920 the party had solidified its ideology. Jünger hadn't even published Storm of Steel yet, and was in the Army until 1923. His interwar articles and other writings of that time were already being opposed by the Nazis because Jünger associated with some National Bolsheviks and those adjacent to NazBols. Jünger was opposed to Nazism from the start, and to pretend as if he could've or should've "taken control" of Nazism and led Germany instead is a complete misread of the situation and frankly displays a lack of knowledge of the history of Germany at that time. This article doesn't cite any historical sources or back up any claims, especially the wild assertion that Jünger personally failed by not becoming Führer or that he didn't do enough (as if those were even possibilities or within the realm of what Jünger actually wanted for Germany and for himself). As Jünger quickly realized, national romanticism was not going to save Germany, but this is what most wanted.
The plot to kill Hitler failed miserably for a reason, and Jünger throwing himself further into that situation would've caused him to meet the same fate as Rommel and the rest.
Lycurgus, likewise, didn’t want to be a king though he was seen as the natural king. He saved his nephew from early infanticide and left the nation to prevent any confusion about leadership or his desire to be one. He came back out of necessity. He never wanted to be a leader either. Jünger was most definitely cut of the same cloth.
It is the confounded archetype of Ceasar that wants above all else to be the only one at the top. Spartans had the mentality of first among equals that the thinkers of the conservative revolution also espoused.
The entirety of the German conservative revolutionary thinkers created the ideological basis of the adjacent ideas in NS, but yes they had a wider range. Jünger was not close to the only one or the earliest. The political formations previous were not what allowed NS to take power, but a lack of clear leadership from the conservative revolution. I didn’t mean he could have beaten him to forming the same party, but he could have and should have chose to be the leader of the conservative revolution. Edgar Julius Jung died for overtly opposing him, had Jünger joined him with his extreme clout in the time overtly they could have been elected.
Hitler didn’t win one election. He was appointed chancellor but unlike the conservative revolutionary thinkers (not to be mistaken for modern day conservatives) he didn’t allow for a wider range of thought, killing off his opposition that helped him rise in the night of the long knives. Someone of Jünger’s reputation would have won in those elections.
His association with some nazbol’s might have prevented the catastrophe in the east and a three front war. It is foolish to think you can have an ally going into war that you are ideologically opposed to on a biological level. The conservative revolutionary thinkers that inspired the best ideas in NASDAP were men prior to Jünger like Spengler, Jung, Van Den Bruck, Sombart (a former communist who realized its spiritual errors) and further back even Nietzche all wanted better terms in the east and didn’t hold his anti Slavic position. I did not mean Jünger was the basis of all these ideas, but part of and the result of them that was seen as a natural leader that didn’t want to be one.
What Jünger wanted at that time was outlined in his interwar articles. Many of the best leaders are those that don’t want to be, they don’t form personality cults. It is obvious that he was seen as the natural leader by the conservative revolutionaries by the fact that he was the figure of the nationalist resistance to Hitler. Romanticism is way inspired the rise of nationalism in the first place, it only makes sense that the most passionate and sacrificing man should have led it.
The time to take action was before that second election and then the appointment (not majority vote) to chancellor. Many died trying to stop him at different points. Germany was lost by the night of the long knives, by the later attempts it was already way too late.
The Conservative Revolution was not a very popular movement by the Weimar era, when Jünger really began his foray into political discourse. It failed, and really stood no chance. It opposed the Communists, who were very dominant, as well as the liberals and the Nazis. The Conservative Revolution was similarly attacked and opposed by all those groups. I think we just have to accept that history was running its course and fate was in play. Things played out that way for a reason, and Jünger is hardly even a little at fault for not becoming this big anti-Nazi Conservative Revolutionary leader as you suggest he should have. If he had done this, he almost certainly would have been killed by either the Nazis or the Communists. What Jünger realized is that the best form of resistance was the quiet resistance and, above all, the interior maintenence of freedom and personal integrity in the face of modern totalitarianism (both liberal and illiberal). His later writings have only been confirmed, and his evolution as a thinker is not random. You may have the benefit of hindsight, but Jünger managed to diagnose modernity and prescribe solutions for the individual in a way that few others have. His contributions, I would argue, have been far greater than if he was just another military leader who attempted to take power during that period.
He had a beautiful mind and soul. I loved his adventurous heart journaling the most especially into the blind quarter and the unforeseen. His later work seems to be haunted by the shadow of his potential fate even if it also has some gems. I did like the Forest Passage, since it has still some of the fire left in it. He was a great man the entire time, but his full potential was even greater and it wasn’t as a military leader.
For a person who talks of my making claims with nothing to substantiate, you sure do a lot of the same. Who says they were not popular by that period? Could it be a lack of leadership?
In the first comment he was too close to Nazbols and now it was that they were too opposed with communists?
It’s easy to say history just ran its course too in hindsight as if nothing else was possible because it didn’t happen. This full predeterminism is ridiculously simplistic and not proven by the fact that things did go one particular way.
Even by Jünger’s own ideals in pretty much any of his work, being killed isn’t a deterrent nor is it a reason for inaction. Why did Hitler not kill him? Why did the British not kill Napolean? Martyrdom in its truest form by someone of that magnitude or that holds a high esteem has a great impact on people. It is a transmutative force that can sway hearts and minds. These aren’t static things… if it was dying out it was because they were not taking leadership positions or willing to sacrifice for it.
Nothing in here saying anything about military leader. His devolution to individualist escapism from the glory of what he was did predict and describe a lot along the way.
These are old accusations against Jünger based on Evola's misreading of his late work and its supposed opposition to his early work. Setting aside the philosophy for a moment we can ask a simple question, how does one take a leadership position after being threatened with assassination and being subject to house searches and interrogation (as in the case of his brother and Niekisch)? The march of nationalism had come and gone, the aristocratic types declared enemies.
We can add here the case of Carl Schmitt who willingly offered his leadership to the regime but was not trusted due to his previous work during the interwar years. This speaks to the weakness of national socialist figures and the uncertainty in the face of real struggle, the necessity to take political risks. And ultimately this was the downfall of Hitler's Germany, as Schmitt said, he faltered in the face of the risk necessary of true political decision (Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact).
Jünger always believed in in the necessity to "banish the desire for individual salvation in the vortex of possible catastrophes." Nothing in his history of the war years or his later work suggests that he betrayed this. He was never concerned with individual salvation, everything suggests a catastrophe beyond individual power and that such power had even become a universal enemy. All of the forces of democracy, of which national socialism is only a type, embraced the catastrophe and developed neuroses in the face of salvation. Heroism was impossible and all untimely efforts became a ridiculous spectacle. In practical terms anarchistic efforts of destruction only become a part of the greater destruction. The unheroic age will not see heroism, not even in true acts of heroism, only titans and opposing titans can be seen.
Here the oldest struggle becomes the only path, nihilism and religion. This was not opposed to an earlier nationalism as it died with the world wars. Those who cannot see this simply have not grasped the extent of the catastrophe. In this sense, Jünger's stoicism, the necessity of the noble man to turn away from the world, was always there: "I would rather write a single good poem than lead sixty thousand fools." He recognised that he was not a leader, but 'part of the court' in an age against court and crown. And it is unfortunate that so few share this humility.
Where are these old actuations because I’ve never seen them. I am not a big fan of Evola, never got into him. Big of Jünger and read most all of his work translated into English. I was obsessed with him over a decade ago and used to fall asleep with his books.
How? Well Edgar Julius Jung would show you at least more overt opposition, which is why Jünger later wrote of the gods dying young. Jünger wrote many times about how you are only as free as you are willing to die. However, even before Hitler’s appointment to chancellor, Jünger should have ran for the position. He had a similar opposition to leadership as Lycurgus, even though both were natural leaders. I also think you might conflating my use of the word responsibility with blame. I don’t find Jünger a coward or horrible at all, I love the man. In fact, I esteem him so much I think he was a reincarnation of Lycurgus. That is the highest honor I could think of.. I just don’t think he reached his ultimate destiny.
I agree with a lot of your analysis. I think Germany was lost by the night of the long knives, sadly.
This article is not about individual salvation. “He was never concerned with individual salvation, everything suggests a catastrophe beyond individual power and that such power had even become a universal enemy.” Which era, his interwar articles or earlier or his Marble Cliffs and later? Be specific.
If you read my series on the lost heroic age, you would understand the frame of reference from which I’m writing. I do not think the catastrophe can be avoided nor do I think it should be, but what type and how large are not set in stone. This article isn’t about salvation of the individual, it’s not about blaming Jünger or even Hitler, and it’s not about avoiding catastrophic events… it’s about what can change the course of events. This is not synonymous with the idea that there is one good choice that can avoid any type of catastrophe… that can’t be avoided but with rerooting we can seed a foundation for something that comes after catastrophe and possibly lessen the insidious nature of it.
If you have time I have a six article series on this called the lost heroic age.
Sorry for the slow response. I intended to get back to you but just have not had time.
My comments are not meant as criticism, just an exploration of what Jünger's position may have been.
Evola's criticisms can be found in a few essays, one of them being Ernst Jünger: From 'Conservative Revolutionary' to Sluggishly Liberal and Humanistic.
Sorry, how are Jewish leaders more unlikely than everyone else to sacrifice themselves for their people? Isn’t that precisely the issue in American (and likely all modern) politics? The need for sacrifice by those in power IS the issue that prevents any positive regeneration.
Also, not sure what Trump has to do with any of this. If he is able to do anything meaningful it will be in the guise of Caesar rather than Lycurgus by your analysis. His materialism is legendary and where there might be self-sacrifice we see only self-preservation. Being a victim does not make one a hero.
Interesting thoughts but also some motivated reasoning that is out of phase with your theme.
https://arktos.com/2023/07/26/the-lost-heroic-age-part-one/
It was another example, not something that is mutually exclusive. I agree it’s totally an issue in the entire west with political whores and career politicians. Internationalist Jews that support Israel do so in a way that actually harms is more to the point.
Ceasar and Lycurgus are completely different yet conflated archetypes, which I’m writing about for the next article. Good catch! Trump will not save anyone which is the point of telling people to reroot. For better context, I would suggest reading my Lost Heroic Age series. It helps to give a frame of reference for many of these ideas.
I do find Lycurgus or the brothers Gracchi to be far more heroic than Ceasar.
Thanks!
Welcome!
The reality is that Germany stood against a conglomeration of nations with more oil, metal and coal than them. It wasn't a spiritual deficiency, it was a banal logistical spreadsheet with a predetermined outcome. Germany's adherence to rigid military doctrine, something Junger and Traditionalist Germans were responsible for, kept Germany from reaping the benefits of a large commando force like the Allies fielded as well.
I understand the attempt at rehabilitation of German nationalism, but dunking on Hitler for a lack of sacrifice after a lifetime of service to Germany and its people is delusional.
To the point that Junger could have led a movement that wouldn't have incited a global reaction against Germany, that is untrue. To quote Winston Churchill:
“You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest.”
The war would have happened so long as Germany threw off the yolk of Versailles. You need not impugn one of Germany's greatest heroes to try and improve the standing of another one of Germany's greatest heroes and thinkers.
Look at leaders of men, from sports teams to empires. They promise one thing: winning. Bleeding is what the losing side does. If you’re looking to self-sacrifice as a means to victory, you’re on the back foot. Sacrifice not the king, preferably not the rook, often the pawn, but above all else the ENEMY. The good leader sacrifices his opponent first.
Chess played one on one is highly emotional lol especially for big ego’d rationalists… let them kill enough pieces and act like you’re so worried, they don’t even see the set up. I’ve beat good men that way.
Have you ever even played chess lol?
Then riddle me this. Why is it that Hitler didn’t directly kill Jünger? Why did the British not kill Napolean? Hyper rationalism has ruined so much of the west’s understanding of human connection and drives. It’s reduced everything to a survival mode or the drives of beasts ie food, shelter etc. out of this survival mode, only hedonistic drives are possible or that of fame. Then everyone wonders why we end up in hyper-decadent society.
Lycurgus killed himself, yet few leaders have left precepts followed close to as long or as well.